Podcasts about british medical journal

Bans on smartphone and social media access alone fail to equip children for healthy use of such technology. That's according to a new study published by the British Medical Journal.The research was led by Dr Victoria A Goodyear of the Institute for Mental Health at the University of Birmingham in England, who joined NewsTalk Breakfast earlier to discuss.

A group of academics writing in the British Medical Journal has found that blanket smartphone bans do not prepare children for a healthy relationship with technology. Professor James O'Higgins-Norman, is the Director of the DCU Anti-Bullying Centre and joins the Pat Kenny Show to discuss.

Bans on smartphone and social media access alone fail to equip children for healthy use of such technology. That's according to a new study published by the British Medical Journal.The research was led by Dr Victoria A Goodyear of the Institute for Mental Health at the University of Birmingham in England, who joined NewsTalk Breakfast earlier to discuss.

You may have heard that our ears and noses never stop growing, you may even have found yourself wondering if your ears are indeed bigger than they used to be. But there might be an answer, a study published in the British Medical Journal in 1993 took a very serious look at the question. The scientists measured the earlobes of 206 volunteers aged between 30 and 93. The result: the lobes lengthened by an average of 22 millimetres a year, or 1 cm after 50 years!  Do ears continue to grow throughout life? When does this nose sagging begin? What can you do about it? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: Is it better sleeping with or without a pillow? How can I save money on my gas bill? How can I influence my dreams? A podcast written and realised by Amber Minogue. First Broadcast: 23/10/2024 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do chicken nuggets, margarine and instant noodles all have in common? Well, they may look tasty, but they're loaded with sugar, salt, fat and chemicals that strip away their nutritional value. That's due to the heavy processing that goes into making them, which sees them completely transformed from the original raw ingredients.  And they're increasingly ever present on our shelves and in our stomachs. In 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Research found that ultra-processed foods made up almost two-thirds of Britain's school meals. Furthermore, the British Medical Journal has reported that ultra-processed foods account for 56.8% of total energy intake in the UK diet. Can you identify them by looking at the ingredient lists on product packaging? What's the difference between processed foods and ultra-processed foods? Why should we limit the consumption of ultra-processed products? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: How much do surrogate mothers get paid? What is the Barnum effect? How to spot, prevent and treat heatstroke ? A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. In partnership with upday UK. First broadcast: 11/6/2023 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My go to for Omega 3 supplementation:https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/shop/health-focus/daily-wellness/omega-max-gluten-free-omega-3/Have you heard about the controversy surrounding fish oil supplements and their potential risks and benefits for heart health? Recently, a study published in the British Medical Journal suggested regular use of fish oil supplements may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke. However, it also highlights other clinical trials and meta-analyses that demonstrate the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in reducing the risk of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease. Join me on the next DOZ as I take a detailed look into this study, as well as Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids!Autoimmune Healing Masterclass:  https://youtu.be/PpZhLQXp__gGluten Sensitive?  Take the quiz & Join Our Community ▶https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/gluten-sensitivity-intolerance-self-test/Get my quick start guide on going gluten free: https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/how-to-go-gluten-free/Nutritional Crash Courses Playlist: https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/nutritionGet Gluten Free Supplements: https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/shop-home/No Grain No Pain the Book: https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/NoGrainNoPainGlutenology Masterclass (Ultimate Guide): https://glutenology.net/registrationTo connect with Dr. Osborne visit:On the web: https://drpeterosborne.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DoctorPeterOsborne/Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/docosborne/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drosborneTwitter: https://twitter.com/glutenologyRumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-3908832Podcast:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dr-osbornes-zone/id1706389688?uo=4Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Zdf07GgpRAVwlSsYvirXTAmazon Music/Audible: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/20d71b2e-3554-4569-9d5b-4259785cdc94Google Podcasts: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc3ByZWFrZXIuY29tL3Nob3cvNTkwNjcwNC9lcGlzb2Rlcy9mZWVkiHeart Radio: https://iheart.com/podcast/119388846*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This video is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. It is strictly intended for educational purposes only.  Additionally, this information is not intended to replace the advice of your physician. Dr. Peter Osborne is one of the most sought after alternative and nutritional experts in the world. A Diplomate with the American Clinical Board of Nutrition, a graduate of Texas Chiropractic College, and a doctor of pastoral science, Dr. Osborne is one of the world's leading authorities on gluten, nutrition, and natural health.   He is the founder GlutenFreeSociety.org, one of the world's largest informational sites on gluten sensitivity.  In addition, he is the author of the best selling book, No Grain No Pain, published by Touchstone (Simon & Schuster).  His work has been featured by PBS, Netflix, Amazon, Fox, and many other nationally recognized outlets.  For more information, visit us at https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/  or call 281-903-7527

In this episode, Dr. Lauren Ramsey shares her journey from being inspired by her childhood pediatrician to becoming a breast surgical oncologist and innovative entrepreneur. After years of rigorous medical training, she realized she wanted to make an impact beyond one-on-one patient care, leading her to pursue an MBA and explore entrepreneurship. Witnessing a rise in breast cancer among young women and experiencing the loss of a colleague, she identified a critical gap in radiation protection for healthcare workers—a flaw in traditional aprons that left key areas exposed. This led her to develop BAT™ (Breast, Axilla, Thyroid protection), a groundbreaking safety innovation designed to reduce cancer risks in the medical field. Dr. Ramsey's story is a testament to fearlessly following your calling, bridging expertise with innovation, and creating solutions that outlive you. Whether in medicine, business, or leadership, her journey proves that recognizing a problem and daring to solve it can change lives at scale. Dr. Lauren Ramsey is Breast Surgical Oncologist with a passion for advancing healthcare through clinical care, research, and innovation. Board-certified by the American Board of Surgery, Dr. Ramsey specializes in breast cancer treatment, radiation protection, and patient advocacy. Dr. Ramsey is originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and earned her M.D. from the University of Pittsburgh, where she was inducted into the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. She then completed her surgical training in Breast Surgical Oncology at Baylor University Medical Center, and earned her M.B.A from American University. Her dedication to improving safety in healthcare led her to the development of the BAT™, an innovative radiation protection garment designed to reduce cancer risks in healthcare workers. Dr. Ramsey has presented her research at numerous international conferences, authored peer-reviewed publications, and serves as a reviewer for the British Medical Journal. Currently, she leads as the Medical Director of Breast Surgery for Acclaim Multi-Specialty Group in Forth Worth, Texas, and mentors the next generation of surgeons as an Assistant Professor at TCU Burnett School of Medicine. Her work is driven by a commitment to improving patient outcomes, fostering innovation, and creating meaningful change in the medical community. Links: laurenramseymd.com Burmed.com/BAT You can buy Erin's book Nothing Can Stop You Here. If you buy 25 books you get a 1:1 session with Erin, just email receipt to hello@erinracheldoppelt.com

What are some of the root causes of health disparities? What role does healing play in addressing trauma?In this series on healthcare and social disparities, Dr. Jill Wener, a board-certified Internal Medicine specialist, anti-racism educator, meditation expert, and tapping practitioner, interviews experts and gives her own insights into multiple fields relating to social justice and anti-racism.In this episode, Jill interviews Dr. Aysha Khoury, a physician and advocate against genocide and systemic racism. They explore how activism became a part of Dr. Khoury's medical career, the mind-body connection, and different forms of healing.Dr. Aysha Khoury has a medical degree from Morehouse School of Medicine and she has committed her career to addressing health disparities and promoting equity in healthcare.Growing up in Atlanta, GA—a city deeply rooted in Civil Rights history—Dr. Khoury has worked alongside community organizations to provide health education. As founding faculty at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, she championed diversity and inclusion initiatives.Her advocacy took a personal turn in 2020 when she faced retaliation for addressing bias and racism within her institution, leading her to file a lawsuit for discrimination. This experience fueled her resolve to fight against injustice and elevate marginalized voices.Dr. Khoury's story has resonated widely, earning her features in major media outlets, including Forbes, TIME and British Medical Journal. She remains a powerful voice in the movement for human rights and equity in medicine.LINKSAtlanta Multifaith Coalition for Palestinewww.instagram.com/atlmultifaithforpalestine**Our websitewww.consciousantiracism.comYou can learn more about Dr. Wener and her online meditation and tapping courses atwww.jillwener.com, and you can learn more about her online social justice course, Conscious Anti Racism: Tools for Self-Discovery, Accountability, and Meaningful Change athttps://theresttechnique.com/courses/conscious-anti-racism.If you're a healthcare worker looking for a CME-accredited course, check out Conscious Anti-Racism: Tools for Self-Discovery, Accountability, and Meaningful Change in Healthcare atwww.theresttechnique.com/courses/conscious-anti-racism-healthcareJoin her Conscious Anti-Racism facebook group:www.facebook.com/groups/307196473283408Follow her on:Instagram at jillwenerMDLinkedIn atjillwenermd

La danse est un art vivant et une activité physique bénéfique pour la santé. Tonifier son corps, entretenir sa santé cardiaque ou encore travailler sa mémoire sont des bienfaits déjà connus. Une étude récente, publiée dans le British Medical Journal, lui attribue en outre des effets antidépresseurs. La danse-thérapie est par exemple aujourd'hui pratiquée comme soin de support, dans le cadre de la prise en charge de pathologies sévères ou chroniques. (Rediffusion)  Comment expliquer les effets bénéfiques de la danse sur l'anxiété ou la dépression par exemple ? Combien de temps durent ces effets bénéfiques ?  Dr Emmanuel Monneron, Psychiatre, danseur, responsable du centre d'activités thérapeutiques à temps partiel (CATTP) du pôle centre à l'hôpital Le Vinatier de Lyon, et à l'initiative du projet « danse et santé mentale » en collaboration avec la maison de la danse à Lyon.  Retrouvez l'émission dans son intégralité iciLes bienfaits de la danse pour la santé

Agnes Cohn på P3 Nyheter förklarar morgonens stora nyheter, alltid tillsammans med programledarna för Morgonpasset i P3: Margret Atladottir och Assaad Daoudi. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. I dag snackar vi först om en studie som visar att mellanbarn är ofta är mer ödmjuka och ärliga än sina syskon. Forskarna menar att det här gör dem bättre på att samarbeta med andra människor. Äldsta syskonet har ofta beskrivits som diplomatiskt och det yngsta som kreativt. Är det här mellanbarnens revansch?Lite senare pratar vi om att Disneyprinsessor har en massa dolda hälsoproblem, till följd av sina livsstilar. Det är British Medical Journal som bland annat menar att Snövit lär ha problem med depression på grund av sin isolering, och att Belle i Skönheten och Odjuret riskerar att bli smittad av rabies.

The NACE Journal Club with Dr. Neil Skolnik, provides review and analysis of recently published journal articles important to the practice of primary care medicine. In this episode Dr. Skolnik and guests review the following publications:1. Insulin Efsitora versus Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin Treatment. Discussion by: Guest:Carol Wysham, M.D, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine University of Washington School of Medicine  Section Head of the Department of Diabetes and EndocrinologyRockwood Clinic in Spokane, Washington.2. Cervical Cancer: Screening – Draft statement of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Discussion by:Guest: Amy Clouse Associate Clinical Professor Sidney Kimmell Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University  Associate Director - Family Medicine Residency ProgramJefferson Health – Abington3. Chocolate intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: prospective cohort studies. The British Medical Journal 2024. Discussion by: Guest:Elyssa Heisey, DO Resident– Family Medicine Residency Program Jefferson Health – AbingtonMedical Director and Host, Neil Skolnik, MD, is an academic family physician who sees patients and teaches residents and medical students as professor of Family and Community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University and Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington Jefferson Health in Pennsylvania. Dr. Skolnik graduated from Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and did his residency training at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, PA. This Podcast Episode does not offer CME/CE Credit. Please visit http://naceonline.com to engage in more live and on demand CME/CE content.

**//Triggerwarnung// ** In dieser Folge werden Suizid, Fehlgeburt, Alkoholsucht und häusliche Gewalt angesprochen. Am 18. April 1876 reibt sich der junge Londoner Anwalt Charles Bravo vor dem Schlafengehen etwas Laudanum gegen seine Zahnschmerzen in den Gaumen, trinkt ein Glass Wasser und geht zu Bett. Nur wenige Minuten später beginnt ein Überlebenskampf, den er drei Tage später verlieren sollte. Ein unbekanntes Gift, eine verdächtige Ehefrau, eine skandalöse Affäre und eine Öffentlichkeit, die nicht genug von der Geschichte bekommen kann, sorgen dafür, dass sein tragischer Tod als „Balham Mystery“ in die britische Kriminalgeschichte eingeht. Und doch ist die oder der Schuldige bis heute unbekannt… Ergründet mit Katharina und Nina eine wahres Rätsel, das zahlreiche Leben zerstörte und gleichzeitig auf traurige Weise modern wie typisch viktorianisch ist. // Die Besprechung des Falles startet bei 5.22 Min. // // Quellen & Shownotes // - Ruddick, J.; Death at the Priory: Love, Sex and Murder in Victorian England; London 2001 - The British Medical Journal; The Balham Mystery; Artikel vom 26. August 1876; https://www.jstor.org/stable/25237822?seq=1 - Ellis-Rees, K.; A Mysterious Death in Balham: Charles Bravo and the Maid, In: London Overlooked, 9. September 2018; https://london-overlooked.com/bravo/ - Mahon, E. K.; Murder most English – Florence Bravo and the Belham Mystery; Blogpost vom 28. July 2008; http://www.elizabethkmahon.com/2008/07/murder-most-english-florence-bravo-and.html - The Dark Histories Podcast: The Balham Mystery: The Death of Charles Bravo, Podcast Episode vom 28. April 2019; https://www.darkhistories.com/the-balham-mystery-charles-bravo/ // Hier geht's zu unseren Podcast Tipps // Horror Classics: https://open.spotify.com/show/48eLFYXTpIGDQzaUmOtnUK My Victorian Nighmare: https://open.spotify.com/show/15h4sm3w9DtWRcywgFlzOU // Folgt uns auf Instagram // https://www.instagram.com/frueher.war.mehr.verbrechen/?hl=de // Karte mit allen „Früher war mehr Verbrechen“-Tatorten // https://bit.ly/2FFyWF6 // Mail //: https://linktr.ee/fwmv // Kaffeekasse //: https://ko-fi.com/fwmvpodcast GEMAfreie Musik von https://audiohub.de

Secondo uno studio pubblicato sul British Medical Journal che ha preso in esame tre lavori osservazionali a lungo termine integrare nella propria alimentazione una tavoletta di cioccolato fondente a settimana sarebbe associato a un rischio del 21 per cento più basso di sviluppare il diabete di tipo 2. A Obiettivo Salute il commento del prof. Angelo Avogaro, Presidente fondazione diabete e ricerca della Sid, Società italiana di diabetologia.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Suzanne George and Liz Salmi discuss their JCO article "Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality" TRANSCRIPT TO COME Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO's After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Liz Salmi, Researcher and Patient Advocate, and by Dr. Suzanne George, who works as a Medical Oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute where she acts as the Chief of the Division of Sarcoma. She is also Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Today, we are going to discuss with Suzanne and with Liz the article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” So thank you for speaking with us, Suzanne, Liz. Liz Salmi: Thanks for having us. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, thanks. Dr. Davide Soldato: I just want to make a brief introduction because I think that the concept of patient partner research is very wide and I'm not sure that all of the readers of JCO really have a deep understanding because I imagine that there are a lot of ways we can involve patient and patient advocates in the research process. And so I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an introduction about the concept. Dr. Suzanne George: Sure. I think the point that you raise is really important because there are many terms that are used, patient-partnered research, patient advocacy, but I don't think that there's a single definition as to what that actually means. In the context of our work, we've sort of summarized our experience through something called the PE-CGS or the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing network. And in that project, which is a Moonshot funded network, the intention is to have participants in research be true partners working with traditional academic research teams in order to develop networks specifically focused on cancer genomics. So what we've done, every center is a little bit different in the network, but we're really having research participants not just act, but really work on the research team from the beginning of the project inception all the way through the research project. Liz Salmi: What brings me to the PE-CGS network is my 17 years experience as a person living with a low grade glioma, brain tumor or brain cancer and involving patients in the co-design of research is super critical because patients bring unique lived experiences that can shape research questions, study designs and outcome measures in ways researchers might not anticipate. And we're finding this through our network. So through my work, including my patient experience and brain tumor focused study designs, I've seen firsthand that patient insights can drive more practical implementations that ultimately benefit both patients and the researchers. And so the particular project I work on in the network, we've got like five different arms and different groups of cancer types that are being represented, so I'm basically focusing on the OPTIMUM study around how brain tumor patients can help in this study design. So in this project I serve as not just a participant in the research, but also as a patient co-investigator. Dr. Davide Soldato: That is very interesting. And I think that we really captured the essence of patient-partnered research by having both of you here talking with us about the PE-CGS. And the second question that I wanted to ask is: I really think that the network focuses on something that is quite important right now and currently in medical oncology - so cancer genome sequencing, access to novel therapies - and I think that it's really challenging to imagine a way in which we can really get our patient and get patient advocates to help us designing new trials who are looking into this. And I just wanted to know, do you think that there is something that is particularly challenging when we are speaking specifically about cancer genomics and access to this type of drugs that are targeting specific molecular alteration? Because I think that in general it might be a little bit easier, maybe I'm biased on this, so you can also tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that it's a little bit easier when we are trying to design, for example, behavioral intervention or things that are more commonly found in oncology and a little bit more complicated when we are speaking about genomics. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that's part of what this network is trying to address, which is really what are the barriers and the opportunities around cancer genomics from the patient perspective and how do we make sure that that perspective is included as we're thinking about study design and inclusion? As Liz mentioned, this network has five different networks within the network, five different centers, and each center is slightly different with the population that it engages with. And so there's diversity there in terms of reaching out to different patient communities and partner communities around potential barriers for genomics research. I think one of the things though that we're finding across the network is that people want to be part of this work. People that have a lived experience of cancer want to help move the field forward. And what we ended up writing about was some of the barriers that get in the way of that. It's awesome to have people like Liz that are like all in and then there's people who are on the other end of the spectrum that want to share their information to help move the field forward around genomics, but then there's all these barriers at the systems level that get in the way of that. So I think that that's one of the challenges we're trying to overcome and learn about across the network. Liz Salmi: Yeah, I think I bring this really interesting, I can't say I'm really interesting, but I think I bring this really niche perspective. Not only am I a person living with a brain tumor and I'm a co-investigator but also like a participant in this study. I also, in my day job, I'm an investigator as part of the director of communications and patient initiatives on the OpenNotes lab at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. And our lab really focuses on how open, transparent communication between doctors and patients improves care. And that's been going on for longer than I've been around on our team. But what I bring to that lab is I focus on engaging both patients and clinicians in spreading the awareness about the power of how easy access and transparent communication, access to information across healthcare settings helps patients feel more involved and informed in their care.   And I work specifically, it's a really niche area. I work on projects that aim to expand access to notes and test results in diverse care settings, really helping tailoring initiatives so that various patient communities can understand how they can be involved in these types of research projects. Ultimately that's what brought me into this space. I might be one of the first generation of patients that actually starts helping co-design studies on things like this. And I think that across a lot of healthcare settings cancer is really what we're focused on. But patients are now increasingly being involved as research collaborators. And there's many different funding institutions such as the NCI but also PCORI they now mandate that funders reflect a shift towards more patient centered research frameworks. So it's like the PE-CGS network isn't the only group that's being funded to do research in this way. And I think other investigators, even outside of the cancer space, but specifically in cancer, need to learn how to do research in this way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I agree. And I think the other thing that we need to do is if people want to participate and that participation in many of these networks has to do with record sharing and data sharing, the system needs to accommodate that. If people want to share their information in order to allow research to be performed, then we need to make sure that that can happen, and that it's not that the institution systems don't connect with someone else's systems or that you to pay X, Y and Z dollars for the data to go A, B and C, or that some places are on this EHR and some places are on that EHR and so, sure, you can share it, but you have to go through all of these hurdles in order to make it happen. When a patient signs a consent form that says, “I want my data to be used,” we as an investigator community, we owe it to that patient to make sure that their information is being part of the data set that will be used for learnings. And that's part of what we wrote about, is the lots of behind the scenes things that just get in the way and that we need to work towards improving. Liz Salmi: Both Suzanne and I are really passionate about this stuff. And as a person living with a brain tumor for the last 17 years, I'm a chronic research participant. I always, always, am really curious. I'm like, “Yes, let me contribute my data. Whether that's electronic health record data or maybe I'm being interviewed about certain aspects of the cancer care experience.” And the one thing that bummed me out for like the first 10 years of being this chronic research participant is I would enroll in things, I'd be interviewed for things, I'd fill out these surveys and then I never heard anything about what happened with that information and that time I spent. And people would send me like a $10 gift card to Amazon, like, “Thanks for participating,” but really what I wanted to know is like, did you do anything with that? How did that inform things? So that really annoyed me to the point where I was like, I'm just going to be part of the research process and really figure out how we share that information back to everybody who had spent so much time. And so my participation in this space is like, “Let's change it. Let's give people information back.” And now I know it takes a really long time to have a finding that could be published somewhere that we then get it back. But closing the loop on the communications gap is something I'm really passionate about. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that we are changing a little bit this perspective? I feel like we are getting a little bit better in creating patient communities of patients who are included in specific clinical trials. And then we do the effort of creating a community, of keeping people really involved with the research that they are participating in. I think that we are not quite there yet, but I think that we are making some kind of steps in that direction. For example, trying also to inform patients to participate in the study when the publication that is related to that specific study comes out. What is the benefit? What have we discovered? I think that we are not quite there yet. There is a lot of room for improvement, particularly in the way I think we communicate these to patients who participated in research. But I have the impression that we are making some steps forward. So I don't know. Do you share the same thoughts? Liz Salmi: So Dr. George talked about the PE-CGS network and then there's five different cancer types being studied. So the thing I can reflect on is what we've done in the, this is a really long acronym but, Optimizing Molecular Characterization of Low Grade Glioma. Say that 10 times fast. So our particular group is people who donate tissues about their brain tumors. We're really collecting data from people with multiple brain surgeries over time, which is really complicated and to make that process easier. And then once those tissue samples are stored somewhere, studying that information about what changes in the brain tumors over time and then also giving those results back to people so they can take that research level data and bring it back to their neuro oncology team and say, “Hey. Here's what I found out, “and having a conversation. So, this is a long multi touch point study and in order to do that, to even make that possible is the individual patients need to understand what's in it for them. They're donating precious tissue in order to make the research process work. And so in order to do that, it's not just the investigators saying, “Hey. Give us your brain tissue, peace out.” It is we have a whole research advisory council of people living with these particular tumor types who help us co-design how do we do that outreach, how do we explain why this is important, or how do we message the importance of this work so they understand,“Oh, this is what's in it for me and this is what's in it for other people like me.” And from there then with that process, which again I mentioned, all of these multi-step processes, once we're able to understand how patients want to hear that information, what's in it for them, then we bring it back to like those bench scientists, investigators going, “Okay. And here's how this workflow should work for the patients,” and design everything around the patient experience before we even care about what's happening from the scientist researcher perspective. Dr. Suzanne George: I agree. I think to your point, I think the fact that we're all here today talking about this is just like you said, is that we are making progress, right? Like we're even here having this conversation. Just like you said, I think there's opportunities to improve and further refine the communication and the involvement back in the patient community. When I think- if I put on my clinical investigator hat, I'm very involved in PE-CGS, but my primary research interest historically has been clinical trials and drug development. And I think that our approach in communicating results back has just not been consistent. But I do think that there's opportunities, just like you said, to provide summaries of information to loop back. I don't think that we've completely solved: What do we do? How do we provide information back to loved ones of patients that may no longer be alive that participated? How do we provide information to people who maybe we don't have their contact information? What if we lose track of them? How do we also make sure that we give people the choice to know? Do you want to know about this or would you rather just participate and then give space to that research? Because maybe that's how people's best for them. So I think that you're right, we're making progress, but I think that there's also a lot more that we can do. So I'm glad we're talking about it. Dr. Davide Soldato: How much do you think that directly involving patients in this process, like asking them directly and co-designing the trial from the very beginning and understanding the level of information? This might also be another question inside of the question. So first, how much co-designing this type of research helps, and then do we also need to further refine at that level of communication, different communication depending on the level of information that different people want to have? Because I think that that's another level of complexity that we need to work towards at a certain point. We need to work on that first level of giving back the information. But then I think that there is also the other point of providing the information and information that should also be probably adapted to the cultural belief of different patients, to the ethnicity or to whatever cultural background or social background or whatever they may place their most interest in. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that you're 100% right on all of those points. I think those are all topics that need to be considered. We may be able to get to a certain degree of granularity around those communication points, but on the other hand, we also want to be able to communicate broadly and accessibly as possible. One of the interesting things about PE-CGS, as Liz was mentioning, is each of the five centers has a slightly different focus. For example, one of the centers is focused on American Indians and Tribal Nations, and the communication practices coming out of that center are really unique and really very special and something that's been really, I think for me, very fascinating to hear about. Because to your point, like, just the strategy and what's considered appropriate is just different. I think if we hope to build a research world where our research participants and research data come from a broad swath of the population that really represents the population, the only way that we're going to be able to do that is find ways that bring meaning across the population as well. And that may be different based on where people are coming from and where people are at in their own journeys and in their own lives. But it's on us to be open to that and like to hear that, so we can do the right thing. Dr. Davide Soldato: And I think that this is one of the objectives of the PE-CGS, really trying to bring this type of research participation to really diverse and underrepresented populations, not only in terms of cultural background, but I also think about different types of tumors. Like Liz was referring about brain cancer or low grade glioma, which is a very niche population. And I also think about sarcomas, for example, the degree of variability that we have in that specific type of disease is such that we really need to probably find different ways to communicate also inside of this diversity in terms of single patient and experiences, but also in terms of single diseases. You were speaking a little bit before about the fact that the manuscript is really on the barriers that we would need to identify and then to change to make this system a reality. We were talking a little bit about consenting information and consenting the sharing of information, and I think that you make a very interesting point about the consent process when we are designing research. Could you give a little bit of your impressions about giving informed consent? What we need to change, how can we improve? Dr. Suzanne George: The bottom line is the consent process needs to be simple, clear, and transparent. And sometimes I feel, because the traditional way that we've always gone about consent is frequently consent is as it should be in many ways. These consent forms are developed from a regulatory framework. What are we required to do to consent and how do we meet those requirements? Sometimes that becomes directly at odds with how do we do this simply, clearly and transparently? And I think as a research community, we have to be able to find a common ground there. That has to include regulatory requirements, that has to include IRBs. When we think about consents and work with our patient communities on this, everybody agrees the consents need to be more simple, except the IRB or maybe the IRB agrees, but it's this tension between how do we make it simple, clear and transparent and not get so bogged down in the regulatory that we lose that intent. Liz Salmi: It's complicated. As a person, I mentioned, I'm a chronic research participant living with a brain tumor for 17 years. I remember enrolling in studies and seeing things that are just so complicated. I'm like, “Well, I'm just going to sign off.” I imagine somewhere somebody who knew more than me said, “I should just fill out this thing.” And then as I switched to the research world, I spent more time digging into, “Wow, this is a really complicated consent,” versus, “This is a really streamlined consent and I love this.” And throughout my work with Dr. George and others on the PE-CGS network, an example of a good consent that's easy for people to understand is what the NIH All Of Us research project did, where they're trying to get a million people, more than that, signed up to be in this longitudinal study. And their consent is to go to their website and they have a whole bunch of short YouTube videos. There's a kind of like a quiz involved and they're animated, they have multiple languages involved. And I signed up for that study and I was like, “This is a beautiful consent.” And it's a very plain language. And more consents like that. If you're looking for a good example, go there. I have not been paid by them in any way. I'm a participant in their study. I'm not sure if you guys and your listeners are aware, but there was I think, October 19th of this year or 2024, there was a special communication published in JAMA on an update on the Helsinki Principles for Medical Research involving human participants. And what they're saying is an ethical update is patient engagement in research, which emphasizes the need for continuous, meaningful engagement with research participants and their communities throughout the research life cycle, before, during and after studies. And so this is what we're talking about here. And it's now been embedded in these updated principles. Dr. Suzanne George: That's really great and I agree with you. I think the All Of Us consent process is very accessible. It feels like you can understand it. But the other thing is that, again, I also am not directly involved with All Of Us, but the other thing about it is that they also have a high-touch way to consent where they have navigators and people that will go into communities in a very resource intensive way. So there's all different ways to go about it. We need to find a way that we can balance the complexity around regulatory and the simplicity and transparency that we need in cancer research. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that in terms of patient engagement we are doing better in academic sponsored research compared to sponsored research? A little bit of a provocative question maybe. Dr. Suzanne George: I think that's a really interesting question. I think this idea of participant engagement and involvement is being infused across the research community. And in part, the FDA has prioritized it as well. I think the industry sees the FDA prioritizing this as well. And I think that there are many companies that are involving participant and advocacy communities in different ways in the study design, in the study process early on. So I think it's happening. Liz Salmi: I'll be spicy. I've been a participant, I've been an investigator, co-investigator on studies and I have been reached out to often by pharma of, “Hey Liz, brain tumor patient advocate, would you be kind of like the poster child of our study or be involved in that way?” And I personally want to have no work in that space. I have no interest. However, I am approached, and other people living with cancer have been approached, by industry about lending their likeness or being commercials. And I don't think there's enough education to patient advocates of what that necessarily means, pros and cons. But I also can't speak on behalf of all of the patient advocates who might want to see that's a way that they could lend their voice and advance research. I personally think that there needs to be more involvement from the academic side of creating spaces where patients can be involved in the co-design of research and they also get compensated for their time fairly at the same level or some version of it in a way so they don't just jump to the pharma side of things. But that's an opinion that I have. Opinions. Dr. Suzanne George: I think it's really interesting the point that you make about providing more awareness or information about what it even means to do these things from a patient side. I certainly don't know that side as well, but I do see, often, the term patient advocate used very frequently in many different contexts that mean many different things. And I think that there's an opportunity there for understanding more about what that really means and what it can mean. Liz Salmi: Yeah. We want to involve patients, we want to do patient engagement. The BMJ or the British Medical Journal, have this new policy in place for patients as reviewers of research. And what I find interesting with the BMJ is they also ask patients to declare their conflicts of interest. So this is kind of a new space. If you're involved in patient research or perhaps working with pharma, patients, if you're involved at that level, should also be declaring their conflicts of interest if they're getting paid by a pharma. Or do I have a conflict now that I'm doing this cool ASCO podcast? Maybe. But do we want to overburden patients with tracking all this information? So it's a new world. The more we have access to information, the more we share information, the more we can read studies and we co-design, there's a new space I think over the next 5 to 10 years where how do we define this in a transparent way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I think you're right. I know that we're getting long, but I just want to say one other thing about that, which is that you're right. If we're bringing patients in to be partners, then we have to treat each other that way. We have to acknowledge- I think this issue that you raise about compensation and about paying people for their time or acknowledging people for their time, I think that's really important and very under-discussed. Liz and I were at the annual meeting for the PE-CGS and someone was there giving a talk about- this was a guest speaker that was giving a talk about a very large high impact grant and that included a patient advocacy kind of module, let's say. And they put in a specific funding and budget for that component that included compensation for the people- from the people in the advocacy community that were spending their time. And the PI of this project, again, not to get into the details of it, but they were sharing that they got a fair bit of pushback on that. But the PI pushed back and said, “Listen, we're compensating other people for their time. These guys, we want them to be partners, we need to treat them as such.” And I think that also again, kind of we're in a new space, but if we're going to do it right, then we have to acknowledge that we're partners. Dr. Davide Soldato: But I think that maybe an experience like the PE-CGS probably can be also a network for expanding awareness for patient advocates and also for creating sort of a new culture about what does that mean and how can we also improve on that part. Because in the end, if we want to engage, we also need to provide patients with the instruments to engage in a way that we think it's both useful for them, that can make research better, but can also make them at the exact same level as everyone who is participating in that research, which I think it's the bottom line of all the concepts that we are discussing right now. Liz Salmi: Yep. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, I agree. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I think we have covered a lot of things. Just wanted to make one last reference to a point that Suzanne mentioned earlier, which is the interoperability of systems. And I think that when we come to the cancer genome, that is very important, being able to share information, especially for those diverse and less common cancer types that we were discussing earlier. There is a lot of work in gaining all that information and we need to be able to gather all of that information in the same place to advance research. You were mentioning before that the process is actually very complicated and I was wondering if in the network you are already working on some potential ways to address this type of issue. Dr. Suzanne George: I think our first step is really just calling it out, acknowledging how hard this is and what the barriers are. Oftentimes I think in research, we don't talk enough about what our methodologic barriers are. We talk more about what our results are, but not like how hard it is. But like in our projects, the Count Me In project, my network that I'm involved with, we're doing rare tumors. We can only do the United States and Canada because of privacy issues. And we're doing a completely web based platform. So we have the technology. But the privacy laws are impeding our ability to involve other parts of the world. And even within the United States, it's not as easy as we would like to get records. For example, despite the fact that people are saying, “Yes, use my records.” But then it's like, “Okay. Well, that's not that easy. How are we going to get them?” We had to hire a third party vendor in order to get the records, in order to manage all the different consents and releases that were needed across all these different hospital systems. So I think the first question is just calling it out and then from there working together as a community to try to see what the solutions can be, because we need to come up with those solutions. Liz Salmi: Yeah, we're in the same camp as Dr. George and the fact that of the five partners, we're not associated with one particular institution. So we can reach out around the country and get access to those records. And we need them at multiple points in time, over time and it takes a lot of effort and work. And it's not like you could just, say, call hospital A and they have all the information. It's like all of the calls to all of the other sites. And it's not just from one surgery, it's from two or more surgeries. But also the way that people stay involved, and, by people, I mean patients and family members, there's this promise that at some point you're going to get some sort of information in response. Like, it's the “what's in it for me?” aspect of it. We do interviews with those who've been enrolled in the study, those who could be potential enrollees in the future because they've only had one surgery. And what we're learning overall is there's this altruistic nature that people have of- they want to participate in the research because they're like, “Here's my horrible cancer experience. I know other people are going to go through this as well.” There's this guiding light of “I want to do something, and I'm not going to be the person that creates the cure, discovers the genome or whatever for this particular cancer type. But my little bit of participation in this multiplied by 20, 30, 100, 1000 people, is what is going to lead us to the next phase in development and is going to move the needle for this particular tumor type or other cancer types.” And so what I think the impact in this space and participant engagement isn't just something we figure out, like a little research method and a little finding for one small tumor type, it's like the methods to do that is the big impact. The method around participant engagement can impact even beyond the cancer community. Dr. Davide Soldato: Yeah. As Suzanne was saying, we need to be in a system that really helps us and allows us to do that. So I think that you really have a lot of things to work on inside of the network. Dr. Suzanne George: I think one thing that I would say is I think that this issue of interoperability is acknowledged as a challenge. We refer to several different initiatives across the US where this is supposed to ideally change over time. I think people want it to change over time. I think investigators at the ERTC want it to change over time. I think different countries are working on this. And I think, again, the first step is getting us at the table talking about it, and then figuring out ways to move it forward. And I think it's there. I think that there is the will. We just have to figure out the how and continue to work on that together, because there's just a tremendous opportunity. I live in the rare tumor space, and between the FDA and the EMA and the regulatory, the national and the international research groups, the patient communities, people want this to be solved and I do hope that we will be able to get there. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I would like to thank Liz and Suzanne for joining us today. Dr. Suzanne George: Thanks for having us. Liz Salmi: Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato: Suzanne, Liz, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     DISCLOSURES Liz Salmi Speaking Honoria: Medscape. Research Funding (Inst): Abridge AI, Inc., Yosemite. Dr. Suzanne George Honoraria CStone Pharmaceuticals Consulting or Advisory Role Blueprint Medicines, deciphera, Bayer,  Lilly, UpToDate, Research to Practice, MORE Health, Daiichi, Kayothera, Immunicum, BioAtla   Research Funding Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Daiichi Sankyo RD Novare, Merck, Eisai, SpringWorks Therapeutics, TRACON Pharma, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, BioAtla, IDRx, NewBay Pharma, Acrivon Therapeutics   Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Company name: UptoDate Stock and Other Ownership Interests Abbott Laboratories and Pfizer Recipient: An Immediate Family Member

Laura & Nicole discuss bizarre stories found in the British Medical Journal

Dr. James DiNicolantonio is a cardiovascular research scientist and Doctor of Pharmacy. Following his passion for evidence-based nutrition, he has written nine bestselling books: The Salt Fix, Superfuel, The Longevity Solution, The Immunity Fix, The Mineral Fix, WIN, The Obesity Fix, The Collagen Cure and The Blood Sugar Solution. A well-respected and internationally known scientist and expert on health and nutrition. Dr. DiNicolantonio was the Associate Editor of British Medical Journal's (BMJ) Open Heart for over 10 years, a journal published in partnership with the British Cardiovascular Society. He is the author or coauthor of approximately 300 publications in the medical literature. He is also on the editorial advisory boards of several medical journals. He has shared his expertise on The Dr. Oz Show, The Doctors, and international news media outlets.

Paracetamol, a staple in UK households, is widely available over the counter and commonly used to alleviate headaches, toothaches, joint pain, flu symptoms, menstrual pain, and fever. In the UK, paracetamol is one of the most frequently used painkillers. The British Medical Journal reports that from April 2022 to March 2023, 16 million prescriptions for paracetamol were dispensed in England alone. Additionally, an estimated 6,300 tonnes of paracetamol are sold annually in the UK, equating to about 70 tablets per person each year.  What happens after ingestion? How can you recognize an overdose? What should you do in case of an overdose? What are the safe dosage limits? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: What is Quantum medicine and is it a scam? What should I do with expired medicines? What is the medication Ozempic and why is it being used for weight loss? A podcast written and realised by Amber Minogue. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We dive into the important topic of healthspan vs. lifespan and share some laughter along the way. We talk about how one simple thing—strength training—can drastically improve the quality of our years on this planet. Remember our aging episode with Dr. Snyder? We chat about healthspan, the key to living longer and healthier, and introduce the term sarcopenia, the gradual loss of muscle mass. Highlighting a super cool study from the British Medical Journal, we discover that heavy resistance training can keep us strong even into our later years! We share practical tips and anecdotes to help you get started with strength training, no matter your age. Whether you're an Olympic lifter or just getting off the couch, there's something here for everyone. Join us, have a laugh, and let's start lifting those weights together! Please sign up for our SUBSTACK For more episodes, limited edition merch, to send us direct messages, and more, follow this link!  Connect with us: Website: https://yourdoctorfriendspodcast.com/ Email us at yourdoctorfriendspodcast@gmail.com @your_doctor_friends on  Instagram - Send/DM us a voice memo or question and we might play it/answer it on the show or on socials! @yourdoctorfriendspodcast1013 on YouTube 00:00 Introduction and Setting the Scene 00:48 Understanding Healthspan vs Lifespan 02:03 The Power of Strength Training 02:52 Sarcopenia: The Silent Muscle Loss 05:25 Study on Resistance Training in Older Adults 10:14 Practical Advice for Strength Training 13:39 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

This Day in Legal History: New York Grants Women Right to VoteOn November 6, 1917, New York became one of the first eastern states to grant women the right to vote, a pivotal victory for the suffrage movement in the United States. The state's voters approved a constitutional amendment that extended suffrage to women, marking a significant shift in public opinion and advancing the national push for equal voting rights. New York was the most populous state to enact such a measure, lending critical momentum to the cause and demonstrating that widespread support for women's suffrage was achievable in even the largest urban areas.This victory was the result of decades of persistent activism and organizing by leaders such as Carrie Chapman Catt, who spearheaded the Empire State Campaign Committee, and countless local suffragists who canvassed tirelessly for public support. Women in New York had actively campaigned, held rallies, and built coalitions, especially focusing on mobilizing working-class women and men. The successful vote was seen as a clear mandate for gender equality and significantly influenced other states and Congress.New York's decision to enfranchise women not only energized the movement but also helped propel the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, which granted voting rights to women nationwide. This milestone in New York underscored the growing acknowledgment of women's role in public and political life, laying groundwork for further social and political reforms across the country.The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case concerning whether a heightened standard of proof is necessary for employers claiming that workers are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Currently, there is a split among federal circuits on this issue, with the Fourth Circuit requiring a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, while other circuits apply the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which means the employer must show it is more likely than not that an exemption applies. The case has significant implications for both workers' rights and business costs.Representing E.M.D. Sales, attorney Lisa Blatt argued that the default civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, should apply to FLSA cases, as imposing a stricter standard would burden employers and potentially lead to layoffs. Conversely, Lauren Bateman, representing employees and supported by Public Citizen, contended that because FLSA regulations protect critical worker health, safety, and economic welfare, a higher standard is warranted to ensure these protections are meaningful.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored that the FLSA aims not only to provide fair pay but also to ensure a safe workplace and expand employment, suggesting the importance of potentially adopting a stricter standard. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about why the FLSA should receive special treatment over other laws that also protect essential rights, such as those addressing discrimination.The case attracted varied views on the potential broader impacts of raising the standard of proof. Some justices, like Samuel Alito, questioned how the court would measure the relative importance of rights across federal laws. The Justice Department, represented by Aimee Brown, supported the employer's position, noting that Congress enacts many laws with public benefits, yet courts rarely apply a heightened standard of proof in such cases.The Supreme Court's eventual decision could standardize how proof requirements are applied in overtime cases and influence both worker protections and business practices across the country.US Supreme Court Leans Toward Business in Overtime Dispute (1)A new lawsuit accuses Pfizer Inc. of failing to warn patients that its contraceptive injection, Depo-Provera, could increase the risk of brain tumors. Plaintiff Taylor Devorak filed the complaint in California, alleging that Pfizer and other manufacturers had a duty to research and disclose potential links between Depo-Provera, as well as similar progesterone-based drugs, and intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. The lawsuit seeks damages based on claims of failure to warn, defective design, negligence, and misrepresentation.Devorak's case follows similar lawsuits filed recently in California and Indiana. Her complaint notes that although the drug has been FDA-approved for over 30 years and widely used, Pfizer has not updated the U.S. labeling to reflect these risks, even as health authorities in the EU and UK now include warnings about meningioma for such medications. A 2024 study published in the *British Medical Journal* found a substantial increase in risk for brain tumors with prolonged use of medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.In response, Pfizer asserts that Depo-Provera has been a safe option for millions and plans to “vigorously defend” against the claims. The case has brought renewed attention to safety and disclosure practices in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly around long-established medications.Pfizer Accused of Hiding Contraceptive's Brain Tumor Link (1)Following Donald Trump's recent election as U.S. president, the criminal cases against him are likely to be halted for the duration of his term. Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, had four active prosecutions, including charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, a hush-money payment linked to Stormy Daniels, and unlawful retention of classified documents. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and dismissed the cases as politically motivated, has stated he would immediately dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith, responsible for the federal prosecutions on election interference and document retention.While Trump can halt federal cases, he has less control over state cases, such as the New York hush-money and Georgia election interference cases. However, his presidency could still effectively delay or complicate these proceedings. Legal experts expect delays in his New York sentencing, which had already been postponed, citing potential presidential immunity arguments.In Georgia, Trump's lawyers are working to pause proceedings under the argument that a sitting president should not face criminal prosecution. Additionally, his team has challenged Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's involvement, aiming to disqualify her based on alleged misconduct. Ultimately, experts believe Trump's presidency will prevent the state-level cases from moving forward until his term concludes.Trump's impending return to White House brings criminal cases to a halt | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Facebook's effort to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders who claim the company misled investors about the misuse of user data. The lawsuit, initiated by Amalgamated Bank in 2018, argues that Facebook violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose the 2015 Cambridge Analytica data breach, which affected over 30 million users and contributed to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Shareholders allege that Facebook presented data privacy risks as hypothetical even though the breach had already occurred.Facebook contends that it was not legally required to disclose the prior breach and that reasonable investors would interpret risk disclosures as forward-looking. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit Court revived it, noting that Facebook's statements misrepresented an already-realized risk. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could influence the standards for securities fraud cases, making it harder for private parties to pursue claims. This case, along with a similar appeal by Nvidia, could further limit the liability of companies for nondisclosure of past risks. Past Cambridge Analytica fallout has led Facebook to settle related SEC and FTC actions, paying $100 million and $5 billion, respectively.US Supreme Court to hear Facebook bid to escape securities fraud suit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dr.  Dr. Siyamak Saleh (Dr. Siya), is an award winning content creator with a community of over 3.5 million followers. He debunks myths related to intimacy health and has received awards for working with South African communities to educate about topics that are taboo and that people feel ashamed talking about. Dr. Siya knows that most patients won't read medical guidelines but they will get their health info from influencers on social platforms. Dr.Siyah teamed up with Andy Pattinson at the World Health Organization to become a digital health consultant to recruit qualified healthcare workers online to educate the public about health issues. I was a recent recruit of Dr. Siya, and I worked with Andy and Dr. Siya at the United Nations general assembly week events this year on several panels. We talked about supporting health professionals to use digital platforms to spread accurate information online and we also addressed topics like burnout and depression in healthcare professionals. On this episode of the Vault, Dr. Siya shares how he masked high functioning depression with productivity. At a time in his life when he was nominated for TikTok Creator of the year, was mentioned in the British Medical Journal, was in major media outlets like Huffington Post and was gaining top recognition by the World Health Organization, he was alsostruggling in silence. We discussed ways that he healed and ways that busy andproductive people can heal from High Functioning Depression. How Intimacy Health I related to Mental health Myths about Intimacy health. How to identify signs of High Functioning Depression High Functioning Depression in Healthcare workers Anhedonia How to cope with High Functioning DepressionFollow Dr. Siya Doctor Siya https://www.instagram.com/doctor.siya/ Doctor Siya https://doctorsiya.com/ World Health Organization https://www.instagram.com/who/ World Health Organization Fides https://www.instagram.com/who.fides/Follow Dr. Judith:Instagram: https://instagram.com/drjudithjoseph TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drjudithjoseph Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drjudithjoseph Website: https://www.drjudithjoseph.com/Disclaimer: Consider your individual mental health needs with a licensed medicalprofessional. This content is not medical advice.

You may have heard that our ears and noses never stop growing, you may even have found yourself wondering if your ears are indeed bigger than they used to be. But there might be an answer, a study published in the British Medical Journal in 1993 took a very serious look at the question. The scientists measured the earlobes of 206 volunteers aged between 30 and 93. The result: the lobes lengthened by an average of 22 millimetres a year, or 1 cm after 50 years!  Do ears continue to grow throughout life? When does this nose sagging begin? What can you do about it? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: Is it better sleeping with or without a pillow? How can I save money on my gas bill? How can I influence my dreams? A podcast written and realised by Amber Minogue. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Season 7 Episode 6!  Dr Annabel Sowemimo is a doctor, academic, activist, and writer of Nigerian heritage. She is a London based Consultant in Community Sexual & Reproductive Health in the NHS, and founder of charity the Reproductive Justice Initiative (RJI) (formerly Decolonising Contraception), which aims to address health inequalities and racial disparities.  Annabel won the inaugural award for Health Equity Champion at the Curah-H Awards in 2024. Within her specialty, she is interested in tackling Gender Based Violence and improving access for marginalised groups. Annabel was a regular columnist for gal-dem, and is a freelance writer for numerous publications, also authoring several academic publications in leading medical journals including the Lancet and British Medical Journal. She is frequently in demand for TV and radio, and was recently featured in the ITV1 documentary Our NHS with Dr Zoe Williams.  Annabel is a part-time PhD candidate and Harold Moody Scholar at King's College London, with her research focusing on the experiences of Black women in Britain with fertility control methods. She is a regular lecturer at a number of institutions including the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UCL and King's College London. Her first, now arad winning  book Divided: Racism, Medicine and Decolonising Healthcare was published by Profile Books/Wellcome Collection in April 2023. We sat down to discuss: > Scoliosis and her introduction to the power of medical institutions  > the origins of medical racism > the serious impact racial weathering on modern Black bodies, > the importance of reclaiming joy. and much more! SHOW NOTES Divided by Annabel Sowemimo Weathering: The Extraordinary Stress of Ordinary Life in an Unjust Society by Professor Arline T. Geronimus  Black Skin White Masks by Frantz Fanon CONNECT Dr Annabel Sowemimo on Instagram   Dr Annabel Sowemimo links If you love this podcast please support us by following Menopause Whilst Black on Facebook and Instagram, leaving a glowing wordy review on any platform and like, subscribe and comment on YouTube. Please keep talking about menopause amongst your family, friends and work colleagues of all genders. Together we will break this taboo and ensure that every person gets the menopause care they need.  Jiggle your bits to our Spotify playlist. Email the show: hello@menopausewhilstblack.com New website! menopausewhilstblack.com Karen Arthur is a broadcaster, artist, author and menopause activist.  She is host of bi-weekly weekend radio show on Golddust radio 'Can We Talk'. Karen hosts The Joy Retreat Barbados, the worlds first retreat for Black women in any stage of menopause, 28th April - 5th May 2025.  Karens first childrens book, 'Grandmas Locs', illustrated by Camilla Ru, on celebrating natural Black hair through the relationship between a grandmother and her grandson, will be published by Tate publishing on 24th October 2024. Preorders open. New episodes drop every Wednesday thanks to the invaluable work of @beyongolia and @yaa___studio who are bloody amazing.  *we recognise that inclusive language is important in ensuring that ALL who experience menopause are seen and heard. The term women is used whilst mindful of this.

In this episode, Amy sits down with Ted Talk speaker, blogger, and activist, Dave deBronkhart. They delve into Dave's extraordinary journey of surviving stage 4 cancer and how his proactive approach in healthcare led to his survival and empowerment advocacy. Amy, who lives with cystic fibrosis, shares how Dave's work inspired her to take agency over her health. Together, they discuss the importance of patient empowerment, collaboration between patients and healthcare providers, and defining personal abundance beyond material success.  Tune in to learn how Dave is actively changing the culture of healthcare, creating an inspiring  patient-doctor partnership. More about Dave: Dave deBronkart, known on the internet as e-Patient Dave, is the author of the highly rated Let Patients Help: A Patient Engagement Handbook and one of the world's leading advocates for patient engagement. After beating stage IV kidney cancer in 2007 he became a blogger, health policy advisor and international keynote speaker. An accomplished speaker in his professional life before cancer, he is today the best-known spokesman for the patient engagement movement, attending over 650 conferences and policy meetings in 26 countries, including testifying in Washington for patient access to the medical record under Meaningful Use. A co-founder and chair emeritus of the Society for Participatory Medicine, e-Patient Dave has appeared in Time, U.S. News, USA Today, Wired, MIT Technology Review, and the HealthLeaders cover story “Patient of the Future.” His writings have been published in the British Medical Journal, the Patient Experience Journal,  iHealthBeat, and the conference journal of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. In 2009 HealthLeaders named him and his doctor to their annual list of “20 People Who Make Healthcare Better,” and he's appeared on the cover of Healthcare IT News and the Australian GP magazine Good Practice. Dave's TED Talk Let Patients Help went viral, and for years was in the top half of the most viewed TED Talks of all time with over a half million views; volunteers have added subtitles in 26 languages, indicating the global appeal of his message. In 2012 the National Library of Medicine announced that it's capturing his blog in its History of Medicine Division, and he was the Mayo Clinic's 2015 Visiting Professor in Internal Medicine. Connect with Dave: https://www.epatientdave.com/ https://www.ted.com/talks/dave_debronkart_meet_e_patient_dave Connect with Amy Sylvis: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/amysylvis Contact Us: https://www.sylviscapital.com https://www.sylviscapital.com/webinar

An estimated 35-70 million American suffer for dry eyes. Scientists writing in the British Medical Journal report on a drug-free non eye drop way to improve dry eye. Dr. Bob Martin answers callers' questions about a variety of health subjects including, how to keep grandchildren healthy and out of pediatricians' offices, how to help ringing in the ears, and what are statin drugs.

Miracle story of a 47yo woman pregnant after her husband had vasectomy reversal vs. taking the pill and IVF.  What are true restorative approaches? Dr. Susan Caldwell joins Trending with Timmerie for this fertility special (0:43) Does being on birth control affect a woman's ability to choose a proper spouse? (24:39) IUDs?  In the news lately, women complain of severe pain during insertion Caller IUD story (42:56) Resources mentioned :  Dr. Caldwell's Website https://www.drsusancaldwell.com/about  Vasectomy Reversal https://www.dadsagain.com/cost-of-a-vasectomy-reversal/   Long Term Complications to vasectomies  https://www.pop.org/problems-side-effects-men-vasectomy/    More conversations with Dr. Susan Caldwell  https://relevantradio.com/?cat=23210&s=susan+caldwell    Fertility care  find a NaPro doctor  https://fertilitycare.org/find-a-mc    NaPro Telemedicine https://naturalwomanhood.org/find-a-doctor/telehealth/   Learn more about pheromones – how men and women relate and how birth control impacts the chase https://relevantradio.com/2022/09/pheromones-how-men-women-relate-to-each-other-2/    This Is Your Brain On Birth Control https://www.sarahehill.com/your-brain-on-birth-control/   British Medical Journal on painful IUD research  https://srh.bmj.com/content/early/2024/06/11/bmjsrh-2023-202011

Did you know that when you spend time on an online platform, you could be experiencing between six to eight different experimental treatments that stem from several hundred A/B tests that run concurrently? That's how common digital experimentation is today. And while this may be acceptable in industry, large-scale digital experimentation poses some substantial challenges for researchers wanting to evaluate theories and disconfirm hypotheses through randomized controlled trials done on digital platforms. Thankfully, the brilliant has a new paper forthcoming that illuminates the orthogonal testing plane problem and offers some guidelines for sidestepping the issue. So if experiments are your thing, you really need to listen to what is really going on out there. References Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2024). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, . Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Karahanna, E., Benbasat, I., Bapna, R., & Rai, A. (2018). Editor's Comments: Opportunities and Challenges for Different Types of Online Experiments. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), iii-x. Kohavi, R., & Thomke, S. (2017). The Surprising Power of Online Experiments. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 74-82. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd. Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, . Bapna, R., Goes, P. B., Gupta, A., & Jin, Y. (2004). User Heterogeneity and Its Impact on Electronic Auction Market Design: An Empirical Exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 21-43. Somanchi, S., Abbasi, A., Kelley, K., Dobolyi, D., & Yuan, T. T. (2023). Examining User Heterogeneity in Digital Experiments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(4), 1-34. Mertens, W., & Recker, J. (2020). New Guidelines for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Hypothetico-Deductive IS Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(4), 1072-1102. GRADE Working Group. (2004). Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. British Medical Journal, 328(7454), 1490-1494. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441-459. Abbasi, A., Chiang, R. H. L., & Xu, J. (2023). Data Science for Social Good. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(6), 1439-1458. Babar, Y., Mahdavi Adeli, A., & Burtch, G. (2023). The Effects of Online Social Identity Signals on Retailer Demand. Management Science, 69(12), 7335-7346. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Burton-Jones, A. (2023). Editor's Comments: Producing Significant Research. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), i-xv.  Abbasi, A., Dillon, R., Rao, H. R., & Liu Sheng, O. R. (2024). Preparedness and Response in the Century of Disasters: Overview of Information Systems Research Frontiers. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 460-468.

Les températures extrêmes, qu'elles soient très chaudes ou très froides, peuvent avoir des effets néfastes sur la santé cardiovasculaire. Voici une explication détaillée, appuyée par des études scientifiques :Températures très chaudes et santé cardiovasculaire1. Stress thermique et déshydratation : - Par temps très chaud, le corps doit travailler plus dur pour maintenir une température interne stable. Cela entraîne une augmentation de la charge de travail du cœur. - La déshydratation, fréquente en période de chaleur intense, réduit le volume sanguin, ce qui oblige le cœur à battre plus vite et plus fort pour maintenir la pression artérielle et la circulation sanguine adéquate .2. Augmentation de la viscosité du sang : - La chaleur peut entraîner une augmentation de la viscosité du sang, rendant sa circulation plus difficile et augmentant le risque de formation de caillots sanguins, ce qui peut provoquer des crises cardiaques ou des accidents vasculaires cérébraux (AVC) .3. Effets sur les électrolytes : - Une sudation excessive peut entraîner une perte d'électrolytes essentiels comme le sodium et le potassium, perturbant la fonction cardiaque et pouvant provoquer des arythmies .Températures très froides et santé cardiovasculaire1. Vasoconstriction : - Le froid provoque une vasoconstriction (rétrécissement des vaisseaux sanguins) pour conserver la chaleur corporelle. Cela augmente la résistance vasculaire, ce qui oblige le cœur à travailler plus dur pour pomper le sang à travers des vaisseaux plus étroits .2. Augmentation de la pression artérielle : - L'augmentation de la pression artérielle due à la vasoconstriction peut surcharger le cœur, surtout chez les personnes ayant des antécédents d'hypertension ou d'autres maladies cardiovasculaires .3. Effets sur la coagulation sanguine : - Les températures froides peuvent également augmenter la coagulation sanguine, ce qui augmente le risque de formation de caillots et d'événements cardiaques tels que les crises cardiaques et les AVC .Études scientifiques soutenant ces effets- Chaleur extrême : Une étude publiée dans le *Journal of the American Heart Association* a montré que les périodes de chaleur extrême augmentaient de manière significative le risque de mortalité cardiovasculaire, en particulier chez les personnes âgées et celles souffrant de maladies cardiaques préexistantes .- Froid extrême : Une étude publiée dans le *British Medical Journal* a révélé que les périodes de froid intense étaient associées à une augmentation des admissions à l'hôpital pour des événements cardiaques tels que les crises cardiaques et les AVC .Ces observations montrent que les températures extrêmes posent des risques importants pour la santé cardiovasculaire, en raison des effets physiologiques directs sur le cœur et les vaisseaux sanguins, ainsi que des complications métaboliques et hématologiques qui en résultent. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Nutritionist Leyla Muedin discusses the growing concerns around the integrity of scientific research. She highlights the recent editorial by Richard Smith, a former editor at the British Medical Journal, suggesting that scientific research should be considered fraudulent until proven otherwise. Leyla introduces the RIDGID framework, developed by researchers at Monash University in Australia, which aims to detect and eliminate fraudulent studies from influencing clinical guidelines and meta-analyses. The framework consists of six steps for reviewing, excluding, assessing, discussing, establishing contact, and reassessing research studies. The episode emphasizes the need for a systematic approach to ensure the accuracy and integrity of scientific research in the medical field.

What do chicken nuggets, margarine and instant noodles all have in common? Well, they may look tasty, but they're loaded with sugar, salt, fat and chemicals that strip away their nutritional value. That's due to the heavy processing that goes into making them, which sees them completely transformed from the original raw ingredients.  And they're increasingly ever present on our shelves and in our stomachs. In 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Research found that ultra-processed foods made up almost two-thirds of Britain's school meals. Furthermore, the British Medical Journal has reported that ultra-processed foods account for 56.8% of total energy intake in the UK diet. Can you identify them by looking at the ingredient lists on product packaging? What's the difference between processed foods and ultra-processed foods? Why should we limit the consumption of ultra-processed products? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: How much do surrogate mothers get paid? What is the Barnum effect? How to spot, prevent and treat heatstroke ? A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. In partnership with upday UK. First broadcast: 11/06/2023 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's episode features part 1 of our extended interview with Daniel McCabe, First Assistant Secretary for the Medicare Benefits and Digital Health Division at the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. We dissect the government's ambitious agenda and their determination to put patients/consumers in the centre of healthcare innovation. Louise tries to convince George they should join the Ozempic gold rush. Will George consent?The British Medical Journal has published a piece entitled “Patients need access to their medical records—now”, adding a loud voice to the move to share by default health records with patients.What should be the role of tech in treating mental health conditions? The government is under fire for spending precious budget dollars on the wrong things.Now you can get a blood pressure test while you shop for DIY items and munch down on a sausage sizzle. Will the vegans invade that oh-so-precious Australian institution of a sausage in the Bunnings car park?Patient portals are not yet universal in Australia, but they will be if Kath Feely, Chief Allied Health Information Officer across Melbourne's Parkville hospital precinct has anything to do with it. (Go allied health!)Medical AI scribes are getting traction - can they be used to effortlessly create a version of the clinical note for patients? What do Pulse+IT readers think?And yay to our friends in Canada who have launched the first patient-mediated International Patient Summary in North America. It's kind of a big deal! Will Australia be following their lead?Be a Sparked Founding member and join government, healthcare providers, established big software companies and some startups too. Join up before 30 August to be considered a Founding Member. More info here.Visit Pulse+IT.news to learn more, engage in this rapidly growing sector, and subscribe to breaking digital news, weekly newsletters and a rich treasure trove of archival material. People in the know, get their news from Pulse+IT – Your leading voice in digital health news.Follow us on LinkedIn Louise | George | Pulse+ITFollow us on X Louise | George | Pulse+ITSend us your questions pulsepod@pulseit.newsProduction by Octopod Productions | Ivan Juric

Kathryn interviews Author Dr. Greer Kirshenbaum.With the deluge of new information about trauma, the nervous system, and secure attachment, many of us are deeply engaged in mental health awareness. We are reevaluating ourselves and our histories and exploring how our experiences have contributed to our issues with anxiety, depression and addiction. Many of us discover that our trauma is developmental trauma that comes from the way we were cared for as babies, from conception to age three. Our culture has praised and encouraged “low nurture parenting for generations.This includes sleep training, dismissing emotions, lack of physical closeness and overuse of swaddles, swings, walkers, saucers and more.. Greer Kirshenbaum PhD has combined her academic training with her experience as a doula and mother to lead The Nurture Revolution: a movement to nurture our babies' brains to revolutionize mental health. She wants families, professionals, and workplaces to understand how early caregiving experience can boost mental wellness and diminish depression, anxiety and addiction in adulthood. Dr. Kirshenbaum trained at Columbia University, New York University and Yale University.Kathryn also interviews Author Joel Warsh MD, MsC.Parents these days are bombarded with so much information often fueling anxiety and confusion. Their desire for evidence-based Western medicine with the pursuit of a holistic approach can leave parents feeling caught in the middle. Dr. Joel Warsh - aka: Dr. Gator - harmoniously bridges the gap between the “right way” and the way that is right for your unique, individual child—of course, within the confines of reasonable and safe. He brings to light the process of creating emotionally nurturing spaces, supporting mental health, mindful stress management, balanced nutrition, limiting toxins, and ensuring access to healthcare. Using the wealth of resources available to modern caregivers, he empowers them to trust their instincts, while making informed and confident choices affecting the health of their newborns and toddlers. He is an award-winning integrative and holistic pediatrician in Los Angeles and has published research in peer-reviewed medical journals including the American Journal of Pediatrics and the British Medical Journal.

Kathryn interviews Author Dr. Greer Kirshenbaum.With the deluge of new information about trauma, the nervous system, and secure attachment, many of us are deeply engaged in mental health awareness. We are reevaluating ourselves and our histories and exploring how our experiences have contributed to our issues with anxiety, depression and addiction. Many of us discover that our trauma is developmental trauma that comes from the way we were cared for as babies, from conception to age three. Our culture has praised and encouraged “low nurture parenting for generations.This includes sleep training, dismissing emotions, lack of physical closeness and overuse of swaddles, swings, walkers, saucers and more.. Greer Kirshenbaum PhD has combined her academic training with her experience as a doula and mother to lead The Nurture Revolution: a movement to nurture our babies' brains to revolutionize mental health. She wants families, professionals, and workplaces to understand how early caregiving experience can boost mental wellness and diminish depression, anxiety and addiction in adulthood. Dr. Kirshenbaum trained at Columbia University, New York University and Yale University.Kathryn also interviews Author Joel Warsh MD, MsC.Parents these days are bombarded with so much information often fueling anxiety and confusion. Their desire for evidence-based Western medicine with the pursuit of a holistic approach can leave parents feeling caught in the middle. Dr. Joel Warsh - aka: Dr. Gator - harmoniously bridges the gap between the “right way” and the way that is right for your unique, individual child—of course, within the confines of reasonable and safe. He brings to light the process of creating emotionally nurturing spaces, supporting mental health, mindful stress management, balanced nutrition, limiting toxins, and ensuring access to healthcare. Using the wealth of resources available to modern caregivers, he empowers them to trust their instincts, while making informed and confident choices affecting the health of their newborns and toddlers. He is an award-winning integrative and holistic pediatrician in Los Angeles and has published research in peer-reviewed medical journals including the American Journal of Pediatrics and the British Medical Journal.

John Venn created the Venn diagram, and though he's an important figure in the fields of mathematics and logic, he eventually left that work behind to write historical accounts of the places and people that were important in his life. Research: Baron, Margaret E.. “A Note on the Historical Development of Logic Diagrams: Leibniz, Euler and Venn.” The Mathematical Gazette, vol. 53, no. 384, 1969, pp. 113–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3614533 Bassett, Troy J. "Author: Susanna Carnegie Venn." At the Circulating Library: A Database of Victorian Fiction, 1837—1901, 3 June 2024, http://www.victorianresearch.org/atcl/show_author.php?aid=661 com Editors. “John Venn Biography.: A&E. April 2, 2014. https://www.biography.com/scientists/john-venn Boyer, Carl B.. "Leonhard Euler". Encyclopedia Britannica, 21 Jun. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leonhard-Euler Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Boolean algebra". Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Boolean-algebra Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Kingston upon Hull". Encyclopedia Britannica, 23 Jun. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/place/Kingston-upon-Hull “A Cricket Sensation.” Saffron Walden Weekly News. June 11, 1909. https://www.newspapers.com/image/800046974/?match=1&terms=John%20Venn%20cricket%20machine Collier, Irwin. “Cambridge. Guide to the Moral Sciences Tripos. James Ward, editor, 1891.” Feb 26, 2018. https://www.irwincollier.com/cambridge-on-the-moral-sciences-tripos-james-ward-editor-1891/ Duignan, Brian. "John Venn". Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Jun. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Venn Duignan, Brian. "Venn diagram". Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Venn-diagram Gordon, Neil. “Venn: the person behind the famous diagrams – and why his work still matters today.” EconoTimes. April 14, 2023. https://www.econotimes.com/Venn-the-person-behind-the-famous-diagrams--and-why-his-work-still-matters-today-1654353 Hall, Madeleine. “The Improbably Genius of John Venn.” The Spectator. April 4, 2023. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-improbable-genius-of-john-venn/ “History.” Highgate School. https://www.highgateschool.org.uk/about/our-history/ “The Jargon.” Queens' College Cambridge. https://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/visiting-the-college/history/university-facts/the-jargon “John Venn Of Caius.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 3250, 1923, pp. 641–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20423118 Lenze, Wolfgang. “Leibniz: Logic.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/leib-log/ O'Connor, J.J. and E.F. Robertson. “John Venn.” Mac Tutor. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. October 2003. “Professor Hugh Hunt leads engineering team to recreate historic cricket bowling machine.” Trinity College Cambridge. June 6, 2024. https://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/news/professor-hugh-hunt-leads-engineering-team-to-recreate-historic-bowling-machine-that-bowled-out-australian-cricketers-more-than-100-years-ago/ Venn, John. “The logic of chance. An essay on the foundations and province of the theory of probability, with especial reference to its logical bearings and its application to moral and social science.” London. Macmillan, 1876. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/50424309/page/n19/mode/2up Venn, John. “The principles of empirical or inductive logic.” 1889. https://archive.org/details/principlesempir00venngoog B.H. “John Venn.” Obituary notices of fellows deceased. Royal Society Publishing. April 1, 1926. Accessed online: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspa.1926.0036 Young, Angus. “John Venn Inspired £325k makeover of Hull's Drypool Bridge is now complete.” Hull Live. June 5, 2017. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/drypool-bridge-turned-work-art-91547 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shownotes and Transcript Dr. Andy Wakefield joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his transition from mainstream physician to medical industry whistle-blower, sharing with us his findings on the MMR vaccine's link to autism.  He talks about facing backlash, making films like "Vaxxed" and the recently released "Protocol 7" to address vaccine safety and pharmaceutical fraud.  Despite challenges like losing his license, Andy stresses the importance of revealing the truth to the public.  He highlights the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry's negligence towards patient safety, legal protections shielding companies from vaccine injury liability, and the need for public involvement in spreading awareness and demanding accountability.  PROTOCOL 7 - An Andy Wakefield Film   WEBSITE          protocol7.movie  X/TWITTER      x.com/P7Movie INSTAGRAM     instagram.com/protocol7movie Andy Wakefield has been likened to the Dreyfus of his generation -- a doctor falsely accused of scientific and medical misconduct, whose discoveries opened up entirely new perceptions of childhood autism, the gut-brain link, and vaccine safety. As an ‘insider,' the price for his discoveries and his refusal to walk away from the issues they raised, was swift and brutal, with loss of job, career, reputation, honours, colleagues, and country. And yet he enjoys a huge and growing support from around the world. Wakefield's stance made him a trusted place for whistle-blowers -- from government and industry to confess and ‘download.' He has extraordinary stories to share. Wakefield is now an award-winning filmmaker. Despite elaborate attempts at censorship, his documentary VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe – the revelations of a vaccine scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- changed the public mindset on the truth about vaccine safety. Wakefield's is a story that starts with professional trust in the instincts of mothers, choice and consequences, a quest for truth, and perseverance against overwhelming odds. Andy has long pursued the scientific link between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, & neurological injury in children.   Dr. Wakefield is the co-founder of the Autism Media Channel & the founder of 7th Chakra Films.   He is the director of his first major narrative feature, the recently released #Protocol7,  co-written with Terry Rossio (Aladdin, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fast and Furious, Godzilla vs. King Kong). Connect with Andy... WEBSITE           7thchakrafilms.com  INSTAGRAM      instagram.com/andrewjwakefield X/TWITTER       x.com/DrAndyWakefield Interview recorded  25.6.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) I am delighted to have Dr. Andrew Wakefield with us today. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us today. (Dr Andy Wakefield) Peter, my pleasure. Great to be here. Great to have you. And your name will be well known, certainly to many Brits. And I live through what you faced just as a Brit consuming news. And we'll get into all of that. People can follow you @DrAndyWakefield on Twitter. And we're going to talk about your latest film, Protocol7.Movie. All the links will be in the description. So we will get to that. But I encourage people to not only look at your Twitter feed, but also look at the website for the film, which is literally just out. But you're the award-winning filmmaker of Vaxxed and many other films. And of course, the latest one just came out. Doctor, if I can bring us back a little bit, because you had a certain time where your name was massively out there and that was simply asking questions. I think a lot of us have woken up to maybe big pharma, have woken up to vaccines and their role over the last four years. And you were much earlier than many people in the public. But that Lancet MMR autism, and I think your Wikipedia probably says fraud more than any other Wikipedia I've ever read. But you talked about that link between MMR, mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and autism. Maybe you could just go back and let us know your background, your medical background, and then what led up to you putting that out and maybe give us an insight into the chaos that ensued? Certainly, Peter. I was an entirely mainstream physician. I graduated at St. Mary's Hospital in London, part of the University of London, one of six generations of doctors in my family to have graduated there. And I ran a research team in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London and our principal interests were Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis inflammatory bowel disease, and in 1995 parents started contacting me and saying my child was perfectly fine they had an MMR vaccine in many cases and they regressed rapidly into autism, had seizures, lost speech, and language interaction with their siblings. And ultimately they were diagnosed with autism, well I know I knew nothing about autism. It was so rare when I was at medical school we weren't taught about it and I said you must have got the wrong number,. They said the reason we're contacting you is my child has intractable bowel problems, failure to thrive, they're in pain, I know they're in pain even though they've lost the ability to communicate. And the doctors and nurses that I've spoken to about this have said that's just part of autism, get over it, put them in a home, move on have another child. It's an extraordinary situation and so we investigated these children I put together a very eminent team of physicians. Who investigated these children and confirmed that the parents were right the children had I had an inflammatory bowel disease, and that's now been confirmed in multiple studies worldwide. When we treated that bowel disease, then not only did the gastrointestinal symptoms improve, but the autism improved. We didn't cure it, but the children, for example, started using words they hadn't used for five years. It was quite extraordinary. And so as academics, we said that didn't happen, and we did it 183 times, and it happened pretty much every time. So, we then began to believe that there was something really very, very interesting. So, when the parents said my child regressed after a vaccine, we had a professional and moral obligation to take that very seriously. But that really flew in the face of government policy and pharmaceutical industry profiteering. And that was really the beginning of the end of my career. The dean, Harry Zuckerman, took me aside and said, if you continue this vaccine safety research, it will not be good for your career. In that, at least he was correct. And when you offend government policymaking and the bottom line for the pharmaceutical industry, really, there's no price you will not pay. And people are now familiar with that. In the context of COVID, it's happened to many, many eminent doctors and scientists. But at the time, this was was a novelty, the cancel culture was a novelty, the ability of the system to destroy your career if you stepped out of line was something really quite new. And... So, I moved to America, set up a centre there for here in Austin, Texas for autism. They eventually destroyed my career there. And so I thought, well, how can I continue to help this population? And I'd been fascinated by filmmaking for a long time, screenwriting for a long time. And what had happened, Peter, is that over the years, because of the position I'd taken, And people had come to me from the Department of Health in the UK or from regulatory agencies such as the CDC in the US or the industry, the vaccine manufacturers, and said, we've done a terrible thing. Here is the evidence. We've committed fraud. And so I became a repository, if you like, for whistle-blowers. And this story, the latest story, Protocol 7, I mean, my films have been made about these whistle-blowers, some of them. And the latest story, Protocol 7, is one such whistle-blower, who came to me many years ago and presented to me the compelling story that ultimately we've turned into a major narrative feature film. Well, we'll get into that, but the role of media, I mean, you had BBC Channel 4 with hit pieces against you and I'm sure many others. What was that like? Because you said you were kind of mainstream. I remember that time as well, whenever I was mainstream, probably six years ago. So, it was a little bit later due. And you believe these institutions are positive. They're about actually reporting the news. And then you realize, actually, they're not. What was that like whenever you had all these media outlets suddenly make you a target of their reporting? Well, I think it really, part of it was Rupert Murdoch, his son, James Murdoch, was put onto the board of GlaxoSmithKline, Europe's biggest manufacturer of MMR, with the objective as a non-executive director of protecting that company's interests in the media, certainly the Murdoch media. And his target was me and they came after me in the biggest way and in the wake of that you know channel 4 as you say and others followed suit. It was very tricky. It was very difficult, because you didn't get to put the other side of it everything was heavily edited and it was just a relentless attack they were determined utterly determined that I committed fraud never committed scientific fraud in my life. But you can destroy the career of a physician or scientist in five minutes, literally five minutes. All you need is the headline and that's it. And then you spend the rest of your life trying to. Get back your reputation if ever. And I abandoned that idea because it was, the issue wasn't about me. It was about something far more important. And as soon as I, you know, I stopped worrying about what the media might say about me and simply got on with the job of doing what I could to help these children, then a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders. I just didn't worry about that anymore. Say what they like. I've got a job to do while I still have time on this planet. And that was to advocate on behalf of these children and try and move the needle on the real pandemic, which is of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. I mean, it's in the media in the UK every day. We're talking about one in just over 20 children in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in the UK. And this is an extraordinary level of a permanent serious neurological condition. When I was at medical school, it was one in 10,000. So what has happened? Just to bring your listeners up to date, your viewers up to date. The CDC performed a study at my behest. I told them, I said, look, I think that age of exposure is a major factor. The younger you are when you get the MMR, the greater the risk. It's not simply you get the MMR, you get autism. That's not it. There's got to be a co-factor associated with it. And age of exposure is one, I believe. Now, everybody is now familiar that the outcome from a viral infection, for example, COVID, is age-related. The older you are with COVID, the greater the risk. So everybody gets that now. And I said this to them. I said, I think that younger of age, your exposure is a major risk. Why? Because with natural measles, if you get it under one, you're at greater risk of a severe outcome than you are if you're over one. There is an age-related risk. So, they went away, they tested that hypothesis, and they confirmed that it was absolutely true. And they spent the next 14 years covering up, destroying the data, destroying the documents and changing the results to say that MMR vaccine was safe. And it was only when William Thompson, the senior scientist at the CDC who had designed the study, collected the data and analysed the data, had written the paper, came to me, came to a colleague of mine who came to me and said, we have done this terrible thing. I can no longer live with it. Here is the truth. And that was the basis of the film Vaxxed. And it wasn't my opinion. It wasn't my producer's opinion. This was the senior scientist from the CDC responsible for the study confessing to this fraud. What happened? Nothing. No one was held accountable. Absolutely appalling. These people, these five scientists at the CDC and their superiors had. Committed fraud and put millions of children at risk of serious permanent neurological disease and done so wilfully, knowing that there was a risk. And so I was appalled. And beyond that, I thought my filmmaking is going to expose people. It's going to actually hold people accountable for what they've done. Your study was, it was a small study, wasn't it? I think it was what like a dozen or 16. You're simply saying there does seem to be a link and it's surprising it could have been surprised, one time it should have been surprising, that actually a doctor who raises a concern that should surely be looked at and checked over instead of attacking but it wasn't a massive. You were simply saying these this is the pattern that I'm seeing in the small number of patients that I'm looking at in this study. That's absolutely right. The way in which human disease syndromes are described is usually in a handful of patients who present with... It's such a consistent pattern of signs and symptoms of clinical measures that they merit reporting in their own right. And that's exactly what this was. It couldn't test any hypothesis. It couldn't come to any conclusions other than more research was needed. It actually said this study does not confirm an association between the vaccine. It doesn't. It couldn't do. It is merely reporting the parent's story. And it was a very sober paper. But of course, the media blew it up to claim that I had said MMR vaccine causes autism. No, I didn't. However, I would say that now in light of the CDC study, I would most certainly. And it's their behaviour. It's their need to commit the fraud and hide the data that is the most compelling evidence that there is this clear link. They know there's a link, and rather than do something responsible about it they have put the children at continued risk. In fact they've expanded the vaccine program dramatically, so they've put even more children at risk in my opinion. No, completely and where many of us maybe may not have been anti-vaxxers five years ago we sure as hell are now so it's changed completely, but can I just ask you; you were up against the UK General Medical Council. They're the ones that allow you to practice. They're a judge and jury. It was like a few years investigation. Then in 2010, they decided that you were no longer acceptable. They struck you off. Tell us about that, because I've talked to doctors recently during the COVID chaos who have fought for their right to continue to practice as doctors and they've struggled. You were doing this 14 years ago. What was that experience at the General Medical Council? It was difficult. It was really difficult because there needn't have been a hearing. They'd made up their minds before we even walked through the door. The General Medical Council were under threat from the government of having their powers taken away and the government dictating policy such as right to practice and medical sort of ethics. And they therefore were under scrutiny from the government. They had to deliver on a decision, and they did. Now, the reason I can say that is that their decision was contrived and indeed made up their minds before they even come to the hearing is that when it came for the first time before a proper judiciary, before the UK's sort of senior courts, if you like. The judge was appalled by the GMC's behaviour. He said, and this is in the trial of John Walker Smith, my colleague's appeal against the decision to strike him off, he said, this must never happen again. It was really a political tool to destroy dissent. Now, I appealed as well as John Walker Smith, but I was told by my lawyers that it would cost me half a million pounds to pursue that appeal. I didn't have half a million pounds. I didn't have anything. So, the law belongs to those who can afford it. And that's a fact, whether you live in America or whether you live in the UK. Justice belongs to those who can pay for it. And so there was no opportunity for me to have my case heard on its merits it was simply thrown out. What we did do though when Brian Dear a journalist published in the British medical journal now claiming that I had committed fraud which is absolute nonsense. We sought to sue him and the British Medical Journal in the state of Texas. Now, that's where I lived. That's where my reputation was damaged. And that's where there was legal precedent that allowed us to sue them. Because the BMJ is a journal, sells its wares, its journal, to Texas medical schools. It profits from Texas medical schools. And there is a long-arm statute in Texas that allows us to sue them for defamation. Why would you, it costs about $3 million to sue someone for defamation. Why would you even think of doing that in a situation where all of the evidence is going to be laid bare for the public to scrutinize? Why would you do that if you committed fraud? You wouldn't do it. There was no fraud and therefore we had an extremely strong case and they knew it. They absolutely knew it and and they did everything they could to get out of it. Ultimately, the judge, the appeal court judges here ruled that we did not have jurisdiction. That went in the face of all of the legal precedent. We did not have jurisdiction. Indeed, the BMJ lawyers invoked Texas law in an attack on us. I mean, it was extraordinary that we weren't allowed to sue them here in Texas. This was a political decision from the highest level. They did not want this case to go forward. They They knew we were going to prevail, we were going to win, and that would have undermined their entire sort of years and years and years attacking me and others for suggesting that MMR vaccine might not be safe. And so we were denied the opportunity to have the case heard on its merits, and that's where it remains. Tell us about Vaxxed in 2016 from cover-up to catastrophe. And that talks about the CDC and others destroying evidence to show that there could be a link between MMR and autism. That's something which I think many of us over the last four years would probably accept that sounds plausible, definitely that makes sense, because of what we've seen with big pharma and the collusion with media and governments. But this, you put this out prior to that happening probably in a world where maybe people may not accept that as much because there was more were trusting institutions. But tell us about that film and the authorities wanting to destroy any evidence which would show there was a link. Yes, that was a fascinating film because, as I say, it was an insider from the CDC who was intimately involved in the study that looked at age of exposure to MMR and autism. And it clearly showed that the younger you were when when you've got the vaccine, the greater the risk of autism. And that was in... All children, boys in particular, and black boys above all. For some reason, black children seem to be highly susceptible to this adverse vaccine reaction. Now, we don't know the reason for that. Further follow-up studies should have been done. Now, when the CDC found this association, they had some clear options that would have been there available to them in the interests of the the American public. They could have said, right, we can delay. Let's suggest delaying this vaccine until it's safer. And we have done a bigger, better study to confirm it or refute it. That's what they should have done, to give parents the information, to give them the option. But they didn't. They trashed all of the documents. They trashed the data. They altered the results. And they, for 14 years deceived the public, doctors, the government, everybody, and so it was a very powerful story and we made the documentary it got into the Tribeca film festival which for us was one of the sort of preeminent film festivals and then it was withdrawn, it was censored. And I think that occurred because one of the sponsors of the film was involved in money management on Wall Street involving the pharmaceutical companies and also perhaps a sponsor of the Tribeca Film Festival. And so, you know, this is what I hear, whether it's true or not, that remains to be seen. But we were censored. This is the first time this had ever happened at Tribeca Film Festival. And it was a bad few days. And then De Niro went on the television on the what's called Good Morning America and the Today Show, the big national shows and said, we should never have done that. We should have played this film, everybody should have seen it and made up their own minds. And suddenly there was an explosion of interest in this film that people had been banned from seeing. And every attempt by the media to cover it up or De Niro's partner, Jane Rosenthal, to shut him down during interviews failed. He was very angry, very angry. And it had the impact of spreading the news of this film worldwide. And so what we saw at that point, which should have pre-empted COVID, was a major shift in people's perception. They came to the movie theatre, they watched the movie, and they said, wow. There is something, there's a problem here. And then, of course, we had the COVID experience and the extraordinary mishandling and misconduct and lies and deception, about the disease, its origins, and the vaccines, so-called vaccine. And public trust in the public health authorities has never been at such a low. And it will never recover and the point peter is this is that they only have themselves to blame. That is the truth. It's no good then coming after me, or after you, or people who bring them the message or come from the clinic and saying this is what I see in these children. They only have themselves to blame for their arrogance and their stupidity. Now, 2016 it was about that specific link MMR and autism 2019 you widened it in vax 2and to look at actually side effects, vaccine harms, across a range. And certainly the issue does not seem to just be one vaccine, there seems to be a range and we've seen that, and I know any parent will have had this conversation thought, any parent that actually is aware of conversations happening, and they will maybe have questioned the rush to jab children. I will touch on the amount of jabs children now get, which is quite concerning, the rise of jabs. But 2019, yeah, you widen it away from just MMR and concerns of side effects to this seems to be in many vaccinations. Was that received differently or do you still have the the same uphill struggle. Now, that film was not mine. It was made by Brian Burrows and Polly Tommy. And I was interviewed for that film, but it wasn't my movie. But what happened, it was based upon a series of interviews. After Vaxxed, we went off across the country, principally Polly Tommy, interviewing thousands of parents about their experience. And it emerged that other vaccines were involved as well. And I'd come to this via a different route. I came over to America to testify before Congress on the vaccine autism issue. And there I became aware that the mercury in vaccines was a problem. I wasn't aware of it before, that aluminium in vaccines was a problem. And so it became clear that it is very likely that it's the actual toxic load that a child is presented with at a very early stage, rather than just being one vaccine or another. Now, we'll never be able to discern the truth of that. We know which vaccines are involved, which are more important or less important. And this comes to a point you've made, is that they have so many vaccines now that how do you even begin to untangle the complexity, the permutations of how was it this vaccine or this one and this one together or these three or these 15? We just don't know. And I think there's almost been a deliberate attempt to expand the program without doing the appropriate safety research in order to make it virtually impossible possible to target any specific vaccine. So, I think that my sort of current thinking on it, and had we been allowed to conclude our research without it being sabotaged, is that it is related to the toxic load. And there is a study that has literally just come out from Brian Hooker. Scientist with an affected child, that shows that there is an exponential increase in severe adverse reactions like autism with increasing load of vaccines. The more you're given at one time, the greater the risk of an adverse reaction. This dose response effect is very plausible and is very strong evidence of causation. So, the field is highly complex. I'm quite certain that the sheer volume of vaccines that are given to children is way in excess of being safe. I mean, way in excess. And it has never been subjected to any formal clinical trial. You know, is it safe to give multiple vaccines at the same time? Hasn't been done. Well, yeah let me poke, because the issue is supposedly we have had a vaccine that's tested over a 10-year period or whatever and then it's decided safe, but the amount of vaccines that children are given; there is absolutely no way you could do any long-term study on that number of combinations of vaccines. So, it's completely into the unknown. It is. Now and here's the dilemma lemma is that when you take a pharmaceutical agent in the United States, for example. Then it goes through years, literally sort of 10, 15 years of clinical trials, randomized control clinical trials using a placebo, an inert placebo, before it's deemed to be safe. And yet with vaccines, that doesn't apply. They're classified as biologics, and the bar is set very much lower for safety. And so for the childhood vaccines, there has never been a proper long-term placebo-controlled randomized trial of safety. And therefore, it is deceptive, entirely deceptive to say that these vaccines are safe. They're not because they've never been subjected to the appropriate safety studies. And people need to know that. People need to realize that. It just has not been done. And it's now, you know, it's too late to close the gate. The horse has bolted. The vaccine safety studies are very difficult to do now, certainly prospectively. Well, one thing I just, before I get into Protocol 7, one thing I realized traveling the States so much over the last couple of years is that you turn on a TV, so different from Britain, and you see an advert for medication and it tells you how wonderful this medication is. And then half the advert is telling you the possible side effects and usually ends up with death. And you're thinking, that's the last thing I want to have. But that's a world away, and that's just kind of pushed through and accepted that actually the side effect could be much worse than the disease or the issue that it's trying to address. And you think, I sit and watch some of those adverts when I'm over in the States and think, how do we get to this situation where death is seemingly better than a headache? It is bizarre and this direct consumer advertising that happens in America and the other the only other place it happens is New Zealand. We don't, you know it doesn't happen in the UK, but it it's it's there's something more insidious about it, and that is the fact that the nightly news networks here way in excess of 70% of their income comes from the pharmaceutical industry advertising. They could not sustain their operation, a news operation, in the absence of that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. And so, the industry controls the narrative the industry controls the editorial the headline they're not going to publish something and this happened to me I was interviewing with a girl called Cheryl Ackerson outstanding journalist who was at the the time at CBS. And she said, Andy, when we have finished editing this sequence about vaccines and autism, I will get a call within, you know, in 15 minutes, I'll get a call from the money men on the top story, a top floor saying, you will not play this segment because our sponsors have said they'll pull their money. Well, she was wrong. It was five minutes later. It came five minutes later. And that's the way they operate, I'm afraid. So there is, over and above advertising their drugs, there is something far more sinister about the control, the influence that these drug companies have over American mainstream media. Fortunately, in the UK, that direct-to-consumer advertising does not exist. So I want to jump on, which fits perfectly into Protocol 7, which seems to be about someone, a lawyer, small town, sees issues with Big Pharma, with the industry and wants to challenge. And it is a David and Goliath, something I guess, as you alluded to, we're all up against with Big Pharma. But tell us about this film, which is a story about a whistle-blower, but also going up against Big Pharma. This is based on a true story whistle-blower who came to me many years ago at a meeting in Chicago and revealed this fraud within Merck in respect of its mumps vaccine. And it's really a story more about the behaviour, how the industry behaves when confronted with a threat to its profiteering and its monopolistic sort of control of a vaccine in a country like America. And it's against sort of set against the love and devotion the um intuition of a mother who happens to be a lawyer who fights who battles against the power of the industry. And I'm not going to spoil the end for anyone but I urge people to see this film. It is it's now won 27 film awards it's only just really come out. It's got some wonderful reviews. Very, very high scores on rotten tomatoes and IMDb, so the key to the success of this film is its dissemination is people watching it and we're planning our UK release our European release as well right now So when it comes, please support it. Please get your friends and family to it. Merck realized in the 90s that the Mumps vaccine wasn't working and they took, many, many steps to cover that up and to essentially defraud the American public, the medical profession and others. And that's what the story is about. And it's based upon documents, actual documents obtained from that company that confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened. It's important in the context of safety. And you may say, why is it? The film really is about, or Merck's fraud, was about the efficacy, the protectiveness of the vaccine. It wasn't working as well as they said it was working. And that made it dangerous. Why? Because mumps in children is a trivial condition. That's acknowledged by the CDC. Mumps in post-pubertal adults is not trivial. You risk suffering testicular inflammation and sterility or or ovarian inflammation, brain inflammation. And so a vaccine that doesn't work or only works for a limited amount of time will make you susceptible to mumps again when you're past puberty, when you're in that at-risk period. And so a vaccine that doesn't work makes it a dangerous vaccine. It makes mumps a more dangerous disease. And this is a very important thing to understand within the context of mumps. Merck certainly knew about it and continued to defraud the public despite that. So yeah, it's a very, very important film over and above the issue of mumps. It's about how the industry responds to threats that really sort of compromise its ability to earn revenue, make profits, and maintain a monopoly. Because I think people often forget, and maybe have woken up during the COVID tyranny, that these institutions, they exist to make money for their shareholders. They don't really exist to make a product which makes you better. Their primary aim is the share price for shareholders, just like any company. And if they make a product that actually helps you, then to me, that's a bonus. Is that too cynical a view of the industry? No, it's absolutely true. And they wouldn't deny that. They would say, we're here as a business to make money. We're here as a business to serve our shareholders, our stockholders, first and foremost. That's not ambiguous at all. They would admit to that. The problem comes when everything's fine and they're making good drugs and they're benefiting people. That's fine. It's how the industry responds when something goes wrong. And for example, with Merck and Vioxx, the drug that, you know, was notoriously unsafe. But, you know, they knew at the time of licensing that there were problems. It was causing strokes and heart attacks. It was estimated, I think, that many hundreds or thousands of people suffered as a consequence of that drug. In the litigation in Australia, where Merck were, really, their heads were on the block about this. They uncovered some, in discovery, they uncovered documents which were an exchange between Merck employees about what to do about doctors who criticized their drug. And they said, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live. This is not conspiracy theory. This is company policy. There you have these guys saying, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live. Okay, so these are the kind of people with whom you're dealing. Tell us, because we hear that these companies are beyond the legal sphere. They have protections and safeguards within countries, and it doesn't matter what side effects that the drug causes, they have this legal protection. I mean, is that the case, or is there a way of actually using the legal system to actually go after these companies? Or is it a slap on the wrist? Sometimes they pay out money to different governments and they say: oops Well there there is and it's interesting the national childhood vaccine injury act in this country in America in 1986 took away liability financial liability from the drug companies for death and injury caused by childhood vaccines on the recommended schedule. Now, that was a gold mine for the industry because they had mandatory markets. Kids had effectively to get vaccinated to go to school and no liability. All they could do was make a profit. But the legal system does work sometimes. And in the context of COVID and the so-called COVID vaccine. There's just been a ruling, I think, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has said COVID vaccine is not a vaccine. It doesn't protect against disease and it doesn't stop transmission. Ergo, it is not a vaccine. Now, once it's not a vaccine, by ruling of the court, it's not covered by the indemnity. It's not covered by the government protecting the industry. Suddenly, they're on their own. And that really raises some very interesting legal possibilities that is for litigation in this country. So, we'll see what happens. But there will be every effort by the government to side with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent them being sued, I'm quite sure, because that's what happened. But let's hope that the judges see it differently. I just want to end off on people's response to you because you were maligned, attacked. The media tried to discredit you. You then moved to the US. You lost your medical license. But these films you're putting out, they tell a compelling story. Tell us about how you feel these films have woken people up, maybe in a way that back whenever this happened to you 25 years ago, the opening was not there for the same ability to win people over. The opening does seem to be here now, maybe because of COVID, maybe people are more aware, maybe because of alternative media. But tell us about the message you're putting out in these films and kind of the response you're getting. Thing well really the films are made in a way that they're entirely up to the protocol seven, these were entirely factual documentary films and so vax for example if there'd been any word of a lie, if we'd got something wrong, we would have we've accused these scientists at the CDC of the worst sort of humanitarian crime. Their job was to protect these children they did completely the opposite. The hypocrisy goes way beyond what we've seen before and so if there had been a problem. We would have been sued to the moon and back again and there wasn't and they why because they know that it's true. And that's a very powerful thing and the same comes now with protocol 7 even though it's a narrative feature film. If there was something in that film that was defamatory of Merck, then they would come after us. They may well do because they're big and rich and powerful, certainly far more powerful than we are. But that's not a reason. Not to get the story out. My commitment is, my duty is to the public, not to Merck or to the government or indeed to the whistle-blower, but to the public who are being harmed. And so never make a decision based in fear. This is something I've learned over the years. If the story has merit, if it's honest, if it's true, if it has integrity, then you get it out there and, you know, let the cards fall where they may. Yeah completely. I want to ask you about funding, because it's everything costs money. It is actually, it takes a lot of work not only finance but expertise and research to put anything like this out and you know you're going up against an industry that will attack you in any opening any any chink in your armour. Was it difficult to actually raise funding to put these films together? Initially, it was. You know, this is my fifth film, and initially it was difficult, because people said, well, you're a physician. You know, what are you doing making films? Now they say, they're much more inclined to say, you've proven you can do it. Get on and make the next one. It's not easy, particularly in the current climate, I mean, Hollywood itself is in the doldrums; filmmaking, but the people still want meaningful films they want films that count films like Sound of Freedom and others that they really mean something that are worth going to the movie theatres to watch. And so that's the kind of film that we're making and hopefully we'll be able to continue to do it. I just can ask you about the last last thing about those who want to be part of what's happening, supporting the film as it comes out. I mean, how do they play a part? They can go, obviously, to the website, protocol7.movie, make sure and follow that, and they can follow your Twitter. But if they want to say, actually, I believe this message, it's so true, I have friends, family, actually suffering side effects, not only MMR, but across the board, and I want to make sure this message gets out. How can they play a part in doing that? One thing they can do, I mean, if they're immensely rich, they can fund the next film. If they're not, then they can help. People can help by going to the website and clicking on Pay It Forward. And this is a way of, we saw it with Sound of Freedom. It was very successful, a way of providing tickets for people who might not otherwise be able to afford a ticket to go and watch the movie, or for people who might not be inclined otherwise to go. In other words if there if there is an incentive to get a free ticket they may go and then be persuaded. And so it's a way of helping other people to access the film. When they might not otherwise be able to or be inclined to do that so pay it forward is a very useful device. And of course on the website you can pass on the trailer and make sure people watch that and get ready for it. Please do. Now, the success of the film comes down to the public. And that means, you know, your listeners, your viewers. So, we're very, very grateful for any help in that respect. And Sound of Freedom did that to a degree we hadn't seen before. And I encourage the viewers and listeners to do the same for Protocol 7. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, it is an honour to have you on and someone who I read all the stuff. In the late 90s and probably believed a lot of it that uh how times change and it's great to have you on and thank you for what you're doing on getting the message out on the link between the pharmaceutical industry and side effects. Well thank you so much. My pleasure thank you for having me on.

“Third place”. The term originated in a 1989 book written by sociologist Ray Oldenberg. It refers to a place separate from Work or Home where humans can facilitate social interaction. The need for Third Places has grown and was extremely exacerbated by the COVID-19 global pandemic. Like many other things, the pandemic accelerated increasing trends: loneliness and obesity.   According to the World Health Organization: “High-quality social connections are essential to our mental and physical health and our well-being.” The United States Surgeon General has labeled loneliness an ‘epidemic'. The British Medical Journal published a report in late 2021 that concluded “problematic levels of loneliness are experienced by a substantial proportion of the population in many countries.”  Also according to the WHO: worldwide obesity has nearly tripled since 1975 and as late as 2016, 1.9 billion adults were overweight, of which 650 million were obese. The good news? Both of these trends are preventable and reversible. Third Places are helping to provide people with the outlet they need to improve their situation and find happiness. There is a Third Place emerging in cities across the world that solves both problems and a lot more: Community Gardens. It could be a rooftop in a densely populated city, or a common area just down the road. Community Gardens provide the benefits of “public relaxation” while also teaching the valuable skill of eating healthy. They also provide a source of STEM education for kids.   How could Microchip Technology help accelerate the growth of Third Places like Community Gardens?   Links from the episode:     Guests:  Ross Satchell  Toby Sinkinson 

You've probably been warned not to eat green potatoes and to remove all eyes before eating any potato, but do you know why? This week Lynne and Helen explain how one of the most beloved foods can make a person incredibly sick.  Special note: Dr. Helen Shui is truly a doctor, but is working under a pseudonym for privacy reasons. Dr. Lynne Kramer is using her real name.  Music by Helen Shui and Caplixo. Cover art by Lynne Kramer.  Sources: Horrific Tales of Potatoes That Caused Mass Sickness and Even Death by K. Annabelle Smith The 1979 Poisoning Of 78 Schoolchildren: Or Why You Should Never Eat Green Potatoes by James Felton Attack of the Killer Green Potatoes! by Justin Brower Are Sprouted Potatoes Safe to Eat? Via National Capital Poison Center A challenging case of suspected solanine toxicity in an eleven-year-old Saudi boy by Fatimah S Al Massoud, Ali Alharbi, Maryam M Behir, Aesha F. Siddiqui, Lujaine M. Al-Murayeh, Abdullah Al Dail, & Rafat Siddiqui Potato glycoalkaloids: Some unanswered questions by David B Smith, James G Roddick, & J. Leighton Jones Health Effects of Alkaloids from African Medicinal Plants by Victor Kuete Introduction to Forensic Plant Science by Jane H. Bock & David O. Norris Solanine Poisoning via British Medical Journal (no byline) Glycoalkaloids in potatoes: public health risks assessed via the European Food Safety Authority Glycoalkaloids: Structure, Properties, and Interactions with Model Membrane Systems by Bishal Nepal & Keith J Stine Rotting Potato Gas Dangers: Myth or Reality? by “Bill” People Appear To Believe Old Potatoes Release Deadly “Solanine Gas” by James Felton Girl, 8, Orphaned After Gas From Rotting Potatoes Killed Her Entire Family by Keith Kendrick Please contact us with questions/concerns/comments at defunctdoctorspodcast@gmail.com. @defunctdoctorspodcast on Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), Threads, YouTube, and TikTok  Follow Lynne on Instagram @lynnedoodles555

A book that reads like a novel; it's humorous, it's a love story. Dr. Christopher Labos, an imaginative cardiologist and epidemiologist at McGill University, takes us through multiple longstanding misconceptions about different foods and drinks, and along the way provides outstanding educational value.Video snippet from our conversation. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Transcript with external links and links to the audio recordingEric Topol (00:07):Hello, it's Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and with me today is a cardiologist, Chris Labos from Montreal, who has written an extraordinary book. I just read it on my Kindle, “Does Coffee Cause Cancer? And 8 More Myths about the Food We Eat. Chris teaches at McGill University. He is a prolific writer at the Montreal Gazette and Canadian broadcast system, CBC, CJAD radio, CTV News. And he also has a podcast on the Body of Evidence and he probably has other stuff, but welcome Chris.Christopher Labos (00:49):Hello. Hello. Hello. Thank you for having me. It is a great honor to be on your podcast. I am in awe of the work that you've been doing, I mean, for all your career, but especially during Covid. So it's a big thrill for me to be on the podcast.Eric Topol (01:03):Well, for me, I have to say I learned about a person who is not only remarkably imaginative but also humorous. And so, have you ever done standup comedy?Christopher Labos (01:16):I have not. Although I was asked to chair the research awards that we did here at McGill one year because I've been doing local media stuff and they said, can you come and be like the MC? And I said, sure. And I said, do you want me to be funny? And they were like, well, if you can. And I went up there and people were laughing and laughing and laughing and then people, like some of my former attendings had come up to me and they're like, Chris, I don't remember you being this funny as a resident. And I was like, well, I guess you come into your own when you start your own career. But I think people were very, it's tough MCing a research awards because you're essentially, it's kind of like a high school graduation where you don't read the names in alphabetical order, right? It's like one name after the other. And I went up there and I tried to throw in a little bit of humor and people seem to like it. So I think that was the first, that was when I started to realize, oh, if you inject a little bit of levity into what you're doing, it tends to resonate a little bit more with people.Eric Topol (02:13):Well, no question about that. And what I love about this book is that it wasn't anything like I thought it was going to be.Eric Topol (02:21):Amazing. It was a surprise. So basically you took these nine myths, which we'll talk to, hopefully we'll get to several of them, but you didn't just get into that myth. You get into teaching medical statistics, how to read papers, all the myths. I mean, you are the master debunker with entertainment, with funny stuff. It's really great. So this is great, before we get into some of these myths and for you to amplify, but this is a gift of communication, science communication that is you get people to learn about things like p-hacking and you throw in love stories and all kinds of stuff. I mean, I don't know how you can dream this stuff up. I really don't.Christopher Labos (03:10):I sort of look back at the inception of this. This book did have sort of a few iterations. And I think the first time I was thinking about it, I mean I wrote it during Covid and so I was really thinking about this type of stuff. It's like how do we educate the public to become better consumers of scientific information? Because there was a lot of nonsense during Covid. So teaching them about confounding, which I think through a lot of people when we started talking about low vitamin D levels and Covid and outcomes and all that. And so, I started like, how do I write this type of book? And I thought, yeah, this should probably be a serious science book. And the first version of it was a very serious science book. And then the idea came and try to make it a conversation. And I think I sort of wrote it.(04:02):There's a book that may not be that popular in the US but it was kind of popular here in Canada. It was called The Wealthy Barber. And it was all about personal finance. And the idea of the book was these people would go into a barbershop and the barber would talk to them about how to save money and how to invest in all that. And it was fairly popular and people liked that back and forth. And I said, oh, maybe I could do something like that. And then I wrote the first chapter of the doctor who goes in to talk to the barista and I showed it to a friend of mine. I said, what do you think? Do you think this would work? And her response to me by email was two lines. It was pretty good period. But I kept expecting him to ask her out at the end. And the minute she said that I thought, oh my God, this is a love story. And so, I reshaped everything to make this a love story. And I don't think the publishers were expecting that either because they were like, the first comment from the editor was, most science books don't have a narrative arc to them in character, but this one does. So there you go.Eric Topol (05:00):This is a unique book. I hope that people who listen or read the transcript will realize that this is a gift. It's a model of communication and it just is teaching things almost like you don't realize it. You're just learning all this stuff. So let's get into some of these because they're just masterful. I guess I should start ask you, you have nine of them. You could have picked 20 more, but which one is your favorite? Or do you have one?Christopher Labos (05:31):I think the one, it's hard to say. I think the first one in the book is the vitamin C one. And I think it's the most interesting one to explain to people, not just because vitamin C to fight the common cold is so pervasive as a product and a thing that people believe. But it also, I think has the greatest opportunity to teach people about what is one of the most important ones, which is subgroup analysis and p-hacking. And it's so easy to bring that back into a comedic level with some of the graphs that I put in there. I think a close second would probably be the coffee one where I was talking about selection bias, because those examples of online dating and then all the jokes that came from it. And it's hard to say how much of it was the subject and how much of it was the character.(06:21):Because I'd always heard stories of authors when they say like, oh, the characters will tell me what to say. And I always thought that sounds like bollocks. How could that be possible? You're the author, you write what's on the page. But then the minute I started actually writing it and started envisaging these characters, all of a sudden the characters took on a life of their own and they were dictating how the story ended up. So the coffee one I think is also good too. And I guess it became the title of the book. So I guess that's a good indication that was popular. But when you can really spin it out and make it obvious to people using common examples, I think those are interesting ones. So the vitamin C and the coffee ones, I think were probably the most interesting.Eric Topol (07:02):Let's take those first because you've mentioned them and then hopefully we'll get into some others. Now in the vitamin C, you're going on a plane and you hook up with this guy, Jim, on the plane. I know none of this stuff really happened, and you're explaining to him the famous ISIS-2 trial about the Gemini and Libra subgroup. So for those of people who are listening, can you review that? Because that of course is just one of so many things you get into.Christopher Labos (07:33):I know it's almost amazing how short a memory we have in medicine, right? And again, this is sort of surprising me. I sort of knew the study and then I went back, and I looked at it and I thought ISIS-2 was in 1988. That's not that long ago. The fact that we didn't give aspirin. So for people who don't know, I mean, we did not give aspirin to people with cardiac disease for a very long time. And it was really from 1988 afterwards. So relatively recently, I mean I realized it's been a couple of decades, but still. So ISIS-2 was really the first trial to show that if you give aspirin to somebodywhen they're having a heart attack, you see a benefit. But what was fascinating in the study was this one subgroup analysis of people in whom it did not work.(08:19):And when I give public lectures, I often use this example because it's such a beautiful teaching case, and I go ask people, what do you think it was? And people are like, oh, hemophiliacs, smokers, people who drink alcohol. And then you find out, no, the subgroup in whom aspirin does not work is Geminis and Libras. And everybody sort of laughs and they think it's funny. And it's a beautiful example because a lot of people think it's like, oh, it was a joke or it was sort of silly science. But no, it was actually done purposefully. And the authors put that in there because they wanted to make the point that subgroup analysis are potentially misleading. And I sort of am a little bit in awe of, I mean the power or the intelligence to actually make it a point with the editors like, no, we're going to put this in here essentially as a teaching tool.(09:09):And it's amazing to me that we're still using it as a teaching tool decades after the fact. But it was just to show that when you have these tables where you have umpteen subgroup analysis, just by random chance, you will get some spurious results. And though our brain understands that Zodiac signs have nothing to do with the effectiveness of aspirin, you do the same subgroup analysis and diabetics and non-diabetics, and everybody was like, oh yeah, that's plausible. And yeah, it might be, but the computer doesn't know the difference, right. To the computer these are all ones and zeros. So if you don't go into it with a healthy skepticism about the limitations of subgroup analysis, you will eventually get fooled. And the problem with vitamin C research is I think a lot of very smart people have gotten fooled on this because they're like, well, overall the data is negative, but if we slice it up, we can find something that's positive. So maybe there's something here. And the number of people who have fallen in that trap over the years is unfortunately quite high.Eric Topol (10:10):No, and it's still happening and it is a famous subgroup story, but I just want to remind everybody that this was in the chapter on vitamin C and it's going into aspirin and subgroups. So each one of these chapters is not confined to the myth. They go into all sorts of other teaching examples in a humorous and fun way through conversations. Here it was with Jim on the plane. Now another one you mentioned, I forgot about this one. In the British Medical Journal, there was a paper, the Miracle of DICE Therapy.Christopher Labos (10:45):Miracle of DICE Therapy. Yeah, that's another brilliant one, because again, you couldn't do a study like this today, but basically for people who aren't aware of the paper, I mean, I think it was published in the Christmas issue. So again, just to show you how sometimes even in medical science, the humor is really, really effective. So what researchers did was they went to this neurology conference and they got all the people to participate in this live study, and they gave them dice and said, you're going to roll these dice. And they had white, red, and green dice and said, the exercise is for all of you to roll this dice and then analyze the data and tell us which color dice is off which one has been weighted. Because if you roll a one, two, three, four, or five, the patient has survived their stroke. If they roll a six, the patient died of their stroke.(11:33):So you go, you roll these dice dozens of times, generate your data. I mean, what we would do today with a random number generator but they were rolling dice. And they said, you figure out which of these dice is skewed. And so, the people at the conference went, they rolled their dice, they crunched their data, and they said, the red dice are skewed. There's a difference between the red dice and the white and green dice. And then the researchers revealed aha jokes on you. All the dice were the same. And the funniest part about that is that a lot of the people in the room didn't believe them. They refused to believe them that the dice were weighted because, and one of my favorite quotes was when student A refused to believe that his days were really loaded, he rolled one six and then a second and then a third, and he said, the room felt eerily quiet as he rolled a fourth six.(12:25):He had never rolled four sixes in a row in his life. And if you're there, I mean, yeah, you're going to be like, how do you doubt the power of your own eyes? You roll four sixes in a row, you think to yourself, gee, this must be the loaded dice. But that thing would happen. You put enough people in a room rolling enough dice, you will eventually get four sixes in a row in the same way that if you put enough monkeys in front of enough typewriters, eventually you're going to get all the works of William Shakespeare. So it's shocking how much our own human biases make us immune to the realization that random things are going to happen. And there was another, I think there was a quote in that paper too, where doctors are very willing to admit that chance affects whether they win a raffle, but they are surprisingly unwilling to admit that chance can affect the results of their medical research. And we don't appreciate it, even though, I mean, the reality is it happens all the time and we don't take the necessary steps to fix it sometimes and to address it, and we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.Eric Topol (13:32):Yeah, no, that's a great paper to illustrate. Again, a lot of important teaching points. Now as we get into the coffee, does it cause cancer? It brings up another theme in the book that I noticed. What you do is you pick up on papers or broadcasts that were decades ago that have become inculcated in our minds and our thoughts. And in this case, it was a famous New England Journal paper in 1981 raising the question about does coffee, if you drink too much coffee is that a risk factor for pancreatic cancer? So maybe you could take us through that, and somehow that gets into the NBA, it gets into H. pylori for ulcer. I mean, but maybe you could help get us through this coffee and cancer story.Christopher Labos (14:23):Yeah, I mean, well, and it's still happening isn't it, right? In 2018 in California, coffee was declared a carcinogen after that court case. I mean, it was ultimately overturned. So I sort of explained that saga in the chapter as well. And of course, we're going through it now with the decaf coffee, right? There are people trying to petition the FDA to get methylene chloride removed from decaf coffee, even though, I mean, I'm fairly dubious that that's a real significant risk factor in the grand scheme of things. And I was a little bit sort of worried when we were trying to pick a title for the books. I was like, are people going to think this is absurd? Are people going to think this is a pseudoscience book? And I was a little bit worried because people are not going to, they're going to think, oh, this is silly.(15:03):Obviously, coffee doesn't cause cancer, and yet we still talk about it. And so, I mean, the 1981 paper just to sort of go way, way back, and this was not a nothing paper. This was in the New England Journal of Medicine with some of heavyweights in the field of epidemiology. And I don't want to discount what these people did. They have more illustrious careers than I will ever have in the field of epidemiology. But this one paper, they made a mistake. What they did was they went around to the local area hospitals, recruited all the patients with pancreatic cancer, recruited controls from the same hospital, and then gave them questionnaires about what they ate, what they drank, how much they smoked, fairly standard stuff. And so, when they were analyzing the data, they saw some associations with tobacco and alcohol, but they saw this really strong association with cancer where the patients who drank a lot of coffee had a near tripling of their risk of pancreatic cancer.(16:02):And so, this made headlines, I mean, this was in all the major US newspapers of the time, interviews people were like, well, maybe we should stop drinking coffee. And they pointed to the Amish and other groups that don't drink coffee and have very low rates of cancer. And what was critical in the critical mistake that they made, which is now taught in intro epidemiology classes we know about it, is that if you pick hospital patients as your control, you have a problem. And it's become so common that actually has a name now it's called Berkson's bias. But the problem with picking hospitalized controls is they are not the same as the general population. And in 1981, why were you going to be admitted to a gastrointestinal ward in a major US hospital? It was probably because you have peptic ulcer disease and you tell this to people now, and of course they have no living memory of this.(16:53):They've forgotten that we used to do partial gastrectomies to treat peptic ulcer disease, which is a shocking thing to say out loud. And then it gives you also the opportunity to teach people about H. pylori and everything that happened. And then the discovery and the famous case of the researcher drinking a broth of H. pylori to make himself sick and his wife having to drag him to the hospital throwing up every morning. And really how it changed the field of medicine because now we treat peptic ulcer disease with you eradicate H. pylori with two weeks of antibiotics, and we give people a proton pump inhibitor. But back in the day, the people who were in hospital had peptic ulcer disease and other gastrointestinal complaints because of those gastrointestinal issues. They didn't drink a lot of coffee because it would upset their stomach, because coffee can upset people's stomach a little bit.(17:48):And so, it wasn't that the pancreatic cancer patients drank more coffee, it's that the control group drank less, and that's why you saw that discrepancy. Whereas if you did the same study in the general population, which was subsequently done, you see no influence of coffee consumption. And so, it's a prime example of how selection bias can happen. And it's a seminal paper because it has become a teaching case, and it's become, for the most part, so well understood that most people are not going to make the same mistake again. And so, the point of highlighting these things is not to make fun of people, which is an unfortunate trend I've started to see online of people being very, very critical and dismissive of the publish research. Like, no, listen, this is how medicine is supposed to work. It's an evolution. We learn from our mistakes and we move on and we have to keep talking about these stories so that people don't make the mistake because choosing the right control group is important.(18:44):And so, that's sort of the message of that chapter because each chapter, you're right, it's about a food, but it's also about an epidemiological concept, be it p-hacking or selection bias or information bias or confounding or reverse causation. So I often joke that if you read this book each chapter, you will become very, very smart at dinner parties. You'll be able to figure out terms that no one's heard of before. They're like, Bob, I know you've heard that red wine is good for you, but are you familiar with the concept of reverse causation? And people are going to be very, very impressed with you and keep inviting you to dinner parties the rest of your life afterwards. So there you go. That's another reason to read the book.Eric Topol (19:20):Yeah, really. Well, I do want to get into the red wine story too, because it exemplifies this time instead of that New England Journal, this was a 60 Minutes segment in 1991, and then a paper, I guess I went along with that about how red wine is great to reduce heart disease. It still, here it is, what, 30 some years later, 34 years later. And people still believe this. They still think that red wine is preventing heart disease or reducing it. So can you set the record straight on that one?Christopher Labos (20:06):Yeah, listen, if you want to drink red wine, you can. I mean, I have nothing against red wine. I mean, I'm drunk right now. No, I'm not.Eric Topol (20:15):By the way, that chapter you were drinking wine with your friend, maybe imaginary friend Alex or Alexi. Anyway, yeah. So it was great to hear you are drinking red wine and you're talking to each other about all the cockamamie stuff about it.Christopher Labos (20:30):I mean, yeah, the thing, if you're going to do a story, if you're going to do a book chapter about red wine, I think one of the important things is to have two friends drinking at a conference. I mean, let's be honest, that's what usually happens. And so, throughout the evening, they're sitting there polishing off the wine, and then they go on almost a drunken pub crawl. Not quite, it's not quite that bad, but it was almost fun to sort of introduce that element to it of the story. But the red wine thing is fascinating. I get this a lot. I mean, I'm still practicing. I'm still seeing patients and patients come up. I've had, this is not rare, I have had patients literally come to me in clinic and say things like, doctor, my blood pressure is good. I'm checking it at home. I got my blood tests.(21:12):My cholesterol is good. I'm eating healthy, I'm exercising. But I find it really hard to drink two glasses of red wine every day. I just don't like red wine all that much. It's like, wow. No, please sir. Please, for the love of God, stop. It's still there. And what's fascinating is that if you ever go back and watch the 60 Minutes clip by today's standards, it's very weird. You go back and again, it was a product of its time. They were very, very focused on cheese and fat, which of course now we have a much more nuanced understanding about with regard to cholesterol. I mean, a lot of it's genetically mediated and all that, but you go back, it was partially about the red wine being good for you, but it was also there was this really strange subplot, if you will, where they were saying that milk was bad for you and that we should stop getting kids in the US to drink milk. And they thought that a lot of the cardiovascular risk in the US was attributed to the fact that children drink milk routinely, which again, weird by modern standards. Again, I was aware of the 60 Minutes story, but I'd never seen it and I hadn't seen it at the time. And going back to watch it, you're like, wow, that's odd. That's odd.(22:26):Again, this idea that, oh, we should be having kids drink wine at a young age. And it was like, really? Do we really want to start having our kids drink alcohol? I'm not so sure about that. It was weird stuff there. But again, it was all part of this French Paradox, which again was a product of its time in the eighties and nineties, this desire to really understand why was heart disease increasing so much in North America and our real failure to really get a handle on it. And with 30 years of hindsight, I think we're in a much better position now to understand why it was the residual effect of all that smoking. It was the residual effect of our more sedentary lifestyle that was starting to happen post World War II. And I think we've largely got a handle on most of those risk factors now.(23:13):But the red wine thing persists because I think people like drinking wine and there are not, what's the word I'm looking for, there is not a significant number of people who still believe this. And we had a change in guidelines up here in Canada where the amount of healthy drinking was really reduced down from 2 drinks a day to 1-2 drinks per week, and it caused a bit of a fury. And there was a local cardiologist here who was going on news and saying is like, I don't believe this, red wine is good for you. And I was a little bit taken a breath like, you're a senior cardiologist at a university hospital. You should not be saying stuff like this. And so, they actually had us on to have a debate, and I think they were expecting us to go at each other.Eric Topol (23:59):Oh, wow.Christopher Labos (24:00):And I was a little bit diplomatic because I've gotten used to this. I know how to bob and weave and avoid the punches. And then at the end, I think it was either me or the reporter asked him, he's like, so what do you tell your patients? And he was like, well, no, I do tell them to drink less because of the AFib risk and the blood pressure and the blood sugar. So I was like, well, you see, you're telling your patients to drink less alcohol for any number of reasons. And irrespective of the U-shaped associations, which is the main statistical argument of the chapter, there's a lot of other reasons to be wary of alcohol. I mean, I think we've proven pretty conclusively the AFib risk. There was that Australian study where if you get people to abstain, you decrease their AFib burden.(24:42):So a lot of sugar in alcohol, I mean the blood pressure and diabetes, there's a lot of reasons to not drink this particular sugary beverage and not to mention sort of the cancer associations too that we've seen as well. So it was an interesting thing to argue with him. But the point of the chapter was really to explain why do we see this U-shaped association? And I'll spoil the chapter for people. The statistical concept is called reverse causation. And that happens because it's not that abstaining from alcohol makes you sick. It's that people who are sick end up abstaining from alcohol. So if you have high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, AFib, cancer, you've probably been told don't drink alcohol. And so, if you do just a single cross-sectional study where you ask people, how much do you drink? And they say zero, you're probably identifying a high-risk population because most studies, most, not all, but many studies do not make the distinction between former drinkers and never drinkers. And there's a big difference between somebody who used to drink and then quit and somebody who never drank throughout their whole lives.Eric Topol (25:47):Yeah, no, it's great. And I think I just want to come back on that. I think Norway and several other countries are now putting on their alcohol products. This may cause cancer, and the American Cancer Society has put a warning on this. So the cancer story is still out there, but you also make among hundreds of important good points in the book about how these food diaries are notoriously inaccurate. And you already touched on that with the survey thing, but it's hard to get, we don't have randomized trials of people drink a lot or don't drink. You can't drink with adherence to that. So it's out there, and of course, people like to drink their wine, but there's a risk that I think has been consistent through many of these studies that is a bit worrisome. I don't know what you would, if you'd say it's conclusive or you'd say it's kind of unsettled.Christopher Labos (26:49):I mean, I think it's as settled as it's going to get because I don't see somebody doing a randomized controlled trial on this. And this is the problem. And there has been this trend recently for people to say, well, if there's no randomized controlled trials, I'm not going to believe it. You're like, okay, look, a fair point. And when you're talking about interventions and therapies, then yes, we should absolutely do randomized controlled trials. And I've made that point vociferously when it comes to vitamin D and a lot of the other stuff. The problem is it's going to be very, very hard to do a randomized controlled trial with alcohol. I mean, that was tried. It fell apart and it fell apart for many reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the alcohol industry seemed to be influencing what outcomes people were going to look at.(27:34):So that was problematic. I sort of mentioned it right at the tail end of the chapter as well. So if you're not going to have an NIH funded trial to look at in a randomized fashion, does alcohol effect atherosclerosis or cancer outcomes? You're not going to get it. No private industry is going to do it. You're not going to be able to get it done. So given that we have to live in the real world, and I'm always a firm argument in us basing ourselves in reality and living in the real world, we have to make the best decision we can with the evidence that we have available. And I would say, look, I'm pretty sure alcohol is not good for you. I think it is actually detrimental to your cardiovascular health overall. And I think we can say pretty definitively that any potential benefit that people think exists in terms of myocardial infarction, I think that's all a statistical artifact.(28:26):I think if you were to analyze it properly, it would all sort of vanish. And I think it largely does. And there's been some really interesting genetic studies using instrumental variables. So what the Mendelian randomization studies that really do suggest that there really is a linear relationship and that the more you drink, the worse it is. And there's no plateau, there's no floor, there's no J shaped curve. It really does appear to be linear. And I've been, I think, fairly convinced because I think the Mendelian randomization studies are as good as we're going to get on this issue.Eric Topol (29:01):No, I think it's an important point. And I think there again, the book will hold on so many of these things, but we keep learning all the time. And for example, going back to coffee, there's many studies now that suggest it will reduce type 2 diabetes, it will improve survival, cardiovascular, the mechanism is unknown. Do you think there's, so not only does coffee not cause cancer, but it actually may make you healthier. Any thoughts about that?Christopher Labos (29:35):Well, I can state, again, I'm ruining the book. I can state, I think fairly unequivocally coffee does not cause cancer. I think that is pretty clear. Even protective is harder, I think it's possible that a lot of the benefit that's been seen, because it is very observational, could just be the result of residual confounding. I think that is still possible. And again, we have to learn to live with uncertainty in medical research. And when we talk about Bayesian statistics, which is a subject I love, but probably outside of the topic for today, you have to be able to create a framework for what we're certain about and what we're uncertain about. So if you look at the spectrum of risk, clearly the risk ratio for coffee is not above 1. Is it below 1 or is it really straddling the null value? And I'm a little bit uncertain. I think if there is a benefit, it's probably small. I think a lot of it is residual confounding. The one point that would make though, if we're going to talk about coffee being beneficial, we have to talk about coffee. Not a lot of the stuff they are serving at coffee shops now, which are probably more akin to milkshakes than actual coffee.Eric Topol (30:52):Yeah, that's a really good point. Plus, the other thing is the spike of caffeine at much higher levels than you might have with a standard coffee that is typical, these Grande or super Grande, whatever they are. Now another, since we talked about things that people enjoy like coffee and wine, we have to touch on chocolate. The chapter was fun on chocolate, is it a health food and also about the Nobel Laureates. Can you enlighten us on that one?Christopher Labos (31:26):This is another, I mean, again, people are going to think that I hate the New England Journal of Medicine. I don't just, that they provided such great teaching material over the years. And to be fair, the study that we're going to talk about the Nobel Laureate chocolate study, I mean if you read it, it really feels like it was meant to be satire and it probably should have belonged in the BMJ Christmas issue. When you read it and you read the disclosure statement where the author is like, disclosure the author admits to loving chocolate, and you're like, okay, that's a weird thing to write in a serious article. So it was probably meant to be a satire. And when you read some of the interviews that Messerli had given afterwards, it does seem that he was trying to just make a point. But it seems to have taken off a life of its own.(32:10):What the study was, and it's again, first time I've ever seen a single author on a New England paper, which probably should have been a warning sign for people because generally New England papers don't have single authors on them. But basically, what he did was he was at a conference as the way the story goes, and he was thinking up this idea. So he went on the internet, went onto Wikipedia, and was basically looking up how many Nobel prizes have been won by various countries, looked up the average chocolate consumption on a variety of other websites and basically plotted out a regression line and showed this really linear association between average chocolate consumption per country and number of Nobel prizes per country with the suggested rules that if you eat chocolate, you'll win a Nobel Prize. Except, and notwithstanding all the jokes that came up later, there was another Nobel laureate, and I'm blanking on his name right now, there is in the book. When he was interviewed, he said something like, I believe this is true. Now, milk chocolate might be fine if you want a Nobel Prize in chemistry or medicine, but if you want a Nobel Prize in physics, it really does have to be dark chocolate.Christopher Labos (33:20):He said this to the Associated Press, the Associated Press took the quote and put it on the Newswire, and it got reprinted over and over again. And I think he had to publicly apologize to all the people at his university, which to me seemed ridiculous. He was obviously joking, and people took this study very, very seriously. The explanation for why this study is not true, there's actually a word for this, and it's called the ecological bias. And you have to remember something if you're going to look at chocolate and Nobel prizes and look at it in terms of country as the level of exposure, as the unit of exposure. Countries don't eat chocolate and countries don't win Nobel prizes. People eat chocolate and people eat Nobel prizes. And you can't show that the people eating the chocolate in Switzerland are the ones who are winning the Nobel Prizes.(34:10):Right. That's the point you can't show, and this is a humorous example, but we've made this type of mistake before when people were talking about saturated fats causing breast cancer. You can look at countries and show that countries that eat a lot of saturated fat have more breast cancer. But that's also because western countries with other basic differences are the countries where you eat a lot of saturated fats and where women develop higher rates of breast cancer. But that doesn't mean that the women who eat the saturated fats are the ones who get breast cancer. And so, the chocolate one is funny because again, it's exactly what you said. People like eating chocolate, so they want a reason to believe that it is good for you even when it isn't. And so, they will latch on to the cardiovascular benefits, which have frankly been disproved in the COSMOS study. They will latch on to the neurological, neurocognitive benefits, which have themselves been disproved. And what's fascinating about the whole story is that you would say, oh, we need a large randomized trial. Well, we had that, it was called the COSMOS study. It got published. I mean, maybe it happened during Covid, people didn't notice, but it got published. It was negative. That should have been the end of the story, and it's not, people still believe it.Eric Topol (35:23):Well, there's a lot of confirmation bias there, isn't there? Again, the thread through all the chapters is biases, all the different biases that come in play. And this one, knowing Franz Messerli, he's Swiss, so of course he'd want to, yeah, and he eats a lot of chocolate, by the way. And he also comes into play in the chapter you have on salt. It's really interesting. You have chapters on breakfast. Is it really the most important meal? Were there other chapters that you thought about putting in the book that you didn't wind up there, or if you were to write a second edition that you would add?Christopher Labos (36:01):I wanted to do a chapter on fish oils. Actually, there's a tweet that you did that I use in my teaching material, which is two days apart, fish oils are good for you, fish oils are bad for you. Because again, that's one of those things where it's just the cycle of all these studies showing no benefit, and yet there's one study that shows a thing and it just keeps coming back. And so yeah, fish oils would've definitely been one. If there is a sequel to this book, and I'm hoping to make a sequel to it.Eric Topol (36:30):You should, you should definitely.Christopher Labos (36:32):So fish oils is definitely going to be in there because there were originally going to be ten stories. There's only nine in the book. And because it got to the point where the publisher was like, this book is getting a little long, maybe we've got to wrap it up. Maybe it's time to land the plane. And I was like, okay, fair, fair. So we'll cut it at nine. So we had to drop the fish oil one, but that'll be in the sequel if there is a sequel, I want to do, I have a list. It's just off camera actually. I have a little notepad where I've been jotting down ideas. So like fish oils, artificial sweeteners, I'll throw MSG in there, which is a wild story for anybody who's ever dug into the history of MSG. It is a wild and borderline nonsensical story of why we believe that MSG might be bad for us.(37:14):Although, I mean, that was, again, very much a product of the eighties and the nineties. So yeah, there's a lot of stuff out there, but fish oil is definitely one that I want to tackle just because it's so relevant. And I still have patients coming in that are going to pharmacy and buying over the counter fish oil supplements. I have to tell them, it's like, look, the evidence on this is pretty clear. It doesn't help. If anything, maybe it slightly increases risk your AFib risk. There's some stuff there. So yeah, again, you could be easily tempted into thinking this is sort of frivolous and funny, but it actually has an implication for people's daily lives because the people out there walking around the street, they believe these things go stop a hundred random people.Eric Topol (37:59):Yeah, no, everything in this book is approaching things that are the dogma still, or at least uncertainty, and you get it straight. I mean, you're an epidemiologist as well as a cardiologist in your training, but you don't use that in a way that is trying to teach people. You're doing it really subtly. And then the other thing just to bring up is that obviously you're debunking all this stuff, and we live in a time where we got all this misinformation and blurred truths. I mean, that's one of the reasons why I pick Ground Truths for this podcast. But it's diminished or certainly challenged the role of physicians and scientists because things are not reliable. They're not constant. They're changing. You touched on that earlier, but can you address, I mean, one of the things besides communicating in a way that makes it easily understandable and fun, which you do so well, it's also addressing trust. How do we promote trust?Christopher Labos (39:10):I think you have to, yeah, that's a really challenging question because I think the old model is not going to work anymore. The model of issuing a guideline statement to be like, this is the truth, people will just ignore it because we have issued new guidelines on alcohol consumption. It didn't change behavior. If you want to get people to drink less, you have to address the underlying reason why they do it, and it's this persistent myth. So I think one of the reasons why pseudoscience succeeds as much as it does is because so much of their communication is about storytelling. You can go at people with these large randomized control trials, and yet they will still latch onto an anecdote, right? Because, oh, my friend Bobby had a bad side effect with the Covid vaccine. That's why I'm not getting vaccinated. And so, storytelling is a really, really powerful tool.(40:05):And I think the reason why I thought this type of book format could work is it's a story. Because even if you don't remember the details, I was at a lecture last night and I was speaking to a dermatology friend of mine, which sounds like it's an episode from the book, but it's not. But I was speaking to a dermatology friend of mine, and he had read it. He says, Chris, I read it. I really liked it. He goes, I don't remember a lot of the examples you put up. He is a busy guy. He's got young kids. He read the book, and I was giving a lecture based on this book and exploring all of these concepts. And he was like, I remember when you started talking about the aspirin. I couldn't remember what the example was, but I remembered your point that it's all about subgroups.(40:47):And that's the thing is that even if people don't remember the details, even if people don't remember the New England paper about coughing pancreatic cancer, even if they don't remember the COSMOS study about chocolate, even if they don't remember the Nobel chocolate association, they will remember the take home message, which is that you have to be careful. If somebody is torturing the data, they understand why publication bias is a real problem. So that's the point, is that if you tell a story, it sticks in people's minds. So it's almost very Socratic in a way. If you ever read Plato, he's not writing a philosophical treatise in the same way that other philosophers do. It's a conversation between Socrates and other people, and it's a very one-sided conversation because Socrates is telling everybody why they're wrong. So I tried to sort of nuance that and improve upon that framework, but you take away the general gist of it, and that's what we need to give to people.(41:48):We need to tell them, we need to give them the tool so that they can say it's like, oh, well wait a second. You're telling me that broccoli is going to prevent pancreatic cancer? Was this a food questionnaire thing? And you're giving people that little bit of background knowledge that they can ask intelligent questions. And I think that's what we have to do going forward, because we have to introduce that little bit of skepticism into their thought process so that they can question what they see on the internet. Because the reality is a lot of what they see on the internet is going to be wrong because it's clickbait, it's headlines, it's all the issues that we have with our modern communication strategies.Eric Topol (42:31):Yeah. Well, I think storytelling and what you just described is so darn important. And so, just to wrap up this book, Does Coffee Cause Cancer?: And 8 More Myths about the Food We Eat is much more than what that title says. I hope you're going to do a sequel. You ought to have a Netflix special.Christopher Labos (42:54):Please tell somebody that, I don't how to get a Netflix special, but use your clout and make it happen, and I'll invite you over for dinner.Eric Topol (43:01):Sounds good. We'll have red wine together, and drink a lot of decaffeinated coffee. No, this has been fun. You've definitely had an impact. And I hope everybody takes a chance to get through this book because it's like a novel. A novel, which is somehow you've floated in all this really important stuff in medicine, both content, how to interpret data, how to interpret papers, statistics, somehow invisibly in a novel. You've got it all in there. So congratulations on that. It's a new genre medical book like I've never seen before. And so, we'll be following all your next works, and I'm sure your podcast Body of Evidence must be something along these lines as well. So I'll have to take a look and listen to that too.Christopher Labos (43:56):Thank you so much. That is very, very, you have no idea how much it means to me to hear you say something like that, that has warmed the cockles of my heart.Eric Topol (44:07):Alright, well Chris, thank you.***********************Thanks for listening, reading or watching!The Ground Truths newsletters and podcasts are all free, open-access, without ads.Please share this post/podcast with your friends and network if you found it informativeVoluntary paid subscriptions all go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks for that—they greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for 2023 and 2024.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note: you can select preferences to receive emails about newsletters, podcasts, or all I don't want to bother you with an email for content that you're not interested in. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Kate Schroder joined Interact for Health as its fourth President and CEO in January 2022. In this role, she works with Interact for Health's staff and board to provide leadership, direction, and vision to the organization and to develop strategies to address some of the most pressing health needs in Greater Cincinnati. A native of Cincinnati, Kate has experience leading health initiatives locally and internationally. Prior to joining Interact for Health, she oversaw a regional collaborative effort to increase COVID-19 vaccination throughout 14 counties in Greater Cincinnati and to address disparities in vaccination rates while working at The Health Collaborative.In 2020, Kate was a candidate for Congress in Ohio's 1st District, running on a platform to expand access to affordable health care and economic mobility. For 12 years before that, she held various leadership roles with the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a 1,400-person organization spanning 35 countries. As a Vice President leading child health programs, she helped reduce drug prices by 40% and increased the number of children receiving correct treatment by 50 million in four focus countries: India, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. She led teams with 75 staff members and budgets of more than $80 million.Kate holds a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Indiana University and a Master of Business Administration from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Results from her work to reduce childhood mortality and to strengthen health systems in low-resource settings have been published in several academic journals, including the British Medical Journal and The Lancet.In 2011, Kate was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma, an experience that she says helps fuel her passion for improving health care—knowing firsthand what it feels like when one's survival is dependent on access to quality care. She remains active in patient advocacy and helping to support research as a member of the Executive Leadership Committee of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.Kate and her husband, John Juech, live in Cincinnati with their two children. She is active in community and civic affairs and served on the Cincinnati Board of Health from 2016 to 2022. Outside of the office, she coaches youth soccer and concentrates her service around her passions for health, children, education, and building stronger communities. She serves on the boards for the Cincinnati State Foundation and OneNKY Alliance and the advisory board for the NKU Institute for Health Innovation.

The New York Times, the UK Daily Telegraph and the British Medical Journal are just some (if not the most prominent) publications to adjust their thinking and publication regarding the effect of Covid vaccinations. Guy Hatchard of the Hatchard Report has been one step ahead. It's a fascinating and informative interview, especially considering what is yet to come. We reference David Bell's “Bird Flu, Fear, and Perverse Incentives”, and we visit The Mailroom with Mrs Producer. File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide. Listen here on iHeartRadio Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:To subscribe via iTunes click here See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

La danse est un art vivant et une activité physique bénéfique pour la santé. Tonifier son corps, entretenir sa santé cardiaque ou encore travailler sa mémoire sont des bienfaits déjà connus. Une étude récente, publiée dans le British Medical Journal, lui attribue en outre des effets antidépresseurs. La danse-thérapie est par exemple aujourd'hui pratiquée comme soin de support, dans le cadre de la prise en charge de pathologies sévères ou chroniques.  Comment cette activité physique agit-elle sur notre cerveau ? Comment la danse participe-t-elle à restaurer l'estime de soi ? Pourquoi la danse est-elle plus efficace que d'autres sports ?   Dr Emmanuel Monneron, psychiatre, danseur, responsable du Centre d'activités thérapeutiques à temps partiel (CATTP) du pôle centre à l'Hôpital Le Vinatier de Lyon, et à l'initiative du projet « danse et santé mentale » en collaboration avec la maison de la danse à Lyon.  Aude Michon, danseuse, chorégraphe, professeure de danse et fondatrice de « Elles Dansent », des cours de danse pour personnes atteintes de cancer.   Reportage de Louise Caledec dans un cours de danse adaptée donné par Aude Michon, auprès de patientes atteintes de cancers gynécologiques et du sein, à l'Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou AP-HP.   ► En fin d'émission, le Pr Laure Michel, neurologue et coordinatrice du réseau FCRIN4MS, nous parlera des avancées de la recherche sur la sclérose en plaques, à l'occasion de la journée mondiale de sensibilisation à cette maladie.Programmation musicale :► Elida Almeida – Estanhadinha► Frank Reyes -Duele.

La danse est un art vivant et une activité physique bénéfique pour la santé. Tonifier son corps, entretenir sa santé cardiaque ou encore travailler sa mémoire sont des bienfaits déjà connus. Une étude récente, publiée dans le British Medical Journal, lui attribue en outre des effets antidépresseurs. La danse-thérapie est par exemple aujourd'hui pratiquée comme soin de support, dans le cadre de la prise en charge de pathologies sévères ou chroniques.  Comment cette activité physique agit-elle sur notre cerveau ? Comment la danse participe-t-elle à restaurer l'estime de soi ? Pourquoi la danse est-elle plus efficace que d'autres sports ?   Dr Emmanuel Monneron, psychiatre, danseur, responsable du Centre d'activités thérapeutiques à temps partiel (CATTP) du pôle centre à l'Hôpital Le Vinatier de Lyon, et à l'initiative du projet « danse et santé mentale » en collaboration avec la maison de la danse à Lyon.  Aude Michon, danseuse, chorégraphe, professeure de danse et fondatrice de « Elles Dansent », des cours de danse pour personnes atteintes de cancer.   Reportage de Louise Caledec dans un cours de danse adaptée donné par Aude Michon, auprès de patientes atteintes de cancers gynécologiques et du sein, à l'Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou AP-HP.   ► En fin d'émission, le Pr Laure Michel, neurologue et coordinatrice du réseau FCRIN4MS, nous parlera des avancées de la recherche sur la sclérose en plaques, à l'occasion de la journée mondiale de sensibilisation à cette maladie.Programmation musicale :► Elida Almeida – Estanhadinha► Frank Reyes -Duele.

In this episode of The Metabolic Classroom, Dr. Ben Bikman challenges the traditional view that saturated fats are the primary cause of atherosclerotic plaques and heart disease. He asserts that while plaques, or atheromas, in coronary arteries are composed partly of fats and foam cells, the exact process of plaque formation remains speculative. Dr. Bikman emphasizes that anyone claiming to know the definitive cause of plaque formation is likely overstating their knowledge. Foam cells, which are fat-laden macrophages, play a critical role in plaque development and are consistently present at the sites of these plaques.Dr. Bikman explains that inflammation is a significant factor in atherosclerosis, and C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation, is a better predictor of heart disease than LDL cholesterol. He describes how macrophages engulf oxidized LDL cholesterol, turning into foam cells and secreting pro-inflammatory proteins like CRP. This process is driven by the presence of oxidized lipids, particularly those derived from omega-6 polyunsaturated fats such as linoleic acid, which are prevalent in modern diets due to the widespread use of vegetable oils.Ben highlights several studies to support his argument. A notable study from 1979 by Brown and Goldstein showed that macrophages only consume LDL cholesterol when it is oxidized, not in its native form. Another study from 1998 found that oxidized LDL containing specific bioactive lipids, nine and 13 HODE, is particularly problematic. These oxidized lipids are derived from linoleic acid, not from saturated or monounsaturated fats. Moreover, historical dietary studies, such as the Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Diet Heart Study, revealed that participants consuming more polyunsaturated fats had higher mortality rates than those consuming saturated fats.To conclude, Dr. Bikman argues that the traditional belief that saturated fat causes heart disease is flawed. He points out that recent studies, including a correlational study published in the British Medical Journal, show that refined grains, not saturated fats, are more strongly linked to heart disease and overall mortality. He suggests that the real dietary culprit is the overconsumption of omega-6 polyunsaturated fats, particularly linoleic acid, found in processed foods. This shift in perspective underscores the importance of reevaluating dietary guidelines and focusing on the types of fats consumed.#HeartHealth #SaturatedFat #Atherosclerosis #Inflammation #InsulinResistance #LDLCholesterol #OxidizedLDL #FoamCells #Macrophages #BenBikman #MetabolicHealth #CholesterolMyths #LinoleicAcid #PolyunsaturatedFats #DietaryFats #CardiovascularResearchStudies referenced:Binding Site on Macrophages that Mediates Uptake in Degradation by Brown and Goldstein (1979): https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/46/6/829/5641219 Oxidized LDL Regulates Macrophage Gene Expression (1998): You can find more details on this study in resources like ScienceDirect and Cell Journal (you may need specific access or subscriptions to retrieve full texts).Strong Increase in Hydroxy Fatty Acids Derived from Linoleic Acid in Human Low-Density Lipoproteins of Atherosclerotic Patients (1998): https://www.sciencegate.app/document/10.1016/s0009-3084(97)00095-9 Learn more: https://www.insuliniq.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After studying with Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell in New York, Sophia Jex-Blake moved back to England when her father died. But her determination to get a medical education in the U.K. turned her into an education activist. Research: Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Sophia Louisa Jex-Blake". Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sophia-Louisa-Jex-Blake Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Elizabeth Garrett Anderson". Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-Garrett-Anderson Drysdale, Neil. “UK's first female students posthumously awarded their medical degrees in Edinburgh.” The Press and Journal. July 6, 2019. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/1790307/uks-first-female-students-posthumously-awarded-their-medical-degrees-in-edinburgh/ Edmunds, Percy James. “The Origin Of The London School Of Medicine For Women.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 2620, 1911, pp. 659–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25285883. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024. Campbell, Olivia. “The Queer Victorian Doctors Who Paved the Way for Women in Medicine.” History. June 1, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/queer-victorian-doctors-women-medicine Jex-Blake, Sophia. “Medical Women.” Edinburgh. WILLIAM OLIPHANT & Co. 1872. Accessed online: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52297/52297-h/52297-h.htm Kelly, Laura, Dr. “The 1896 ‘Enabling Act.'” Women's Museum of Ireland. https://www.womensmuseumofireland.ie/exhibits/1876-enabling-act “Life of Sophia Jex-Blake.” Somerset Standard. July 26, 1918. https://www.newspapers.com/image/806751302/?match=1&terms=sophia%20jex-blake Lutzker, Edythe. “Women Gain a Place in Medicine.” New York. McGraw-Hill. 1969. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/womengainplacein00lutz/page/n1/mode/2up Ogilve, Marilyn Bailey. “Women in Science.” MIT Press. 1986. “Sophia Jex-Blake.” Birmingham Post. Jan. 20, 1940. https://www.newspapers.com/image/784125734/?match=1&terms=sophia%20jex-blake “Sophia Jex-Blake and the Edinburgh Seven.” University of Edinburgh. Jan. 23, 2024. https://www.ed.ac.uk/medicine-vet-medicine/about/history/women/sophia-jex-blake-and-the-edinburgh-seven Todd, Margaret. “The Life of Sophia Jex-Blake.” Macmillan. 1918. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Learn how what you eat affects how you feel.Related listening:  How Food Affects Mood (Part 1) (Nutrition Diva #282)How Food Affects Mood (Part 2) (Nutrition Diva #283)A provocative new study on ultra-processed foods (Nutrition Diva #735)We need a better way to define ultra-processed food (Nutrition Diva #757 BONUS)Research references:Ketogenic Diet Intervention on Metabolic and Psychiatric Health in Bipolar and Schizophrenia: A Pilot Trial | Psychiatry Research | Volume 335, May 2024 (sciencedirect.com)Association of Western and traditional diets with depression and anxiety in women | National Library of Medicine | Epub 2010 Jan 4 (nih.gov)Vegetarianism and mental health: Evidence from the 1970 British Cohort Study | National Library of Medicine | Epub 2024 Jan 24 (nih.gov)Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses | British Medical Journal | 28 February 2024 (bmj.com)Omega-3 Fatty Acids Supplementation in the Treatment of Depression: An Observational Study | Neuromodulation in the Clinical Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders | 27 January 2023 (mdpi.com)Nutrition and mental health: A review of current knowledge about the impact of diet on mental health | Nutrition, Psychology and Brain Health | 22 August 2022 (frontiersin.org) Nutrition Diva is hosted by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN. Transcripts are available at Simplecast.Have a nutrition question? Send an email to nutrition@quickanddirtytips.com or leave a voicemail at 443-961-6206.Follow Nutrition Diva on Facebook and subscribe to the newsletter for more diet and nutrition tips. Find Monica's blog and other programs at Nutrition Over Easy. Nutrition Diva is a part of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcast network. LINKS:Transcripts: https://nutrition-diva.simplecast.com/episodes/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/QDTNutrition/Newsletter: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/nutrition-diva-newsletterNutrition Over Easy: https://nutritionovereasy.comQuick and Dirty Tips: https://quickanddirtytipscom

Sophia Jex-Blake was a young English woman who initially pursued a career in teaching before she fell in love with medicine while visiting the U.S. Part one covers the early part of her life and education. Research: Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Sophia Louisa Jex-Blake." Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sophia-Louisa-Jex-Blake Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Elizabeth Garrett Anderson." Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-Garrett-Anderson Drysdale, Neil. “UK's first female students posthumously awarded their medical degrees in Edinburgh.” The Press and Journal. July 6, 2019. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/1790307/uks-first-female-students-posthumously-awarded-their-medical-degrees-in-edinburgh/ Edmunds, Percy James. “The Origin Of The London School Of Medicine For Women.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 2620, 1911, pp. 659–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25285883. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024. Campbell, Olivia. “The Queer Victorian Doctors Who Paved the Way for Women in Medicine.” History. June 1, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/queer-victorian-doctors-women-medicine Jex-Blake, Sophia. “Medical Women.” Edinburgh. WILLIAM OLIPHANT & Co. 1872. Accessed online: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52297/52297-h/52297-h.htm Kelly, Laura, Dr. “The 1896 ‘Enabling Act.'” Women's Museum of Ireland. https://www.womensmuseumofireland.ie/exhibits/1876-enabling-act “Life of Sophia Jex-Blake.” Somerset Standard. July 26, 1918. https://www.newspapers.com/image/806751302/?match=1&terms=sophia%20jex-blake Lutzker, Edythe. “Women Gain a Place in Medicine.” New York. McGraw-Hill. 1969. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/womengainplacein00lutz/page/n1/mode/2up Ogilve, Marilyn Bailey. “Women in Science.” MIT Press. 1986. “Sophia Jex-Blake.” Birmingham Post. Jan. 20, 1940. https://www.newspapers.com/image/784125734/?match=1&terms=sophia%20jex-blake “Sophia Jex-Blake and the Edinburgh Seven.” University of Edinburgh. Jan. 23, 2024. https://www.ed.ac.uk/medicine-vet-medicine/about/history/women/sophia-jex-blake-and-the-edinburgh-seven Todd, Margaret. “The Life of Sophia Jex-Blake.” Macmillan. 1918. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's Friday, May 10th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Muslims attacked praying Catholic students On Sunday, May 5th, two young women were slightly wounded when a mob of Muslims assaulted a group of 15 Catholic students who were praying at a rented house in Banten Province, on the Indonesian island of Java, reports Morning Star News. Enraged at the Catholic group praying in a home rather than in a church building, the local neighborhood head incited area Muslims to break up the meeting and injure the two female students in a suburb of Jakarta at about 7:30 p.m. Some of the assailants were reportedly armed with long machetes, sickles, knives, and blocks. One of the young women suffered a slight wound near her nose while another sustained a minor wound in the stomach, in spite of efforts by some local Muslims to protect them. The conflict began when the leader, identified as Diding, peeped into the house where the students were praying, and then intruded in, confronting the students for prayer, and ultimately dispersing them. Chicago Teachers Union demanding abortion coverage, gender-neutral bathrooms The Chicago Teachers Union is demanding $50 billion in its contract negotiations to pay for a 9% wage increase, abortions, illegal immigrant services and "gender-neutral bathrooms" for every school district, according to leaked documents, reports The Christian Post. Earlier this year, local news outlet WLS reported that Chicago teachers requested $2,000 for each of the 5,000 illegal immigrant students recently enrolled in the district, including more bilingual teachers and full tuition coverage for teachers to obtain a bilingual certificate. The list of demands also included a series of sexual perversion provisions, with the Chicago Teachers Union calling for every school in the district to have at least one "gender-neutral restroom" and annual homosexual/transgender training for educators. No wonder the number of homeschooled children continues to skyrocket. Student newspaper: "Hitler's got some good ideas." The student newspaper at McClatchy High School in Sacramento, California is facing a big time controversy. The Prospector student newspaper published an anonymous quote in the most recent edition praising Adolf Hitler.  A student said, “Hitler's got some good ideas.” It was part of a story about “weird things” overheard in the school's hallways, reports CBS News. The student staff later posted a statement saying the quote did not reflect their ideals or beliefs. But they were glad it sparked a conversation on how students choose their words. The principal fired off a message to families saying the newspaper's actions were “deeply offensive.” And the newspaper's faculty adviser has been placed on paid leave, which angered journalists across the state. Steve O'Donoghue, director of the California Scholastic Journalism Initiative, said, “They have the right to print it. They're not advocating for it, they're just quoting what a student said.” Christian talk show host Todd Starnes wrote, “It's worth noting that a recent survey showed that 63 percent of Millennials and Generation Z did not know that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That's what happens when public schools whitewash history. The kids are ignorant of great atrocities in world history and the next thing you know – the McClatchy High School student newspaper is singing Hitler's praises.” Ultra-processed food leads to weight gain, heart issues, & depression Research published in The British Medical Journal shows that eating a lot of ultra-processed foods such as sugary cereals, frozen meals, and sodas has been linked to poor mental health and a greater risk of dying from heart issues, reports The Telegraph. Ultra-processed foods are usually higher in fat, sugar and salt and contain chemicals, colorings, sweeteners and preservatives that extend shelf life. And thanks to Dr. Chris van Tulleken, author of the bestselling book Ultra-Processed People: The Science Behind Food That Isn't Food, it's a term now popping up everywhere. Dr. van Tulleken explains that ultra-processed foods are not only “high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar, but these ingredients have been combined into industrial products with exotic additives, which can't really be described as food. They're ultra-processed foods, a set of edible substances that are addictive for many and which are now linked to weight gain, early death and, yes – depression.” In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, the Apostle Paul asked, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, Who is in you, Whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your bodies.” Hero saves 11-month-old baby from blazing fire And finally, an Ohio man is being hailed a hero after risking his life to save an 11-month-old baby trapped inside a burning home, reports FaithWire.com. John Stickovich, age 62, was on his way to work at the time and jumped out of the car after he saw smoke billowing out from a house. STICKOVICH: “The mother was sitting on the tree lawn with her one baby.  I asked her if she was all right and she said, ‘My baby is still in the house.'” He told WJW-TV that he repeatedly went inside the house to try to find the baby in the haze of smoke and fire. Emergency workers were not yet on the scene, so he acted fast. He crawled through an open door into the kitchen and started searching for the child. At first, Stickovich couldn't find the baby, so he went back outside to ask the mother for guidance. STICKOVICH: “Came back out, asked her where the baby way. She told me: ‘Next to the kitchen, by the baby gate.'” Then, he bravely entered the inferno once again. STICKOVICH: “It was getting so bad in there, I was getting ready to leave actually. And then the baby cried or made a sound. You know, I'm thinking to myself: ‘The baby is right here.” So, I just lurched forward and my arm went across his leg, I grabbed him by the leg, and we were both out.” Firefighters, who said the home was fully engulfed in the inferno by the time they arrived, are now dubbing Stickovich a hero and crediting him for saving the baby's life. The man was simply grateful he was able to assist. STICKOVICH: “I feel wonderful that I could save the baby. That mother doesn't have to mourn her baby. That baby gets to live today. I mean I would do it for anybody — it doesn't matter. And I would hope that somebody would do it for me.” John 15:13 says, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Or, in this case, for a complete stranger who happens to be 11 months old. Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Friday, May 10th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The Cass Review is an independent report on the state of gender identity services for under-18s in England's NHS.It found children had been let down by a lack of research and "remarkably weak" evidence on medical interventions in gender care.But before it was even released, claims were circulating online that it ignored 98% of the evidence in reaching its conclusion. Is that claim true?We speak to Dr Hilary Cass, the author of the review, Professor Catherine Hewitt of York University, who analysed the scientific research, and Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief of the British Medical Journal.Presenter: Kate Lamble Producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound Mix: James Beard Editor: Richard Vadon

Conscious Caregiving with L & L is "Tackling the Tough Conversations."   The topic of this episode is on "Compassion, Kindness, & Seniors" and features an All-Star Panel. Stephen G. Post, Ph.D. Post's most recent book is Dignity for Deeply Forgetful People: How Caregivers Can Meet the Challenges of Alzheimer's Disease (Johns Hopkins University Press, May 2022). His work on caregiver ethics and spirituality has been supported by grants from the NIH National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Mental Health, as well as the Human Genome Institute. His writing and advocacy are recognized as the baseline for national ethics guidelines in dementia care in the United States, Canada and Japan, among others. Post's book The Moral Challenge of Alzheimer's Disease (Johns Hopkins University Press) was designated a “medical classic of the 20th century” by the British Medical Journal (2009), whose editors wrote, “Until this pioneering work was published in 1995 the ethical aspects of one of the most important illnesses of our aging populations were a neglected topic.” Post is recipient of the Alzheimer's Association national distinguished service award “in recognition of personal and professional outreach to the Alzheimer's Association Chapters on ethics issues important to people with Alzheimer's and their families.”   Loretta Woodward Veney: Loretta Woodward Veney is an inspirational speaker and certified LEGO® Serious Play® facilitator who offers a wealth of information, encouragement, and humor to her audiences. Loretta is the author of Being My Mom's Mom, Refreshment for the Caregiver's Spirit, and Colors Flowing from My Mind.  Kim Hamer: Kim is the author of "100 Acts of Love: A Girlfriend's Guide to Loving Your Friend Through Cancer or Loss," an invaluable must-have life guide offering practical tips to support employees or friends experiencing life's little “hiccups.” As a captivating speaker, Kim's stories empower audiences to navigate the complexities of life, fostering a culture of compassion and resilience in both personal and professional spheres.  Cyndy Luzinski: Cyndy Hunt Luzinski is an advanced practice nurse with a nursing background which ranges from critical care to community case management. In honor of her dad who experienced dementia, she founded and serves as executive director of Dementia Together, a nonprofit organization in Northern Colorado which offers education, enrichment, and hope, while cultivating joy and building stronger connections for people living with dementia, their care partners, and the community. As the first SPECAL (pronounced “speckle”) practitioner in North America, Cyndy is leading the way to share the simple, positive, UK-originated SPECAL Method with anyone who wants to learn how to make living well with dementia the expectation, not the exception.  Lance A. Slatton and Lori La Bey thank you for joining them for another episode of Conscious Caregiving with L & L where they are "Tackling the Tough Conversations" Visit Lori La Bey's Official Website: https://www.alzheimersspeaks.com Visit Lance A. Slatton's Official Website:  https://www.lanceaslatton.com Visit All Home Care Matters' Official Website:  https://www.allhomecarematters.com

They celebrate the season a little differently down at The British Medical Journal. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/theconstant and get on your way to being your best self. Want a month trial of Shopify for just a dollar? Grab it here! Visit our Patreon here. You too can get ad-free, early episodes, starting now!​​ BUY OUR MERCH, YOU FILTHY ANIMALS! The Constant is part of the Airwave Media podcast network.​​ ​​Interested in advertising on The Constant? Email sales@advertisecast.com to get on board! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An investigation was published recently in the British Medical Journal that outlined how Pfizer failed to disclose to pregnant women the risks that were potentially present in their vaccine trials.