Podcasts about co leader

Doug McHoney (PwC's International Tax Services Global Leader) is joined by Pat Brown, an international tax partner and Co-Leader of PwC's Washington National Tax Services practice and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the US Treasury. In part three of Doug's three-part OBBBA discussion with Pat, they discuss the newly enacted OB3 reconciliation law, focusing on its permanent corporate and individual tax provisions, the recalibration of bonus depreciation, Section 174 expensing and Section 163(j); the Senate's redesign of GILTI, FDII and BEAT; Inflation Reduction Act rollbacks; Treasury's last-minute removal of Section 899; and the G7's surprise accord intended to exempt US-parented groups from Pillar Two's IIR and UTPR while elevating QDMTTs and compliance simplification. They map the procedural and legislative steps still needed, potential timing gaps, and why multinational groups must keep Pillar Two compliance front-of-mind.  

Doug McHoney (PwC's International Tax Services Global Leader) is joined on June 24, 2025, by Pat Brown, an International Tax Partner and Co-Leader of PwC's Washington National Tax Services practice. Pat previously served as the US Treasury's Deputy International Tax Counsel and has been a frequent guest on the podcast. Doug and Pat start where they left off discussing 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OB3), in wake of the US Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Substitute Amendment. They discuss the next steps in the legislative timeline including the impending July 4th deadline, the impact of the Byrd rule, as well as the many changes to both the business and international provisions. They focus on the major changes to Section 899, global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), foreign derived intangible income (FDII), and the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT).  

JCO PO author Dr. Philip Philip at Henry Ford Cancer Institute and Wayne State University shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing Into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Philip discuss how prospective trials are required to clarify the role of ctDNA as a valid surrogate end point for progression-free or overall survival in GI cancers. Transcript Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Philip Philip, Chair of Hematology and Oncology, as well as leader of GI and Neuroendocrine Oncology. He's also the Professor of Oncology and Pharmacology, as well as Co-Leader of the Pancreatic Cancer Program and Medical Director of the Cancer Clinical Trial and Translational Research Office at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute at Wayne State University. Dr. Philip is also the Senior Corresponding Author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled, "Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Philip, welcome to our podcast, and thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Philip Philip: Thank you so much, Dr. Naqash, for providing me this opportunity to be discussing this with you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: This is a very timely and interesting topic. We've done a couple of podcasts on ctDNA before, but none that is an opinion piece or a guidance piece based on what you guys have done. Could you tell us what led to this perspective piece or guidance manuscript being published? There is some background to this. Could you tell us, for the sake of our listeners, what was the initial thought process of why you all wanted to do this? Dr. Philip Philip: The major reason for this was the fact that investigators were considering using ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Obviously, you hear my focus will be on gastrointestinal cancers. So, the idea was, can we use ctDNA instead of using the traditional endpoints such as disease-free survival, progression-free survival, or overall survival? And the question was, do we have enough data to support that in patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Now, the article obviously goes over some review of the data available, but the core of the article was not to do a comprehensive review of ctDNA use and the evidence so far, although we used that in really putting our recommendations. So, we really had to evaluate available data. But the focus was, what are the gaps? What do we need to do? And are we ready to use ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials? Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us that background. Obviously, a very broad, complicated topic with a bunch of emerging data that you've highlighted. But most importantly, for the sake of, again, trainees and listeners, could you help us understand the difference between tumor-informed and non-tumor-based ctDNA assessments? Dr. Philip Philip: Sure. So, the tumor-informed is simply meaning that you're taking the genomic makeup or the DNA fingerprint of the cancer in a given patient, and you create a profile, and then use that profile to see whether that DNA is present in the blood. So, it's very simple. It's like barcoding DNA and then going and looking for it in the blood, which means that you have to have the primary tumor. When I say primary tumor, you need to have the tumor to start off with. It doesn't really apply, maybe easily, if you just have a fine-needle aspirate and things like that. So, you really have to have a good amount of the tumor for you to be able to do that. So, that's a tumor-informed, and from the name, you can easily understand how it's done, compared to the other one, which is uninformed, whereby off-the-shelf probes are used to look for tumor DNA. And again, they're based on prior experience and prior identification of the key DNA changes that will be seen in tumors. So, that's the difference between the two in terms of the principle of the test. The uninformed will not require you to send the original tumor that you're trying to test. However, the informed, you do. The turnaround time is, again, a bit different because, as you would expect, it's shorter in the uninformed. And the reason for that, again, is the initial preparation of the profile that is going to be used in the future when you do serial testing. The sensitivity has been a bit of a discussion. Initially, people have thought that tumor-informed assays are more sensitive, more specific, more sensitive, et cetera. But in our review, we come to the conclusion saying that we don't think that's going to be a major difference. And there are obviously improvements happening in both types of assays. The sensitivities have been improving. So, at this point in time, we do feel that you have two types of assays, and we didn't feel strongly about recommending one over the other. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that description. You mentioned something about sensitivity, specificity. Obviously, many of us who have ordered both tumor-informed and tumor-uninformed, we understand the differences with respect to the timing. The tumor-informed one can take more time. The uninformed one, being a sort of a liquid biopsy, may not necessarily have as much of a turnaround time. Could you briefly speak to those limitations or advantages in the context of the two versions? Dr. Philip Philip: I just really want to also highlight that when we say turnaround time, so for the tumor-informed assays, the first assay that we do will be requiring a turnaround time. But once the pattern has been set and the profile has been documented, the subsequent testing doesn't require much in the way of waiting. However, when you're using this for the minimal residual disease, then you have a window of opportunity to work at. That's number one. So, it means that in patients who have resected cancer, you may end up having to wait longer than the tumor-uninformed assay, especially if you don't have easy access to your material for the baseline material to send. And also, what we'd like to do is not do the test immediately after the operation or soon after the operation. Give it some time. There's a window where you can work at, and starting minimally two weeks after the surgery. But in my experience, I'd like to wait at least four weeks just to make sure that we got an accurate reading. Sometimes when you do it very early after surgery, because of the effect of the surgery and the release of the normal DNA is also, it may dilute the tumor DNA, and then you may get a false negative. So, basically, it depends on the clinical situation. And your question is, is one better to be used than the other? I think ultimately, it ends up with the turnaround time not being as much of an issue. It might be in certain situations, depending on when you see the patients after the operation or any definitive treatment you've done and you want to look for minimal residual disease. But in general, I don't think that's going to be a real major issue. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I remember discussing this with one of the tumor-informed platforms with regards to this barcode you mentioned. They generate a fingerprint of sorts for the tumor on the tissue, then they map it out in the blood and try to assess it longitudinally. And one of the questions and discussions we had was around the fact that most of the time, these barcoded genes are not the driver genes. If you have a KRAS mutant tumor, it's not going to be the KRAS gene that they map out. It's something that is specific. So, is there a possibility that when you are mapping out, let's say, a metastatic tumor where there is truncal and subclonal mutations at different sites, that you capture something that is not necessarily truncal, and that does not necessarily reflect some other metastatic site having a recurrence? So basically, over time, you don't see a specific mutational pattern or the signature on the tumor-informed, and then you see something on the scan which makes you think, "Well, it was not the right test," but actually it could be a different subclone or a clone mutation at a different site. Is there a concept that could help us understand that better? Dr. Philip Philip: I think you raise a very important point. Although, I have to say from my practical experience, that is not a common thing to see. In fact, for some reason, we don't see it that often in any frequency that should, at this point in time, make us concerned about the serial testing. But what you were mentioning is a real challenge which can happen. Now, the question is, how often does the clonal evolution or the divergence happen to the point that it's going to be like a false negative, is what you're saying. At this point in time, we don't really have good information on that, or any good information, practical information. And when we went through the literature and we were looking for the evidence, that wasn't something which was there clearly telling us. Although, this is something that has to be studied further prospectively. And I don't know of a study, but I might be missing it, I don't know of a study which is systematically looking at this. Although it's a very valid hypothesis and theoretical basis for it, but in real life, we still have to see how much does it really interfere with the validity of this kind of testing. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Which brings us to the more important discussion around your manuscript. And I think that the overarching theme here is the consensus panel that you guys had recommended that ctDNA-based metrics be used as a co-primary endpoint. Could you tell us, for early-phase trials, maybe phase two studies for that matter, could you tell us what were some of the aspects that led to this consensus being formed from your working group? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, there were a number of reasons, in any order of priority, but one of them is we don't have a good sense of dynamics of the ctDNA. And again, remember this article was about gastrointestinal cancers. Maybe we know more about colon cancer, but, or colorectal cancer, but we don't know that well about the upper GI, like gastroesophageal, pancreatic, et cetera. So, we don't know what is the false negative percentages. And in fact, we know that there are certain sites of the disease, metastases, that do not lead to enough shedding of the DNA into the circulation. So, that was something else. I mean, false negativity, not knowing exactly what the dynamics are, especially in different disease types. So, that was another reason, which we felt that it may not be at this time primetime to really have those ctDNA tests as a primary endpoint. We wanted to make sure that, on the other hand, we wanted to make sure that people consider including ctDNA more like a secondary endpoint so that we can gain the information that we're lacking, at least the ones I mentioned to you. So, that was an important point of our discussions and deliberations when we were writing the article. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And I myself have been on both sides of the aisle where - I treat people with lung cancer, you mentioned appropriately that most of the data that we have for ctDNA is generated from GI cancers, especially colorectal - on the lung cancer side, I myself had a patient with an early-stage cancer, had treatment, surgery, immunotherapy, and then had ctDNA that was tumor-informed, was positive four to five months before the imaging actually showed up. And on the other side, I've also had an individual where early-stage lung cancer, surgery, immunotherapy, and then had PET scans that showed a positive finding, but the ctDNA, tumor-informed ctDNA, was negative multiple times. So, I've seen both aspects of it, and your paper tries to address some of these questions on how to approach a negative, radiologically negative imaging but positive ctDNA potentially, and vice versa. Could you elaborate upon that a little bit? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, obviously, we do see this in practice. Again, I do GI oncology. I have patients who, you do ctDNA. I mean, my advice to anyone, when you order a test, you have to make sure that you know what you're going to do with the test, because that's the most important thing. You get a positive test, you do something. You get a negative test, you do something. But most importantly, our patients who you're following up, they are very anxious for a diagnosis they have that is not- I mean, it's cancer. If you're doing these tests, if we get continuous, repeatedly negative testing, then you really have to also tell the patient that there's a false negativity. And I mentioned to you earlier, there are certain sites of disease, like peritoneal, they may not be producing enough, or there are some tumors, their biology is such that they don't release as much to be detected in the blood. Now, one day we will get maybe a more sensitive test, but I'm talking about the tests we have now. On the other hand, if you get a positive testing, you have to make a distinction for ctDNA in the minimal residual disease situation. If you get a positive test, there is enough evidence that the patient has a worse prognosis. There's evidence for that. No one can dispute that. Again, I'm talking about colorectal cancer where there are a lot of data for that. So, in that situation, there are studies that are looking, if you get a positive test in someone who you're not intending to give any adjuvant treatment, there are studies looking into that, both in terms of intensifying, like chemotherapy, in certain patients. And also, there's work being done, if you have a negative test in someone who has stage III disease, for example, or definitely stage II disease, they may not need to give them chemo. Those things are happening. But in metastatic disease, it's a different situation. Or even in someone who has received surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, in those patients where they, whether they're now under, in the surveillance mode, those patients, if you have a positive, it may be positive. I had a recent patient like those, eight months before we saw anything on the scans. So, the question is, if you have a positive test, is there any advantage in giving them treatment, systemic treatment? Of course, we're assuming that the PET scan is negative. So, is there really any advantage in giving someone treatment ahead of time, before you see the imaging changes? That kind of data, in my opinion, is not really available or strong. You can always think of it in different ways, explain it in different ways. It's minimal disease, maybe you get a better response. But I don't know if we really can justify at this time. Therefore, in my practice, my own practice, I do not treat just a positive ctDNA. Again, that's different than after surgery when you're thinking of whether to give adjuvant treatment, no adjuvant treatment. But someone who's finished treatments and then you're just serially monitoring the disease, those patients, I do not treat them with chemotherapy. And that was something which, based on the literature we reviewed, there was nothing out there to definitely- I mean, if you see something positive, you will do a scan earlier, you will talk to the patient, examine the patient, whatever. But if there's nothing there, starting a treatment, that's not justified at this point in time. Now, you need to do a study like that. Definitely, you need to do a study. But I can tell you that from my experience, having been involved with study design and all that, it's not an easy trial to do. It's going to be a trial- at a minimum, it will take many patients, it will take longer time to complete, and there are a number of variables there. If someone is willing to put a lot of money into it, it can be done. But I can tell you that that kind of intention to do a study like that has been very much a challenge at this time. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Of course, as you mentioned, the follow-up time that you need for a study like that is going to be very long to get to meaningful outcomes. Dr. Philip Philip: You need to be very patient to do such a study. But the problem with a very long study is that things change, standard of care changes with time, and the assays will change. So, that's why we don't have that kind of data. I'm not sure if there are people in the community or in the academic centers who do treat based on only positive ctDNA. The other thing is that you really have to always consider the psychological impact of these tests on patients and caregivers. Sometimes it can be really very stressful, burdensome to people to sit there just waiting for the disease to show up on a scan. And therefore, in my opinion, I'm not saying definitely don't use it in that situation, I'm just saying that you have to personalize it also, to see the patient who you would like to do it and then other patients who may not do it, or you think that it's not good for them to do it. And the patient also has to understand the outcome of the test and how you're going to be interpreting it. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That's a lot of great insights, Dr. Philip, and I know you've been involved in trial designs. I'm sure NCT and cooperative groups are actively thinking and incorporating ctDNA-based metrics as one of the endpoints in their trial. I know of a GU study that's, I think it's an Alliance study, trying to de-escalate treatment based on ctDNA. I have one of my colleagues who's also a GU investigator at OU, he's doing a ctDNA-based, tumor-informed-based de-escalation. So, obviously, more and more data, hopefully, that'll be generated in the next couple of years. Dr. Philip Philip: But remember, these studies are not using it as an endpoint. They're using it as a means of optimizing treatment, which is a bit different. So, as an endpoint, can you do a phase III trial of, let's say, a thousand patients, and your primary endpoint is not survival, but you're saying, "Can I reduce the ctDNA, clear it earlier, or whatever?" That's the sort of thing this article was about. We can't do that at this time. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I totally understand. Thank you for explaining the difference, and hopefully more to come in this space in the next couple of years. I briefly wanted to touch upon your personal career and journey based on all that you've done and accomplished. Could you tell us about how you started, what your journey has been like, and how that connects with what you're doing right now, including mentoring other trainees and junior faculty? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, when I was in high school, I wanted to be an engineer, but I grew up in Baghdad, and all my friends wanted to do medicine, so I went with the tide, so I did medicine. I don't regret that. I would do it again if I had the opportunity. The reason why I did oncology was, I left the country and did a PhD in clinical pharmacology at the University of London. And that really got me, it was a topic which included, which was on cancer. So, I really got interested in a disease that is really a lot of science, and things are new, or were new at the time. And if I want to look back what I was doing, the beginning of my training in the 80s, second half of the 80s, and now, it's unbelievable how things have changed. But one of the things which I really have to say is that almost all my life I've been in what we call academic institutions. But I firmly believe that for people, whether academic or not, you have to be a very good, astute clinician, because many of the things we do, really, we're trying to put the patients in the center. It's not only doing fancy science, it's to do things that help the patients. And you can bring in bits and pieces of fancy science or less fancy science, but that's something which is really extremely important for us to think about, being a very good clinician, very good doctor, because medicine is a science, whether you're practicing as a solo practitioner or you're part of a large academic center. It's the way you think, the way you interrogate things that you're not sure of, the way you collaborate, the way you learn every day. I mean, at my age, I still don't like to miss any tumor board, because in each tumor board, there's something you learn, even if you think that you know everything. So, that's really the whole thing of it, is that be a very good clinician, be open-minded. Always, you have to think of things that, they look interesting, they look somehow unexplained. Always try to help find the solutions and do that. One of the major things that I feel that people should do is being also very focused on things. I mean, you have to also know what you want to do in the next 5, 10, 15 years. Because although everyone is in it in the same way when we start, but there are different things that drive people, people who want to do more of the formal research, like being an academic-like institution. But there are also a lot of people who are very successful outside of a- what we call an academic setting. In the United States, most people are not working in an academic kind of setting. Although, for me, the distinction between academic and community is getting less and less, because if you think that you do phase I trials in academia only, that's not true, because there are, in fact, in the state of Michigan, the most active phase I doctor is not even in academia, he's in private practice. So, you can do all these things. It's a matter of what you like to do, and you really have to make sure you know what you want to do. Because sometimes people are, especially early on, they get a bit confused, “What I want to do.” There's an issue of doing general oncology versus subspecialist. If you're a subspecialist doing only GI, you have to make sure that you really also have some kind of recognition that you're only a GI oncologist, recognition regional, national, international, but some degree of recognition that you feel that people are coming to you for advice as a second opinion or whatever it is. But again, you have to decide what you think you want to be, how you want to be, because there's a lot of options here between community practice, academic practice, industry, and of course, there's always the administrative thing. Some people tend to be more like going into the line of being an administrator. So, there's a lot of options for you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you again, Dr. Philip, for those pearls of wisdom. I think that was very insightful. I'm sure all the trainees and early-career investigators will find all that advice very helpful. Thank you again for joining us today. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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. Dr. Philip Philip Disclosures Honoraria: Bayer, Ipsen, incyte, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Astellas Pharma, BioNTech SE, Novocure, TriSalus Life Sciences, SERVIER, Seagen Consulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Ipsen, Merck, TriSalus Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, SynCoreBio, Taiho Pharmaceutical Speakers' Bureau: Incyte Research Funding: Bayer (Inst), incyte (Inst), Merck (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), novartis (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Genentech (Inst), halozyme (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), merus (Inst), BioNTech SE (Inst) Uncompensated Relationships: Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Caris MPI  

Doug McHoney (PwC's International Tax Services Global Leader) is joined by Pat Brown, an International Tax Partner and Co-Leader of PwC's Washington National Tax Services practice. Pat previously served as the US Treasury's Deputy International Tax Counsel and has been a frequent guest on the podcast. Doug and Pat discuss the legislative and international tax implications of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill', including its procedural path through US Congress under budget reconciliation, and its implications for both domestic and cross-border taxpayers. They explore the bill's temporary business provisions, including TCJA 'orphan' fixes, and the evolving treatment of research expenses, bonus depreciation, and interest deductions. A major focus is Section 899—dubbed the 'super BEAT'—which targets foreign digital services taxes (DSTs), diverted profits taxes (DPTs), and Pillar Two's undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) with steep retaliatory measures. They also analyze the international negotiations around UTPR exemptions, the impact on treaty obligations, and the ongoing debate over treatment of US tax credits—particularly the R&D credit—under global minimum tax rules. 

Atty Maya McCann, co-leader of Fairness for Farmworkers Coalition: the subminimum wage. Hampshire Prof Emeritus of Peace & World Securities Studies, Michael Klare: the Israel-Iran War. Ehmptn Mayor Nicole LaChapelle: “No Kings” protest & antisemitism in the schools. Peace Development Fund's Lora Wondolowski & Jessa McCormack w/ Seeing Rainbow's Nuri.

The Green Party is speaking out over Israel stopping a civilian yacht carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Israeli forces intercepted a yacht carrying prominent activists - including Greta Thunberg. Its Foreign Ministry says they're safe, and the cargo will be taken to Gaza. But Green Party co-Leader Marama Davidson says that's not good enough. "We want to see Israel stop shooting at innocent people lining up for a kai and we're calling on the Government to sanction Israel for its violent occupation of Palestine." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The recommended suspension for Te Pāti Māori MPs, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi, and Hana Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, over the MP's haka in Parliament during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill last year. Co-leaders Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi will be suspended from the House for 21-days, with Maipi-Clarke facing a seven day suspension. This is Parliament's harshest sanctions in the country's history. Prior to this, the longest suspension an MP had faced in Parliament was three days. The debate had previously been delayed so that the MPs could participate in the Budget debate — however, both co-leaders were not present at the debate. During the debate MP Tākuta Ferris said that the debate was not about the haka, but at the heart, it was the House continuing to ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori sovereignty, and that the “racism” in the House is hardly being hidden. For our weekly catch-up, News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host, Joel, spoke to Te Pāti Māori's Takutai Kemp about the suspension, and what's next for the party. They also discussed NZ First Party Leader Winston Peters' comments regarding Waititi's moko, referring to the MPs moko kanohi as “scribbles”. He was asked to apologise by the Speaker, which he did. But first, they discussed the suspension of the MPs.

The debate on Te Pāti Māori's proposed punishment has been paused until June - but it's still sparked discussion among some. Debate was set to begin today on proposed suspensions for the Te Pāti Māori MPs who did a haka during voting on the Treaty Principles Bill - before the Government moved to adjourn it. Despite this, former co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell has spoken in defence of Te Pāti Māori. "The bigger kaupapa here is around an ability for Māori to express their views in the Parliament of our land - and allow that to happen on the back of what has happened through history in Parliament." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Greens' Chlöe Swarbrick says tax policy has been used before to create a better society. The Greens today launched their alternative Budget, which includes a 2.5 percent tax on individual net wealth over $2 million. It would help pay for policies like free GP trips, free ECE and an Income Guarantee. Swarbrick says after World War Two, higher taxes helped fund public housing and schools. "That created a period by which even those who were having a hard time were able to participate in society and get the necessary social mobility so that they could live a good life in the future." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Greens are revealing parts of their alternative budget - set to cost about $8 billion over four years. It's calling for a Ministry of Green Works, a Government agency supporting sustainable infrastructure - including regional forestry. The party estimates it would create 40,000 jobs. Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick won't release more details - but says their costed independent budget will be released in about two weeks. "In about a fortnight's time, we'll be unveiling our Green budget, which will show people how we can have an economy that reduces the cost of living, improves quality of life and also reduces climate-changing emissions." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Plus: At the San Diego zoo, elephants go viral when video captures their touching and fascinating reaction to an earthquake.  Also: Filmmaker Sepideh Farsi on the death of her new documentary's subject: 25 year old Gazan photojournalist Fatima Hassouna, reported killed in an Israeli airstrike.

Tom Mulcair, CTV Political Analyst and Former NDP Leader joins host Vassy Kapelos to discuss how The Green Party had its invitation for tonight's debate rescinded less than 12 hours before the debate is set to start. On todays show: Listen to Vassy's full conversation with Ed Fast, Outgoing Conservative MP who says his party held a “sham” nomination process in his B.C. riding, where he has endorsed an Independent candidate to be his successor. Steven Shaw, Interim Chair, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill University joins host Vassy Kapelos to answer this weeks 'The Explainer' question from Brian on Instagram. This weeks question was “Why do two year old's have so much attitude, and how do I deal with it?. Vassy Kapelos hosts ‘The Daily Debrief’ political panel discussion with Laura D’Angelo, Vice President, National Strategy and Public Affairs, Enterprise Canada, Jeff Rutledge, Vice President, McMillian Vantage and Stephanie Levitz, senior reporter in The Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau. Chris White, President and CEO of the Canadian Meat Council joins host Vassy Kapelos to discuss how he is in China meeting with government officials and industry counterparts following the recent imposition of 25% retaliatory tariffs on Canadian pork.

The federal election is in two weeks, on April 28 – so the Decibel has invited the leaders from Canada's major parties onto the show to share their vision for the country.And while environmental concerns haven't been top-of-mind in this election … Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault says he isn't just concerned about climate change.Pedneault – who previously served as the party's deputy leader from 2022 to 2024 – is proposing bold policies on a range of issues Canadians are facing, from U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff threats to the high cost of living.The former journalist and human rights investigator, who has spent the better part of the last decade and a half working and living abroad, believes more progressive ideas are needed in this election. But the Greens are lagging in the polls, and Pedneault is running in a Liberal stronghold … So how will they be effective if they don't make it to the House of Commons?Today, Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault joins us from Montreal. Ahead of the leader debates this Thursday, we ask him about his party's daring proposals, what the Greens are offering Canadians, and if he's returning to Canadian politics for good.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at thedecibel@globeandmail.com

Green MP Benjamin Doyle has addressed the response to their use of the word "bussy" on Instagram calling it baseless, personal, and violent. Green Party Leader Chloe Swarbrick spoke to Paddy Gower.

This week we're bringing you another episode from the Bristol Unpacked Archives; its Green party MP Carla Denyer who was interviewed by Neil in October 2021, just after her election as co-chair of The Green party and 3 years before her election to parliament as the MP for Bristol Central in 2024.How has she measured up against early commitments expressed in this interview? Check out her voting record and see for yourself.Original Copy - October 2021:Carla Denyer, an elected councillor in the city, has just won the leadership of the Greens alongside Adrian Ramsay. With Labour shifting to the right, and concern about the climate crisis starting to become mainstream, Denyer thinks this is the moment for Greens, in the UK and beyond. But can they get out of their pigeon-hole and reach a wide range of society? Will internal divisions rock the party like they have others? And what does this all mean for Bristol? Join Neil for an in depth interview on Carla's background, politics and plans.An audio excerpt of a council meeting is used courtesy of Bristol City Council.

In this compelling episode, Elizabeth May, Co-Leader of the Green Party of Canada, lays bare her unfiltered views on critical issues affecting our country today. From her sharp criticisms of Trump and his support of Poilievre to the impact of being blackballed by Rosemary Barton on CBC's Power and Politics, May does not shy away from the tough conversations we must have. She tackles the climate emergency, the Alberta separatist movement, the trucker convoy, and the alarming influence of foreign media ownership over our narratives. May suggests Prime Minister Mark Carney to assemble a US-Canada relations trade war cabinet with leaders from all major political parties. This is a crucial moment in our history, and May's insights are indispensable as we navigate these challenges.In a time when disinformation is rampant on social media, May emphasizes the urgent need to use critical thinking. She advocates for establishing a Civil Defense strategy.Furthermore, host Laura Babcock calls on CBC to be transparent about guest selection protocols. In the most impactful federal election of our lifetime, trust in our public broadcaster has never been more vital. We need clarity on decisions about who gets to engage in these critical discussions. Join us in pushing for transparency and accountability. Let's strengthen our democratic processes and pave the way for a more informed electorate. Your engagement matters—it's time to act and to VOTE!

David Seymour's responding to a post evoking him as needing trimming like a lawn. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi re-shared his partner's post showing him cutting the grass. The caption read: 'I told him to behave as though every piece of grass is a David Seymour. The lawns are getting a good effing hiding.' Seymour says that's objectionable - with its suggestion of attacking a person you disagree with. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Doug McHoney (PwC's International Tax Services Global Leader) is joined by Pat Brown, an International Tax Partner and Co-Leader of PwC's Washington National Tax Services practice. Together, they unpack the state of US corporate tax policy in 2025, analyzing how regulatory, legislative, and geopolitical forces could shape the next era of taxation. Doug and Pat dissect the final regulations issued in the closing days of the Biden administration, including the controversial disregarded payment loss (DPL) regulations, finalized and proposed digital content and cloud sourcing rules, and updates on corporate basis-shifting transactions. With a new administration in power, they explore whether these rules will stand, be modified, or be repealed entirely—and what this means for business certainty and planning. The conversation then pivots to legislative challenges, as the expiration of key provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) creates a ticking time bomb for tax policy.  Finally, they tackle the international tax front, where the US f administration responds to the OECD's Pillar Two and potential digital services tax (DST) retaliation under new proposals like Section 899.  

Der Besenwagen rattert endlich wieder über belgisches Kopfsteinpflaster! Rechts, links, rauf und runter fahren wir quer durch Flandern bis nach Ettelgem bei Brügge. Magnus Rex steht mit wedelndem Schwanz vor der Haustür, begrüßt uns herzlichst und auch Herrchen Laurenz ist froh uns zu sehen. Der Belgier mit deutschen Wurzeln geht als Co-Leader für Intermarché-Wanty beim Opening Weekend an den Start und gibt uns eine kleine Einführung in das berühmte Wochenende seiner Heimat.

In this exciting new segment of our Rewind series, we're crafting a Pharmacy Survival Guide that only Catalyst can deliver. These thoughtfully designed multi-part podcasts look back at previous episodes of Catalyst and Beyond the Scripts to explore fundamental areas in pharmacy that will enhance your professional growth. Part 1 of the survival guide focuses on financial foundations & compliance, featuring valuable advice and fresh insights from our previous guests Brad Gallagher, Shahida Choudhry, and Greco De Valencia as they break down critical topics ranging from the importance of working capital in pharmacy transactions to identifying legal blind spots in regulatory compliance.  Links to Previous Episodes Compliance Financial Foundations  00:07 Financial Segment Begins 07:44 Pharmacy Market Trends   11:40 Business Adaptation Strategies   15:37 Acquisition Evaluation  22:41 Compliance Segment Begins28:41 Annual Compliance Requirements   36:38 Hiring Best Practices    Hosted By: Mark Bivins, Chief Growth Officer at RedSail Technologies, Will Tuft | Director of Pharmacy Education & Engagement   Guests: Brad Gallagher | Partner and Co-Leader of Health Care Controversies at Barclay Damon LLP, Shahida Choudhry | Owner of Palms Pharmacy, Greco De Valencia | Senior Loan Officer & Vice President at Pharmacy at Live Oak Bank  Looking for more information about independent pharmacy? Visit www.pioneerrx.com  

Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka's new-look Waitangi Tribunal has been labelled a "whitewash" by Te Pāti Māori. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

This week on Facing the Future, we discuss the budgetary priorities and procedural hurdles facing the new Republican majority in Congress as they try to quickly enact an ambitious agenda. Our guest is Rohit Kumar, Co-Leader of the National Tax Office at PricewaterhouseCoopers and a former senior advisor to Senate Republican leaders.

This week on Facing the Future, we discuss the budgetary priorities and procedural hurdles facing the new Republican majority in Congress as they try to quickly enact an ambitious agenda. Our guest is Rohit Kumar, Co-Leader of the National Tax Office at PricewaterhouseCoopers and a former senior advisor to Senate Republican leaders.

Prophetic Warning: Not all healing ministries are safe! Melia shares a testimonial of volunteering and co-leading an event for a healing ministry, which brought unexpected challenges and demonic attacks. Melia shares a tidbit from her new audiobook, Fear Not, as she delves into the unsettling journey of a Jezebel spirit who was serving as a leader on the healing ministry team. A powerful reminder of the importance of spiritual discernment not seen by the naked eye! **Chapters** 1. **00:00:00 - Volunteering for Healing Ministry** 2. **00:02:15 - Warm Welcome and Group Division** 3. **00:05:30 - Co-Leader's Dominating Personality** 4. **00:08:45 - Understanding the Jezebel Spirit** 5. **00:12:00 - Private Room Healing Sessions** 6. **00:15:20 - Encountering an Evil Presence** 7. **00:18:40 - Disruptive Prayers and Uncontrollable Crying** 8. **00:22:10 - Husband's Concern and Locked Room** 9. **00:25:30 - Co-Leader's Demanding Behavior** 10. **00:28:50 - Feeling Unsafe and Unsettled** 11. **00:32:10 - Realizing the Presence of Evil** 12. **00:35:30 - Physical Symptoms and Seeking Help** 13. **00:38:50 - Mentors' Assistance and Prayers** 14. **00:42:10 - Leaders' Acknowledgment and Apology** 15. **00:45:30 - Gradual Lifting of the Evil Spirit** 16. **00:48:50 - Lesson on Spiritual Preparedness**   Blessings xo- Melia's Services -> https://meliadiana.com/our-services Melia's Books ->https://meliadiana.com/books Melia's Courses -> https://meliadiana.com/vertical-relationship-academy FREE Resources - > https://meliadiana.com/resources    

"If we can move from a place of fear to a place of curiosity — from a place of resisitance to a place of learning — we'll get a lot farther. We'll enjoy the process a lot more if we can be in the space of learning and curiosity rather than fear and resistance." Fan favorite Emily Saul returns to the Ali on the Run Show to hold all of our hands as we navigate end-of-year stress and navigate new-year anxieties. Emily is a licensed mental health counselor, sport psychology coach, and founder of E Saul Movement. She's a former Division-1 collegiate rower, she's a lifelong athlete, she's a many-time marathoner, and she's a TEDxBoston speaker. FOLLOW EMILY @emilysaulboston SPONSOR:  New Balance: Click here to shop New Balance's latest releases for the season. In this episode: Why you should listen to Emily's advice (6:20) Emily's advice for how to handle end-of-the-year anxiety, and the comparison trap of it all (11:00) Why Emily says we all need to get off the “hedonic treadmill” (23:45) How to approach goal setting in the new year (32:45) “I'm afraid to push myself too hard” (43:10) “It's cold and dark and I can't get myself up and out the door” (1:07:50) Emily on the Ali on the Run Show: Beyond the Run with Emily Saul, Marathon Mentality Q&A Part I Beyond the Run with Emily Saul, Marathon Mentality Q&A Part II Beyond the Run with Emily Saul, Marathon Mentality Q&A Part III LIVE at the Boston Marathon with Emily Saul & Anoush Arakelian Beyond the Run with Dr. Ian Nurse & Emily Saul Emily Saul, Co-Leader of November Project Boston Follow Ali: Instagram @aliontherun1 Join the Facebook group Twitter @aliontherun1 Support on Patreon Subscribe to the newsletter SUPPORT the Ali on the Run Show! If you're enjoying the show, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. Spread the run love. And if you liked this episode, share it with your friends!

Recorded live at the 2024 IRMI Construction Risk Conference, host Jason Reichl sits down with Adrian Pellen, Managing Director & Co-Leader of NFP's North American Construction & Infrastructure Group. With over 20 years of experience in the industry, Adrian leads NFP's construction and infrastructure team across the U.S. and Canada, bringing deep expertise in risk management and insurance solutions for complex construction projects.

In this episode of Beyond the Scripts, host Will Tuft sits down with Brad Gallagher and Shahida Choudhry to explore critical legal considerations often overlooked by pharmacy owners. From contract negotiations to employee management and digital presence guidelines, this is an episode you don't want to miss. Tune in to hear about hard-learned lessons about common legal pitfall to ensure your pharmacy's legal health. 0:00 - Introduction and NCPA event discussion 4:03 - Legal blind spots in regulatory compliance  13:32 - Employee hiring and background check considerations 29:43 - Contract negotiations with PBMs and vendors  9:16 - Documentation and standard operating procedures 44:42 - Digital presence and marketing guidelines 52:01 - Looking ahead to 2025 and closing advice Register for Connect 2025 today! https://redsail.us/4ffLZrD Hosted By: Will Tuft | Manager of Event Education at PioneerRx Guest: Brad Gallagher | Partner and Co-Leader of Health Care Controversies, Barclay Damon LLP Shahida Choudhry | Owner of Palms Pharmacy  Looking for more information about independent pharmacy? Visit www.pioneerrx.com

As the General Election candidates get ready for Friday's vote, you might rarely think of what TDs retiring from the Dáil are up to… To remedy that, Kieran is joined by Catherine Murphy, retiring TD for Kildare North, Co-Founder and recent Co-Leader of the Social Democrats.

Guest host Tim Pawlenty talks local politics with Rep. Lisa Demuth.

JCO PO author Dr. Michael J. Hall, Professor of Medicine, Chairman of the Department of Clinical Genetics, and Co-Leader of the Cancer Prevention and Control Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, PA, shares insights into the JCO PO article, “Uptake of aspirin chemoprevention in patients with Lynch Syndrome.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Hall discuss the finding that only about 1 in 3 patients with Lynch Syndrome use aspirin for cancer chemoprevention. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, I'm excited to be joined by Dr. Michael J. Hall, Professor of Medicine, Chairman of the Department of Clinical Genetics and co-leader of the Cancer Prevention and Control Program at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and also the lead author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled, “Uptake of Aspirin Chemo Prevention in Patients with Lynch Syndrome.” At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Hall, welcome to the podcast and thank you for joining us today to explain and help the listeners understand your interesting research that was just published in JCO Precision Oncology. Dr. Michael J. Hall: Thank you so much for having me and really thanks for the interest in our work. I think it's an important subject and I hope people will also find it as interesting as we do. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely. I think your research touches upon a few things. One, obviously, touches upon Lynch syndrome germline assessments of individuals. It also touches upon chemo prevention, prevention in general, and it also touches upon the knowledge and understanding of chemo prevention aspects. So to start off, I would like to ask you, for the sake of our listeners, many of whom who may not necessarily fully understand the length and breadth of Lynch syndrome, maybe perhaps some residents or trainees out there, could you tell us what Lynch syndrome is, what some of the mutations are, what the implications are, and then we can try to go and delve more into the research topic. Dr. Michael J. Hall: Sure, I'd be happy to. Lynch syndrome is probably, in the hereditary cancer genetics world, one of the most common hereditary risk syndromes we encounter. Recent estimates are that probably roughly about 1 in every 280 individuals in the population is a carrier of a pathogenic variant, one of the Lynch syndrome genes, there are roughly four. There's sort of a fifth gene that is also involved with Lynch syndrome, but really, we largely think about four genes in Lynch syndrome, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Over time we've begun to learn, and I'll say that the guidelines that we develop have become more specialized for each of those genes. They are not sort of all the same in the cancers they cause and the way they behave. But roughly, what is Lynch syndrome? It's a syndrome of DNA mismatch repair. So, individuals who have Lynch syndrome have some degree of deficiency in their ability to repair DNA via the mismatch repair system. Depending on the pathogenic variant that is within a family, that may be related to a more severe deficiency of mismatch repair, repair, editing, or for instance, with the PMS2 gene, we've learned over time that actually the degree of DNA repair deficiency is actually a milder phenotype. These individuals over a lifetime are at risk of a variety of different kinds of cancers, the most common being colon cancer. And the risk of that is variable by gene. With MLH1 and MSH2, it's close to 50% over a lifetime. With MSH6 and PMS2, somewhat lower. There are also risks of endometrial cancer, gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreas cancer, a number of other ones. But they're all related again to the same underlying molecular deficiency, and that's this deficiency of being able to repair mistakes made in the DNA accurately. And so, mutations accumulate in the genome of cells in various tissues of the body. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that very simplified version of a very complicated topic otherwise. So, as you mentioned, these different genes have different implications. Perhaps some have higher risks for colorectal cancer than others. What are some of the current standardized approaches for screening or following these individuals over the course of their journey until perhaps either get detected with cancer or while they're being monitored? Dr. Michael J. Hall: Sure. It's a great question, because this is very much a moving target in this disease. I'm going to give you a quick second of history that up until maybe about six or seven years ago, we had uniform guidelines, really, that any Lynch syndrome pathogenic variant carrier should start colorectal cancer screening. Usually, we were recommending between the age of 20 and 25, and this was usually annual colonoscopy. And for years that was the standard. In more recent years, we've stuck to that tight interval, particularly in the higher risk genes, MLH1 and MSH2, although the guideline now reads every one to two years, because we recognize people need some degree of flexibility to live their lives. And there are people in the population who are more risk averse, and there are those who want a colonoscopy every year because they want to stick to that schedule. For MSH6, we recommend a somewhat later start at age 30, and that can be every one to three years for colon screening and for PMS2, similar recommendations, although I think there is a chance in the coming years, we may actually expand the screening interval even more, again, because the risks are somewhat lower. We still have ways to go in terms of screening for the other cancers in Lynch syndrome. I'll say that, for instance, endometrial cancer, which is the second most common cancer in this disease, we still struggle with what is the best way to screen women for a risk of endometrial cancer. Our guidelines in the past were always somewhat draconian, that once women sort of finish childbearing, they should immediately have a total abdominal hysterectomy and oophorectomy. And I'll say that with greater input from the gynecologic and GYN ONC community, we have somewhat softened those recommendations, especially for the endometrial cancer and also the age at oophorectomy, because we recognize that there were compensatory risks of taking the ovaries out too early in some women, risks of bone loss and cardiovascular disease. So those are the most common. For other tumors in Lynch syndrome, for instance, gastric cancer and pancreas cancer, the guidelines are still really evolving, and different groups have put out guidance for clinicians. And I'll say NCCN, which I participate in and help write those guidelines, has very good recommendations for docs. But I'll say that it is again, back to the idea that it's a moving target. And as we learn more, hopefully, we'll have better recommendations. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree as far as a moving target is concerned, and we often look at the disconnect between the recommendations and then what's implemented or followed in the real-world setting. So I have a question in that context, and my question is, when you identify these individuals with Lynch syndrome, perhaps let's talk about academic settings, and then we can try to delve into how this might work in the real world community oncology settings, where the real world population actually exists, 60, 70% of individuals get treated in the community. So, when you talk about an academic center, what is the flow of the individual? Does the individual stay within the geneticist when they're diagnosed? Does the individual go to the primary care and the geneticist makes the recommendation and the primary care follows the recommendation? How does it work for you and what are some of the models that you've seen work best perhaps at different academic centers? Dr. Michael J. Hall: I think you get at a really great question. And I'll say there is really no one model. And I think models have to be fluid these days because people with Lynch syndrome are really being identified in more and more diverse settings, and by diverse means. I'll say at my own center, we are more of a traditional practice. So, we do the pre-test and the post-test counseling. Once we have counseled individuals identified Lynch syndrome, we will usually make referrals. If folks don't have a gastroenterologist that they have interacted with before, we keep them in our own group and follow them. But their Lynch syndrome home really sits both in a continuity clinic that I run for patients to come back and circle around every one to two years just to review guidelines and review their screening results. However, I do really make an effort to, first of all, keep primary care docs involved, because I think some of the things we recommend, it is critical that the primary care doc is aware so that patients are keeping up with some of the recommendations. For instance, we often recommend skin screening to make sure that folks have had at least one good skin exam somewhere in the 40s. And I think the primary care doc can be very helpful in making sure that happens. It is somewhat different, I think, in the community where many more patients with Lynch syndrome are being identified these days. I suspect that much more of the burden of making sure Lynch syndrome patients are well hooked in with a gastroenterologist and with a dermatologist and maybe a urologist probably does fall on that primary care doctor. In my experience, some primary care physicians have really kind of jumped up in and taken hold of this and really know their Lynch syndrome well, and I think that's amazing. I do, however, as kind of an expert in this area, I do get a lot of referrals in from the community as well, from docs who just feel that they may not have quite that expertise that they can get at a comprehensive center. So, someone may come in to me just for a consult to review what my recommendations would be, hear about research, hear about what's going on in the field, and those folks will often touch base with me again every couple year or so. Often, another thing I've started to experience is that I may meet people once or twice early on in their diagnosis, and then they go back to their primary docs and I may not hear from them again until something more profound happens in the family or into the patient and they get their screening colonoscopy and a stage 1 cancer is found. Often then, that's the patient who, after four or five years, will contact me again and say, “We haven't talked in a while, but something has happened, and can we re-consult about what would be the best way to do things?” Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Again, like you said, lots of moving targets, moving aspects to this whole care of these individuals. Do you think, in your experience, nurse navigation, maybe some centers have already implemented that perhaps you might have that, do you think nurse navigation could play a certain level of role? You know how in the multidiscipline care we have nurse navigators that coordinate care between radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, thoracic surgeons. So that's something that is being implemented. My second part of that question is telehealth in this case, maybe it's a little more difficult for somebody to drive three hours to come to you for a visit just to check in versus maybe virtually talking to you or your team getting a sense of where things are at in terms of their screening and their follow ups. Dr. Michael J. Hall: I think both are great, great questions and absolutely, we use both of those pieces in our model. And I know from colleagues that they do as well. So, in terms of navigation, we do have an embedded nurse navigator within our department. She joins and kind of helps facilitate all of our high risk follow up clinics. Mine, for GI, we have a high-risk prostate clinic, we have several high-risk breast clinics and those are populated by providers. We have a couple of nurse practitioners in my genetics group and a PA they are sort of the main provider in those clinics, but they are very much supported by that nurse navigator who, as you well point out, really helps with the coordination of the care. Telehealth as well, I do 100% support because you're absolutely right, if you look at a map of the United States and you first of all look at where there are good counseling services available, of course, there's ample counseling in the major metropolitan areas all over the U.S., but the minute you get outside of those counseling and then other management expertise, then– So we do have a model where particularly for folks who are from central Pennsylvania and sometimes more towards western Pennsylvania, I do have some individuals who've been identified with Lynch syndrome who telehealth in, again, for that follow up. A sort of side notes on telehealth, I think we learned a lot from the pandemic about how to use telehealth more effectively. And thank goodness, we've all gotten up to speed in medicine of how to be better telehealth providers. Unfortunately, I feel like with the pandemic kind of waning, there's been a little bit of a regression of the telehealth laws. So now if I want to do telehealth with someone who is from New Jersey, even though New Jersey sits very close to where I practice, it's more complicated now. Again, I have to get a license and same thing with New York and same thing with Delaware. I sort of wish we had a little bit of a better and welcoming system in the states where you could have easier ability to practice, especially when states were quite close using telehealth. But nonetheless, that's for another podcast, I think. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you again for some of those interesting aspects to this whole topic. But let's dive into the thing that we are here to talk about, which is aspirin in these individuals. So can you give us some context of why aspirin, what's the biology there and what's the data there, and then talk about why you did what you did. Dr. Michael J. Hall: So, we've known for many years that aspirin has preventive properties in terms of preventing colorectal cancer. Many observational studies and some interventional studies have shown us that aspirin has benefits for reducing the risk of colon cancer in an average risk population. There was even an interventional trial a number of years ago that looked at individuals who made polyps, and this looked at particularly adenomas, which we know are the precancerous polyps and adenoma prevention using aspirin. And that study clearly showed that aspirin had benefits for lowering risk of recurrent polyps and adenomas. Particularly even a lower dose of aspirin, 81 milligrams, was effective in that setting. Aspirin's also been studied in other hereditary risk syndromes, the most visible one being FAP, where data have shown that aspirin does help reduce polyp count in FAP, although is certainly not a perfect chemo prevention for that disease. So, in that background of knowing that aspirin has many benefits for colorectal cancer prevention, a study was initiated in the UK a number of years ago called the CAPP2 study, with its lead investigator being John Burn. And in this study, it was a two-arm factorial study that was not just aspirin, but they were also looking at resistant starch, which there was a lot of excitement about resistant starch back then. But in this study, they looked at using aspirin as a way of lowering risk of colorectal cancer in patients with Lynch syndrome. And that study, which was initially reported in The New England Journal, the initial outcomes did not actually show benefits in its first analyses of adenoma risk and colon cancer risk. But what they found over time was that there was a delayed effect and, in a follow, up paper looking at 10 plus years of follow up, they showed a substantial reduction in risk of colon cancer, about 40% risk reduction, which was really striking and exciting in the field to see such a large benefit from aspirin. Now, one caveat was in the analyses they performed, it was those individuals who were able to stick to the aspirin dose in that study, which was 600 milligrams a day. I always say to folks that back in the day, that was not a lot of aspirin, although I think these days we're much more skeptical about taking larger doses of any drug. So, 600 milligrams is roughly about two adult aspirin in the U.S. So those folks who were able to stick to that dose for at least two years were the ones who gained benefit from being on aspirin. And what was interesting is that benefit endured for really 10 years after those two years of being able to take aspirin. So, this was striking and it really changed our thinking about whether there may be chemo prevention options for folks with Lynch syndrome. However, and I think what formed the background of our study here was that there was a somewhat equivocal endorsement of aspirin by the major guidelines committees, mainly because, as we all know in oncology, we love one first big study, but we always really love secondary studies that solidify the finding of the first study. And so, because this was such a niche group and no one else out there was doing big aspirin studies when this result came out in 2011, we've sort of been waiting for many years for some follow up data. And the NCCN guidelines have always been a little bit equivocal that people could consider using aspirin to lower risk in their patients with Lynch syndrome, but without that kind of strong, “Everyone should do this.” And so, this has kind of formed the background of why we performed the study that we did. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Interesting. And then you had a bunch of observations. One of the most important ones being that use of aspirin was pretty low. Could you dive into that and help us understand what were some of the factors surrounding those low implementation aspects? Dr. Michael J. Hall: Of course. So, what we were interested in then again in that background was, here's a high-risk population, docs are getting somewhat maybe ambiguous information from the guidelines, but what actually is going on out there in practice? How many patients are actually using aspirin? What doses are they using, and what are some of the factors that drive it? So, we performed a survey that actually occurred in two parts. One started at Fox Chase in our population here, and then we expanded it online to a convenience sample. Overall, we had 296 respondents. And yeah, what we found actually was the uptake of aspirin was only about roughly 30%, 35% or so among patients who were eligible to take aspirin. When you actually drill down to those people actually taking aspirin because they wanted to prevent Lynch syndrome, it was even lower. It was in the range of 25% to 30%. This somewhat surprised us. And then when we looked at the doses that people were using, of course, thinking back to that 600-milligram dose that was tested in the study, we found actually that more than half of folks were taking low dose aspirin, like an 81 milligram, and only about 8% of our study participants were using that 600-milligram range. So, again, I would say this somewhat surprised us because we thought it might be higher than this. I'll say as a somewhat caveat to this though, is that back to my comment about we always like another study that confirms our findings, and at a meeting earlier this year, there was a study performed in a New Zealand population by a medical oncologist named Rebecca Tuckey. And she actually found almost the same identical results that we did in the New Zealand population - very, very similar uptake rates of aspirin in the New Zealand population with Lynch syndrome, so kind of confirming that something we've stumbled upon appears to be true. But how do we understand why some folks use aspirin and why others don't in this condition? Dr. Rafeh Naqash: You had a very robust question there from what I saw in the paper. And some of the questions that I had around that was, did you or were you able to account for demographics, education level of the individuals? Were you also able to assess whether these individuals felt that they had been counseled appropriately when they met with either a primary care physician or of any provider on the genetic side, physician or non-physician? So how did you get an assessment of whether it was an apples-to-apples comparison or were there a lot of confounders. Dr. Michael J. Hall: Very good question. And of course, in the setting, unfortunately, we weren't interviewing people, which we could have gotten much richer data in some ways. And there were other things we were looking at in this survey as well, so our aspirin questions, we had a number of them, but perhaps in retrospect, it would have been nice to even have more. We did have some common covariates, age, sex, ancestry, marital status, which gene was affected, whether they had a history of cancer. We did not have education, unfortunately. And I think your question is a great one, but we did not actually ask folks about whether they had been counseled by their provider or their genetic counselor or someone else about whether they should use aspirin or not. We simply wanted to see whether folks were using it. We did ask them again whether they were using it because they wanted to lower their risk of a Lynch syndrome cancer or whether they were using it for another reason or a combination of both. So, yes, in retrospect, we actually do have another study plan to kind of drill deeper into these questions of is it more of a hesitancy question? Is it more of a question of just not as much awareness? Are there other reasons? I think there's a lot to answer, and I think answering these questions is really important because we both want to make sure we're talking about interventions that we think can help people, but we need to understand also some of the barriers they may face. And if people do have barriers to some forms of chemo prevention or I think about some of the vaccine research that's going on right now, if the kinds of things that we're working on to develop are actually not going to be palatable to the patient, the population, then I think we kind of need to step back and say we need to maybe understand what people want so that we can have a good meeting of what's going to work and what's going to fit the needs and lifestyles of our patients. Because these are things they might have to do for many, many years and starting maybe even in their 20s or 30s. So, it makes a difference. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From what you learned in the study, are you thinking of any subsequent interventional approaches, whether they involve a simple phone call to the patient regularly or perhaps, even though I'm not a big fan of EMR prompts, like an EMR prompt of some sort, where they talk, where they're instructing the provider, whoever is seeing the patient physician or the APP or the geneticist that, “Hey. Did you counsel the patient?” And its sort of a metric how in the oncology side they say, “Well, your metric is you should stage all patients and you should talk about toxicities from a reimbursement standpoint and also from a quality improvement metric standpoint. “Is that something you're thinking of? Dr. Michael J. Hall: 100%. So, when we looked at the barriers, many of the kind of the things that were the strongest predictors of who used aspirin versus who didn't were really patients' perceptions of whether aspirin would cause side effects or whether aspirin would be burdensome to take on a daily basis, also, just how much benefit they thought would come from taking aspirin. So, I think there's, number one, I think an intervention and our next delve into this as an interventional study would be both education about the delta prevention benefit that you get from aspirin, the safety profile of aspirin, which is really quite excellent. And also, I think the data that are so important that in this study by Burn et al, it was actually only two years of intervention that then paid off for 10 years down the line, right? So, I think that's important. The other thing that we actually learned as an aside in this study was actually the kind of intervention that patients wanted the most was actually not a drug and was not a vaccine and was not another kind of special scope to stick somewhere. What they actually were most interested in were interventions related to diet. People really see diet as being an important part of health, or I should say diet and nutrition. And so, I think a subsequent study would perhaps wed both a nutritional intervention of some kind with a chemo prevention in some sort of time limited fashion, so that folks felt like they were both focusing on something that was more important to them, but also, something that was related to the study that we wanted to look at. So that's kind of my idea of where we're going to go in the future with this. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Sounds like the next big RO1 for your group. Dr. Michael J. Hall: Let's hope so. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, I hope the listeners enjoyed talking about the science and learning about aspirin Lynch syndrome. The last couple of minutes are about you as an individual, as an investigator. Can you tell us what your career journey has been like, how you ended up doing what you're doing, and perhaps some advice for early career junior investigators on what this whole space looks like and how you pace yourself and how they can learn from you? Dr. Michael J. Hall: I really got interested in oncology during my residency training. I really found that I really liked oncologists. I found them to be a bit more of a science focused group. They liked research, but you're in oncology because you understand the fears and the challenges of cancer. And so, it's both a combination of that love of science, but also that real human touch of taking care of people. The thing I always tell my fellows as well is the other thing I love about oncology is if you tell people they don't have cancer, they don't want to come back to you. Now, of course, that's modified in the prevention setting. But I really like that when people come to me in my GI oncology clinic, it's because they have a diagnosis and if I say you actually don't have cancer, they go off to their life, and so you're really spending your time on real subjects. The person who really got me most interested in Lynch syndrome and this kind of prevention research was a mentor from University of Chicago, Funmi Olopade, who really has been an enormous mentor for many, many people in the field. Actually, three people in my fellowship class all went on to careers related to genetics and genomics. So, she's been highly influential and continues to mentor me even in my mid-career. I think in terms of pearls or what keeps this interesting for me, I think as much as oncology treatment and new drugs and trials is super exciting, I love being able to step away from that into my genetics and prevention population and kind of focus on treating people in a different format. Patients who are healthy but are worried about cancer because of a family history or carrying a gene or otherwise, and I feel that that's where I can have also an important impact, but on a different level in educating people and helping them understand how genetics works in an understandable and simple way, but also giving them some tools. And one reason for this study, and the reason I study preferences related to prevention is, again, I don't want to just develop something and spend 10, 15 years of my life developing some intervention that everyone looks at and is like, “I don't really want to do that.” I want to really understand what it is that is important to the patients so that we can hopefully work together to develop things that can not only have impact but have impact on a wide scale. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Awesome. You mentioned Dr. Olopade. I crossed paths with her actually at an international medical graduate community of practice session earlier this year at ASCO where she talked about her journey as an immigrant, talked about how she started, the kind of impact that she's had. It was obvious evident in the picture that she showed with all her mentees who have kind of gone all over the world. So that was very phenomenal. And it's surprising how small of a world we live in. Everybody knows everybody else. Dr. Michael J. Hall: It's crazy. More so than anyone I think I've met in my career; she is really a huge believer in mentorship and spending that extra time with your mentees. And she has been someone who has continued to promote me as an investigator and build me up and get me involved in things. And like I said, I've been in oncology now for quite a few years. But having that person who I think is always thinking about their trainees and people who have learned and grown under them, because what it does is it gives you that fire as well as an investigator to do the same thing for the people that you are a mentor for and train. So, I try to be just as good of a mentor to my genetic counselors and the fellows who come through me and my APPs to give them opportunities to get them excited about research and when they have these big moments to do that. So, yeah, I know Funmi just has had a huge impact on the field of genetics. I still remember some of our early conversations on the wards when she said to me, “Oh, this is such an interesting case. We don't really have anyone who's studying Lynch syndrome so much right now and you should really get into this area.” And I remember thinking, “Okay, I want to develop a niche and here's a niche that's waiting.” Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Clearly it paid off big time and you're paying it forward with your mentees. So, thank you again for joining us. This was an absolute pleasure. Hopefully, the listeners learned a lot about the science and also your journey and how you're trying to impact the field. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an 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 opinion, 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.      

The Treaty Principles Bill has passed its first reading in Parliament. The first reading was filled with interjections and heckling by Opposition MPs before the vote was cast. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.

Last week we celebrated our 100th episode of the show with another live event! James was joined by Co-Leader of the Green Party, Carla Denyer MP, and economists Faiza Shaheen, and Grace Blakeley, to break down Labour's Autumn Budget. A massive thank you to everyone who joined us at Space4! Apologies to anyone awaiting our ELECTION ECONOMICS episode with Thea Riofrancos - we've had to delay that recording but we'll be posting a review of the election results once they are in. As always you'll find that at patreon.com/macrodose.  Got a question or comment? Reach us at macrodose@planetbproductions.co.uk For more about the work we do at Planet B Productions, go to planetbproductions.co.uk

Darleen Tana has been officially ejected from parliament making the Greens the first party to use the waka-jumping provision. Corin Dann spoke to Party Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick

The Green Party's membership has voted unanimously to kick Darleen Tana out of Parliament. Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick spoke to Corin Dann.

Chlöe Swarbrick is confident in the Greens' argument about proportionality of the House being affected by now independent MP Darleen Tana. Party delegates have voted to ask Speaker Gerry Brownlee to oust Tana from Parliament, invoking the waka-jumping law it has previously opposed. It's now down to Brownlee to decide if Tana's resignation from the party —but not Parliament— affects the proportionality of the House. The Green Party co-leader told Mike Hosking she's proud the 185 delegates representing thousands of members all came to the conclusion. She says it was a unanimous and resounding consensus, which demonstrates that the party's moving forward together on the issue. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Justin and Sean take on your questions about youth ministry and do their best to answer them. They hit topics like:●      Discipline in youth ministry●      Depression in ministry●      Delegation●      Lowest point in youth ministry for us●      Message prep●      When it's time to leave the church●      Follow up with new students●      And more!  Episode sponsor: xpscripture.com   Join the YM Hacks Instagram Channel: https://ig.me/j/Ababaue99NXURdiv/     Check out Co-Leader! Coleader.co

Let us know your views now - text us hereHistory in the making! This is the UK's first regular mainstream show for bisexuals. Hosted by bi activist and writer Lewis Oakley and bisexual journalist Ashley Byrne with comedian and actor Samantha Baines, Bisexual Brunch is a unique podcast for people from all over the world who identify as bi to come together and celebrate their sexuality.  Bisexual Brunch along with former host Nichi Hodgson, Ashley and Lewis were included in the UK Pride Power List  2021. Lewis managed to stay in the list in 2022 and soared to No 79 while MIM, the production company behind Bisexual Brunch was also named UK Production Company of the Year 2021 (Silver winner). Most recently it was revealed Bisexual Brunch's listening figures are in the top 3% of podcasts worldwide - and the show reaches 108 countries, more than half the world! Number One in Kenya.A bumper edition for Bi Month - Ashley and Lewis are joined by the founders of the very first Bi-visibility Day back in 1999.  Find out how it wasn't called that back then from Wendy Curry and Ladyboy Gigi Wilbur. The bisexual special guest is co-leader of the Scottish Greens Patrick Harvie. Meanwhile as Scotland emerges as the bi nation of the UK (at least in population terms) we stay in Scotland for our main bi journey story from Nick Cook in Dundee. Lewis and Ashley discuss ideological zealotry around LGBT issues, there's an Ask a Bisexual question from a woman whose husband recently came out to her and Ashley and Lewis discuss whether there's such a thing as bi-dar or bi fi.Bisexual Brunch is produced by Ashley Byrne and researched by Andrew Edwards and the team at MIM.The show is recorded in Manchester and London in Great Britain.Bisexual Brunch is a Made in Manchester ProductionWe need your support to continue making Bisexual Brunch. Every show costs in time and money. We no longer use Patreon, so if you support us there, we would prefer it if you moved to this method  (click 'support the show' below) - OR via Buy me a Coffee at buymeacoffee.com/info59Support the show

In this special episode of the Big Ideas Raleigh podcast, recorded live at the Engage Raleigh Community and Neighborhood Expo, we dive into the power of collaboration and its impact on our city. Hear from experts and local leaders as they discuss the innovative ways communities are working together to break down barriers and build a more connected, resilient Raleigh. Whether you're a long-time resident or new to the area, this episode offers insight into how collaboration drives progress and strengthens neighborhoods. Tune in to discover how you can get involved and contribute to the vibrant future of our city.This episode was recorded live at the Engage Raleigh Community and Neighborhood Expo on September 7, 2024, at the McKimmon Center at NC State University. Panelists:- Ajamu Dillahunt-Holloway – Assistant Professor of African American History and Public History at NC State and Co-Leader of The Communiversity. His research is on twentieth century African American history with a focus on the U.S. South, labor, environmental justice, and the Black Freedom Struggle.- Kori Hennessey – Kori is the first nonbinary Executive Director of the LGBT Center of Raleigh and one of the very few transgender leaders within Triangle area nonprofits, Kori has been dedicated to creating equitable and affirming opportunities for all. In their role, Kori works alongside a diverse and passionate team to implement programs that include youth and young adult leadership skill building, education and understanding on LGBTQ+ identities, transgender community and resource connections, health equity and access, and more.- Tiesha Mosley – As a native of Southeast Raleigh, Tiesha has over ten years of local government experience. Her public sector career has spanned several operational, business development, DEI, and community building roles. Tiesha is the Community Engagement Manager for the City of Raleigh, focused on improving public sector community engagement. - Iliana Santillan – Iliana Santillan, a native of Mexico City and Michoacán, has been organizing in North Carolina for over 20 years. She is Executive Director of both El Pueblo and La Fuerza NC. In this role, she strives to empower rural communities, elevate Latine leadership, and increase civic engagement across North Carolina. Tune in to hear how these leaders are breaking barriers and fostering collaboration to shape Raleigh's future!---Bio for Dr. Ajamu Dillahunt-Holloway: https://whova.com/embedded/speaker_detail/PmIIepcjlIWa7LoA-NTBsrHCDVMes13erFhq1YGf4JE%3D/40350468/Bio for Kori Hennessey: https://whova.com/embedded/speaker_detail/PmIIepcjlIWa7LoA-NTBsrHCDVMes13erFhq1YGf4JE%3D/40350455/Bio for Tiesha Mosley: https://whova.com/embedded/speaker_detail/PmIIepcjlIWa7LoA-NTBsrHCDVMes13erFhq1YGf4JE%3D/39397914/Bio for Iliana Santillan: https://whova.com/embedded/speaker_detail/PmIIepcjlIWa7LoA-NTBsrHCDVMes13erFhq1YGf4JE%3D/40350485/---Resources:City of Raleigh Engagement NetworkEl Pueblo's 2024 Summer Internship: RaicesCity of Raleigh's Engagement VanBig Ideas Raleigh is powered by the City of Raleigh Communications and Strategy and Innovation Departments, hosted by Dan Bagley, and produced by Dr. Sarah Glova and Earfluence.

In this episode of French Insider, Noel Rimalovski, Managing Director of GH Partners LLC joins host Brian Weimer, Telecom Team Leader of Sheppard Mullin, to discuss cross-border initiatives in the satellite and space industry. These initiatives include France's CoFace compared to The EXIM Bank in the United States, the emerging small launch industry, and the potential for commercial opportunities on the moon.   What We Discussed in This Episode: How does working with France's CoFace differ from working with The EXIM Bank in the United States? How does The EXIM Bank compare to the way France approaches export credit agency financing? Who can access financing from an export credit agency? Can a French company approach The EXIM Bank? Aside from SpaceX, who are some of the players in the nascent industry of small launch providers? Are the small launch providers that have proliferated in recent years targeting SpaceX's market? Is the recent multi-orbit trend lately likely to continue? Why is it essential for space and satellite companies to ensure alignment with their government? Is there any real potential for large-scale commercial opportunities on the moon? Is the space industry transitioning into a more commercial chapter of financing? Is there a push for more sustainable projects in the space industry?   About Brian Weimer Brian Weimer is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Washington, D.C. office, where he also serves as Leader of the firm's Telecom Team and Co-Leader of the CFIUS Team. Brian provides regulatory and transactional advice across the entire telecommunications ecosystem. As leader of the firm's Space & Satellite practice, he is perhaps best known as a leading lawyer for the satellite industry.   About Noel Rimalovski Noel Rimalovski brings a deep background in M&A and corporate finance to GH Partners.   Throughout his 20-year career, he has provided advisory services to clients, including sales and acquisitions, restructurings, capital raisings, valuations and fairness opinions to domestic and international clients in the Telecommunications, Media, Technology, Industrial and Consumer sectors.  Before joining GH Partners, Noel served as Senior Vice President at Macquarie Capital (USA), 2007-08, in the Telecommunications, Media, Entertainment and Technology Group. While at Macquarie, he completed $1.8bn of investments in the telecommunications sector. Prior to Macquarie, he was Director in the Mergers & Acquisition Group of Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and its predecessor Wasserstein Perella, where he completed over $20 billion in transactions in the Industrial, Consumer, Technology, Telecommunications and Media sectors.  Prior to joining WP, Noel gained experience as a banker on structured financings, securitizations and proprietary investments at Millennium Capital Markets and Lazard Frères.   Contact Information Brian Weimer Noel Rimalovski   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Deezer, Amazon Music, or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show.

RECORDED FROM TITANIC EXPEDITION 2024!This week's witness is Dr. David Gallo, renown Oceanographer, Co-Leader of the 2024 Titanic Expedition, and accomplished lecturer on the world's oceans, climate change, and deep sea exploration. This episode was recorded onboard the research vessel of Expedition 2024 just hours before arrival above the Titanic wreck site. Welcome to WITNESS TITANIC, a new podcast where we interview witnesses of the infamous Titanic disaster including modern experts, enthusiasts and even the survivors of the sinking. Like the century-old inquiries that came before us, we may never fully determine what really happened on that cold April night but you may be surprised to find how close our efforts will bring us to Titanic herself... Hosted by James PencaPresented by RMS Titanic, Inc.Theme: Songe d'automne - Archibald JoyceRecorded by Ege M. Erdogan (@egecomposer)Titanic questions or corrections?witnesstitanic@gmail.comFor more Titanic history, visit www.discovertitanic.comor www.titanichg.com

“Without an anchor in biological reality, laws based on 'sex' become meaningless and justice cannot be served.” So wrote evolutionary biologist Colin Wright.  Jill Ovens, National Secretary and Co-Leader of the Women's Rights Party, responds to the ruling of an Australian Judge that sex is changeable in a case involving ‘gender identity'. And common-sense rules mightily in her favour. Plus, exactly five years to the day after we interviewed Behnam Ben Taleblu on the Middle East, Iran in particular, he returns with much insight into the current crisis – or should that be crises.  As always, Mrs Producer joins us in the Mailroom.  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.

Darleen Tana is in court on Thursday in a bid to prevent their former party, the Greens, from ousting the MP from Parliament. Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.

The Green party is at a crossroads after former MP Darleen Tana rejected their request to resign. Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick spoke to Corin Dann.

Amplified Voices is collaborating with Connect Center for Youth on a new mural program. Students will be guided to paint a mural that celebrates diversity in the gaming industry, creating vibrant, colorful artwork that brings the gaming room to life. Participants will also learn how to incorporate wellness practices into their art. Amplified Voices Founder and Co-Leader Jade Warrick, and Co Leader and Wellness Facilitator Eugene O'Niell, spoke with Jacob Boston and Richard Sleeper for Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

Native-American spiritual and cultural consultant Renee Sans Souci talks about being a lost and confused child living between indigenous and white American culture and her awakening to a Native spiritual tradition and wisdom. Sans Souci also talks about the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women movement and her own traumatic encounters.With a degree in education from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and being an Umonhon woman, Renee Sans Souci is a Cultural Consultant, Lecturer, and Curriculum Developer, and has since 2009 been a Teaching Artist with the Lied Center for Performing Arts. She has been invited to speak on topics such as Water and Environmental Science, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women advocacy, Native Science, History of Indian Education, and Native languages, Poetry, and Sustainability. Sans Souci was featured in the PBS American Masters Series, UNLADYLIKE 2020: Susan LaFlesche Picotte: The First American Indian Doctor. She is also a Co-Leader for the Niskithe Prayer Camp and is a recipient of the UNL Institute of Ethnic Studies 2023 Leo Yankton Award for Indigenous Justice.

The Greens pulled off an all-time best performance in the 2024 General Election, doubling their vote share to a historic high of 6.4% and winning four MPs. But can they handle the transition from outsiders to effective Parliamentary party? How do they square the need to remake Britain as a low-carbon economy and the traditional Green suspicion of development? And can they peel away disillusioned left voters from Labour? Co-leader Carla Denyer talks to Andrew Harrison about another green world.     • “Rachel Reeves' line that ‘there is no money' is pretty misleading… This is one of the richest economies in the world.”  • “There are policies everyone agrees on… but only the Greens are offering them.”      Support us on Patreon to get early access to all our live tickets plus mugs, t-shirts and more.     Presented by Andrew Harrison. Produced by Jade Bailey. Theme music by Cornershop. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production.    www.podmasters.co.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dr. Samantha Maragh is Leader of the Genome Editing Program and Co-Leader of the Biomarker and Genomic Sciences Group at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). She also represents the U.S. as a technical expert on nucleic acid measurements for the International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Committee on Biotechnology (ISO TC 276). Scientists at NIST work to develop controls and standards to make sure that measurements, tools, and all of the systems that rely on them are correct. Samantha's work focuses particularly on genome editing, which has a variety of applications, including new treatments for diseases, agriculture, and more. When she's not working, Samantha loves cooking and enjoying food, especially seafood. For her, cooking is like science, but even more flexible and creative. Some of her other favorite pastimes include singing at her church on Sundays and playing puzzle games like Best Fiends. Samantha received her B.S. degree in Biology with a specialization in Cellular & Molecular Biology and a minor in chemistry from Loyola University. She went on to get her M.S. degree in Biotechnology: Molecular Targets & Drug Discovery from Johns Hopkins University and her Ph.D. in Human Genetics & Molecular Biology from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. In 2019, Samantha received the Outstanding Young Scientist Award from The State of Maryland, The Maryland Academy of Sciences, and the Maryland Science Center. She was also selected as the recipient of the George A. Uriano Award in 2021 for her success in building the NIST Genome Editing Consortium as a public-private partnership. In 2022 she received the Measurement Science Excellence Award from the NIST Material Measurement Laboratory for leading the development of the first international standard for the field of genome editing published in 2021 and deploying the first inter-laboratory study for the genome editing field. In this interview, she talks more about her life and science.

Welcome to another episode of Live UNREAL podcast! In this webinar episode, Jeff Glover welcomes Greg Erlanger, Co-Leader of the no. 1 Real Estate Team in Ohio, to share how to become a celebrity in your local market by harnessing the power of video to build your brand and business.  So much of the marketing space has changed, especially in Real Estate. Greg is a marketing master who knows the power of video in Real Estate Marketing today.  The Glover U mission is to impact the lives of millions by helping them live their UNREAL life! We hope you are inspired by the Live Unreal Formula! Whether you're an established Realtor or new to the real estate game, this podcast is designed to empower you with knowledge and inspiration.