Podcasts about conclusions

London Writers' Salon co-founder Matt Trinetti and Head of Writer Experience Lindsey Trout Hughes share prompts from our Dreaming Big in 2026: Creative Goal Setting for Writers workshop – designed to help writers get clear on what they actually want from their writing life in 2026, and translate that desire into a plan that can survive reality in the first 1-3 months of the year.Through 8 steps – from identifying desire to committing to a 48-hour move – Matt and Lindsey step through over a dozen prompts, discuss why each is important for writers to think about, and share what's coming up for them personally for the year ahead.Download the free workbook: community.londonwriterssalon.com/dreamingbigTimestamps:(00:00) Introduction(02:07) Step 0: Two Words (bringing in & leaving behind)(08:05) Step 1: Identifying what we truly desire(17:42) Step 2: Vision (translating desire into clear vision)(25:18) Step 3: Moving from wanting to deciding(34:35) Step 4: Building a project bank(42:02) Step 5: Finding a first season focus(47:32) Step 6: Designing your creative practice(59:00) Step 7: Your 30-day plan & 48-hour move(01:04:50) Step 8: Opening up to support(01:09:40) Conclusions and next steps You'll learn:A simple “two words” ritual to decide what you're bringing into 2026 (and what you're leaving behind).Prompts to identify what you truly desire, including what you might feel embarrassed to say out loud.How to reframe desire as a helpful signal instead of something “selfish” you should downplay.How to build a project bank so you can choose one focus without feeling like you're abandoning your other ideas.Ways to use simple lists to spark clearer project options.How to choose a first-season focus (a three-month container) so you're not trying to hold the entire year at once.The importance of defining what “done” looks like for the season and setting milestones that make progress visible.How to design a writing practice while planning for obstacles before they derail you.How to set a measurable 30-day goal, choose your first moves, and turn intention into proof.   About London Writers' Salon:London Writers' Salon is a community and membership that helps writers make meaningful progress on their work, stay committed to a writing practice, and find creative friends around the world. Members can build consistency through Writers' Hour, develop craft through interviews and workshops, and connect with a global community of writers.  Resources & Links: Download the free workbook at: community.londonwriterssalon.com/dreamingbigJoin Writers' Hour - daily silent writing sessions: writershour.comAttend live events and workshops – Become a Member: community.londonwriterssalon.com/membership For show notes, transcripts and to attend our live podcasts visit: podcast.londonwriterssalon.com.For free writing sessions, join free Writers' Hours: writershour.com.*FOLLOW LONDON WRITERS' SALONTwitter: twitter.com/​​WritersSalonInstagram: instagram.com/londonwriterssalonFacebook: facebook.com/LondonWritersSalonIf you're enjoying this show, please rate and review this show!

Trump at Davos sparked big claims from Glenn Beck, and this episode breaks down the Conclusion. Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland react to Trump's Davos speech, the talk around Greenland, and what “peace through strength” looks like when the economy becomes the big stick. They also weigh Beck's view that Trump put global groups on notice, from the United Nations to the Davos crowd, and discuss how tough language, tariffs, and trade pressure can shift outcomes without firing a shot. The conversation turns back home to Minnesota and the hard truth that foreign policy wins don't fix broken local leadership. Subscribe for new episodes of The Smith and Rowland Show and daily talk on faith, culture, and politics. #Trump #Davos #GlennBeck #Geopolitics #TheSmithAndRowlandShow

In this edition of Weekend Conclusions, Cam Newton causes a stir on First Take, the guys have more takeaways from Tony Romo's performance calling the AFC Championship game, Narc Palaczcuk struck again on Saturday night, & more See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textAfter a nice long break your favorite truth seekers are back at it! For our season premiere we are breaking down all the reasons we should be paying attention to Palantir. As usual this DOOZY will connect the dots and bring you the facts- so you can decide if it's TRUTH OR PROPAGANDA!!!Support the show@truthorpropaganda Truthorpropaganda@gmail.com

Welcome to episode 327 of Growers Daily! We cover: where the microbes go in winter, what happened when we started telling time(hint: it kind of started telling us) and it's feedback friday! We are a Non-Profit! 

In this episode of Iron Culture, Eric Helms and Eric Trexler discuss the recent changes to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) and the implications of these updates. They begin by addressing the shift in their podcast schedule, emphasizing the importance of mental health and balance in their work. The conversation then transitions into a detailed analysis of the new dietary guidelines, highlighting the complexities of the process behind their formulation. Helms critiques the influence of corporate interests and the political landscape on the DGAs, while also acknowledging the positive aspects of the new recommendations, particularly the increased emphasis on protein intake. The hosts explore the historical context of dietary guidelines, the evolution of public health messaging, and the challenges of effectively communicating nutritional advice to the public. In this episode, Eric Helms and MASS Research delve into the complexities of the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), discussing the implications of the visual representation of food groups and the recommendations for protein, fats, and processed foods. They critique the new guidelines for their lack of clarity and potential confusion, particularly regarding the emphasis on whole foods versus processed foods. The conversation highlights the disconnect between the written guidelines and their visual representation, which may mislead the public about healthy eating patterns. They also explore the political influences on these guidelines and how they may affect vulnerable populations, particularly in school lunch programs and social assistance programs. If you're in the market for some lifting gear or apparel, be sure to check out EliteFTS.com (and use our code "MRR10" for a 10% discount) Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Schedule Changes 07:15 The Dietary Guidelines Controversy 20:56 Understanding the Formation of Dietary Guidelines 32:30 The Influence of Food Industries on Guidelines 33:38 The Role of the Second Committee 43:49 Changes in Protein Recommendations 44:19 The Inverted Pyramid and Dietary Miscommunication 59:55 Understanding Fats in the New Guidelines 01:09:17 The Role of Full-Fat Dairy in Heart Health 01:15:06 Alcohol Consumption: New Guidelines Explained 01:21:52 Processed Foods and Public Health Implications 01:25:03 The Impact of Dietary Guidelines on Vulnerable Populations 01:30:34 Conclusions and Future Directions in Nutrition Guidelines

Episode 372 | Live From America Podcast This week on Live From America Podcast, hosts Hatem Gabr and Noam Dworman are joined by Jonathan Wackrow, former Secret Service agent and CNN Law Enforcement Analyst, and Andrew Heaton - author/host of "The political orphanage Podcast" - for a deep dive into one of the most controversial police shootings in America We break down the use-of-force legal standard, the concept of objective reasonableness, and why video footage often misleads public opinion. Jonathan explains how investigators assess threats, why some shootings are legally justified but publicly condemned, and what transparency in policing should look like. The conversation moves into immigration enforcement, political threats, and the legal implications of Trump's proposed use of the Insurrection Act in Minneapolis. We also cover President Trump's attempt to buy Greenland, examining its strategic value, diplomatic consequences, and why it became one of the most bizarre geopolitical stories of his presidency. The episode ends with a broader look at Trump's impact on American society, political polarization, far-right movements, and the shifting relationship between law enforcement and public trust. Topics Covered: Federal “objective reasonableness” standard in police shootings ICE shooting analysis and law-enforcement decision-making Transparency and accountability in use-of-force investigations Trump's consideration of the Insurrection Act Immigration enforcement and political threats Trump's plan to acquire Greenland The far right, polarization, and civil liberties How Trump reshaped American politics and public safety About the Guests Jonathan Wackrow is a former U.S. Secret Service agent and CNN Law Enforcement Analyst specializing in public safety, national security, presidential protection, and threat assessment. Andrew Heaton is a comedian, Author and hos of "The Political Orphanage Podcast" About the Show Live From America Podcast covers politics, culture, national security, and comedy with top experts, journalists, comedians, and public figures. Follow Live From America Podcast YouTube: @LiveFromAmericaPodcast Website: www.LiveFromAmericaPodcast.com Twitter/X: @AmericasPodcast Email: LiveFromAmericaPodcast@gmail.com Hosts Hatem Gabr — @HatemNYC Noam Dworman — @noam_dworman Hashtags #LiveFromAmericaPodcast #PoliceShooting #UseOfForce #InsurrectionAct #JonathanWackrow #ImmigrationPolicy #Greenland #TrumpNews #LawEnforcement #PublicSafety #NationalSecurity

In this episode, Pastor Bruce Varner takes us on a journey through the Bible to explore the often-overlooked sin of jumping to conclusions. Discover how assumptions can lead to misunderstandings and learn the importance of humility and discernment.Explore biblical accounts that highlight the dangers of hasty judgments. Pastor Varner delves into the story of Eve, who assumed she knew better than God, leading to the fall of humanity. He also discusses Pharaoh's assumptions about the Israelites, which ultimately led to his downfall. These stories serve as powerful reminders of the dangers of hasty judgments.Join us as we delve into these timeless lessons and uncover the spiritual and practical implications of making hasty judgments and jumping to the wrong conclusions.Listen now and transform your perspective!Send us a textEmail us at thatsinthebible@gmail.comWebsite: thatsinthebible.comOur podcast theme song "Jesus Is Coming Soon", courtesy of His Reflection a Gospel Quartet from Buckley Road Baptist Church, Liverpool, NY.

Nike dropped the Mind 001 and the internet had opinions. One of us already bought it and tried it, so we're debating this with actual experience instead of just hot takes. Is this innovation or gimmick? Is Nike breaking new ground or desperately trying to make us care about something... anything? What does this release signal about their bigger strategy? Rohit, Robbie, and Nick argue it out.For Deep Dives on Sneaker Lore, Business Analysis, and Industry Insider Insight: https://www.thesneakernewsletter.comGet Your Nike Mind: https://fave.co/4jD3HcsChapters00:00 The Buzz Around Nike's New Releases03:08 Consumer Reactions and Market Trends06:04 The Evolution of Nike's Technology09:06 Gamification and User Engagement11:55 The Future of Footwear Technology15:01 Personal Experiences with New Products17:59 The Role of Marketing in Consumer Perception20:58 Reflections on Mental Health and Footwear24:00 The Aesthetics of New Nike Models26:58 Conclusions and Final Thoughts34:24 The Evolution of Sneaker Technology37:14 Pricing and Consumer Perception40:22 Generational Trends in Footwear43:02 Market Timing and Economic Factors51:00 The Future of Sneaker CultureSUPPORT THE SHOW:Donate Through Venmo: https://venmo.com/u/sneakerhistoryBuy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/nickengvallEarly Access, Exclusive Videos, and Content On Patreon: https://patreon.com/sneakerhistoryIf you are interested in advertising to our audience, contact us: podcast@sneakerhistory.comCHECK OUT OUR OTHER SHOWS:For the Formula 1 Fans - Exhaust Notes: https://exhaustnotes.fmFor the Fitted Hat Fans - Crown and Stitch: https://crownandstitch.comFor the Cars & Sneakers Fans - Cars & Kicks: https://carsxkicks.comFor the Creators & Creatives - Outside The Box: https://podcasts.apple.com/id/podcast/outside-the-box-convos-with-creators/id1050172106[Links contain affiliate links; we may receive a small commission if you purchase after clicking a link. A great way to support the pod!]—––––—––––—––––—––––—––––—––––—––––—––––Our podcast is proudly...Recorded on Riverside: http://www.riverside.fm/?via=sneakerhistoryHosted & Distributed By Captivate: https://bit.ly/3j2muPbGET IN TOUCH:Robbie - robbie@sneakerhistory.comMike - mike@sneakerhistory.comRohit - rohit@sneakerhistory.comNick - nick@sneakerhistory.comDisclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/

Protests erupt in Minneapolis after a 37-year-old American citizen was shot and killed by an ICE officer. Plus, the Trump administration reveals briefs Congress on its plans to control Venezuela's economy and oil reserves. Alex Tabet, Rob D'Amico, Tom Manger, John Sandweg, Rep. Kelly Morrison, Paul Rieckhoff, and Hagar Chemali join The 11th Hour this Wednesday night. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Questions about whether two logical people can come to conflicting conclusions on a topic without committing a fallacy, how Greg, as a public figure, deals with criticism, and whether or not criticism gets to him.   Can two people come to conflicting conclusions on a topic while holding true to logic and reason without committing a fallacy? As a public figure, how do you deal with criticism, and does it get to you?

Send us a textAngelo, Rhea, and Jay are back to discuss whether or not there is a SECRET 9th episode of Stranger Things and what makes for a good final episode of a show.  Were things better in the old days when shows would just... end?THEN, there's a new Chevy Chase documentary on CNN and whoooo boy, does he come off as bad in it.  The gang discusses the documentary, jerks in Hollywood, and where, exactly, the line is when it comes to no longer supporting a star.All that PLUS: a reviews Night Sleeper, Boo-Ya, Stranger Things, and much MUCH more!MAKE SURE TO VISIT OUR SPONSOR: Steven Singer Jewelers!The TV Show is a weekly podcast hosted by Jay Black, with regular guests Angelo Cataldi and Rhea Hughes. Each week, we dive into the new Golden Age of Television, with a discussion of the latest shows and news. 

U.S. Congressman Darin LaHood (R-IL 16) joins John Williams to talk about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, how he feels the immigration effort by DHS is going, the latest on the situation in Venezuela, and if he believes the capture of Maduro was legal.

U.S. Congressman Darin LaHood (R-IL 16) joins John Williams to talk about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, how he feels the immigration effort by DHS is going, the latest on the situation in Venezuela, and if he believes the capture of Maduro was legal.

U.S. Congressman Darin LaHood (R-IL 16) joins John Williams to talk about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, how he feels the immigration effort by DHS is going, the latest on the situation in Venezuela, and if he believes the capture of Maduro was legal.

What can we conclude?

Nat, Ben and Prop-O get ready to ring in the New Year with a pretty weird Week 18 slate. They kick off by sharing their big end-of-season takes: Which team does Nat say is the best in the league? What Super Bowl does Prop-O want to see? Why does Ben say the year's surprise teams are built for sustained success? Previewing the weekend's games, the crew reveal the most important players in all of those matchups - you may be shocked! As Nat cruises to the Drew Locks crown, Prop-O tries to keep him in sight while Ben gets some karmic retribution after two years of boasting. All this and lots more! ___ To sign up for our partners FanTeam, hit the link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://af.fanteam.com/click?o=1&a=99082&c=1⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - use code RUSH to unlock special offers for followers of The NC Show! Get involved in the Edge Rush Boosted Acca, the TNF Freeroll contest - free to enter - and more! FanTeam is the ultimate home for NFL fans in the UK, with season-long, weekly, and daily fantasy contests featuring regular five-figure guaranteed prize pools. Users have to be 18+, please play responsibly, BeGambleAware.org ___ Check out the official Nat Coombs Show music playlist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://open.spotify.com/playlist/0i1nSLaUJWxZMGCe8eJLQY⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ___ BONUS CONTENT! Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@TheNCShow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ___ Follow Nat on X or Instagram: X (Twitter): ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/natcoombs⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/natcoombs⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ___ NC Show socials: X (Twitter): ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/thencshow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/thencshow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/thencshow/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Tik Tok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@thencshow?lang=en⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Threads: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.threads.net/@thencshow⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this week's edition of Weekend Conclusions, the guys react to Dabo's comments after losing the bowl game, they talk about Kon Knueppel suffering his first major injury as a Charlotte Hornet, & more See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Something To Think About Series #286 Thought of the day from Venerable Robina Courtin

n this episode, the hosts engage in a lively discussion about classic tag team matchups, comparing legendary teams from different eras. They explore the dynamics of tag team wrestling, the importance of chemistry between partners, and the influence of managers. The conversation highlights iconic rivalries and the evolution of tag teams, culminating in a debate over who would win in various fantasy matchups. The hosts share their insights and personal preferences, making for an entertaining and nostalgic journey through wrestling history. In this engaging wrestling podcast episode, the hosts delve into the history and evolution of tag teams, comparing iconic teams from WCW and WWF. They discuss pivotal matches, the impact of tag teams on wrestling culture, and engage in a rapid-fire segment where they pit legendary teams against each other. The conversation culminates in a light-hearted debate about the greatest tag teams of all time, leaving listeners entertained and informed about the rich history of tag team wrestling.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Tag Team Showdown01:30 Classic Tag Team Matchups: Heart Foundation vs. Four Horsemen07:22 Demolition vs. Road Warriors: The Battle of Titans10:35 British Bulldogs vs. Rock and Roll Express: A Technical Showcase16:40 Monster Madness: Natural Disasters vs. Doom17:54 The Unanimous Doom of WWF18:41 Battle of the Beasts: Powers of Pain vs. Steiner Brothers21:41 Money Inc vs. Miracle Violence Connection26:20 Power and Skill: Harlem Heat vs. Owen Hart and Yokozuna34:08 Match Analysis: Head Shrinkers vs. Hollywood Blondes40:03 Era Showdown: LOD vs. Outsiders46:12 Styles Clash: New Age Outlaws vs. Benoit & Malenko50:22 The Outlaws and Tag Team Dynamics53:18 Kronic vs. Dudley Boys: A Clash of Titans56:06 The End of an Era: WCW's Final Champions58:43 Edge and Christian: The Established Stars01:01:32 Dudley Boys vs. Steiner Brothers: A Battle of Generations01:07:43 Tag Team Showdown Begins01:10:12 Rapid Fire Tag Team Matchups01:13:13 Technical vs Emotional Storytelling in Wrestling01:15:50 Final Thoughts and Conclusions

PESTO Trial Results: What Stroke Survivors Need to Know About Perispinal Etanercept If you've spent any time in stroke recovery communities, you've probably seen the same pattern: a treatment gets talked about with real intensity, people share personal stories that pull you in, and suddenly you're left trying to sort hope from hype from “maybe.” When the decision also involves significant cost, that uncertainty can feel even heavier. That's exactly why I recorded this episode: to help stroke survivors and their families understand the PESTO trial results in plain language without drama, without attacks, and without jumping to conclusions. In this interview, Professor Vincent Thijs explains what the PESTO trial set out to test, why it was designed the way it was, and what the results can (and can't) tell us about perispinal etanercept in stroke recovery. The real problem: not “hope vs skepticism”… it's confusion If you're a stroke survivor, you're already doing something heroic: you're living inside a recovery journey that demands patience, grit, and constant adjustment. The challenge isn't that you “don't want to believe” in something. The challenge is that it's genuinely hard to make an informed decision when: People report different outcomes Online conversations become polarised fast Scientific studies use unfamiliar language The same treatment can be described in completely different ways depending on who you're listening to My goal here isn't to tell you what to do. It's to help you think clearly, ask better questions, and understand what the best available evidence from this trial actually tested. What the PESTO trial was trying to investigate (in simple terms) Professor Thijs explains that the PESTO trial was designed in response to strong community interest. Stroke survivors wanted to know whether the way perispinal etanercept is currently administered in some settings could be demonstrated to work under the standards used for medicines to become widely accepted as part of routine care. So the researchers designed a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. In this type of study: A computer assigns participants to either the treatment or a placebo Participants and clinicians are kept “blinded” (they don't know who got what) Outcomes are measured in a consistent way at set time points In the PESTO trial, the focus was on stroke survivors with moderate to severe disability and reduced quality of life. The primary question was straightforward: Does quality of life improve after one or two injections compared with placebo, over the measured timeframe? Why this study looked at quality of life (not one symptom) One key detail Professor Thijs highlights is the design choice: the trial didn't only target one issue, like pain or walking. It aimed to be more “pragmatic,” reflecting how treatment is used in real-world settings where people seek help for different post-stroke challenges (mobility, fatigue, speech, cognition, pain, and more). That means the main outcome wasn't “Did walking speed improve?” or “Did pain reduce?” It was broader: Quality of life at 28 days And again after the second injection timeframe (56 days total) This matters because your results can look different depending on what you measure. A trial targeting one symptom might see a signal that a broad quality-of-life measure doesn't detect (and vice versa). What the PESTO trial results found In Professor Thijs' words, the trial did not show a difference in quality of life between the treatment and placebo groups at the measured time points: No clear quality-of-life improvement at 28 days No clear improvement after two injections at 56 days That's the central outcome. But there's another finding that grabbed my attention—and it's one many listeners will find surprising. Quote block (mid-article): “We saw that 58% of the people also had that improvement [with placebo] and 53% had it with etanercept… our initial guess was very wrong.” — Professor Vincent Thijs The “placebo signal” and why it matters A strong placebo response doesn't mean “it was all in their heads.” It means that in a blinded clinical trial, people can improve for multiple reasons that aren't specific to the drug itself, such as: Expectation and hope Natural fluctuations in symptoms The impact of being monitored and supported Regression to the mean (symptoms often move toward average over time) The structure and attention that come with trial participation Professor Thijs describes how, during the blinded phase, participants reported improvements in a variety of areas (like sensation, vision, speech). The crucial point is: the team didn't know who had a placebo or an active treatment at the time, which is exactly why blinding exists. For you, the listener, this is a reminder of something empowering: Personal stories can be real and meaningful—and still not answer the question of efficacy on their own. “Am I a candidate?” The trial's honest answer: we don't know how to predict it (yet) One of the most important parts of this conversation is the desire to identify who might benefit most. Professor Thijs explains that the team looked at subgroups (for example: age, sex, severity, diabetes, time since stroke). In this trial, they didn't find a clear subgroup where the treatment stood out as reliably beneficial compared with placebo. He also adds an important caveat: subgroup analysis is difficult, especially in trials that aren't extremely large. So the absence of a clear “responder profile” here doesn't automatically prove none exists—it means this trial didn't reveal one. What this episode is (and isn't) saying Let's keep this grounded and fair. This interview is not about attacking any person, provider, or clinic. It's not about shaming stroke survivors who tried something. It's not even about telling you that you should or shouldn't pursue a treatment. It is about this: Understanding what the PESTO trial tested Understanding what the results showed within their timeframe Knowing the limits of what the trial can conclude Using evidence to reduce confusion before making big decisions A simple “clarity plan” before you decide anything big If you're considering any high-stakes treatment decision, here's a neutral, practical way to move forward: 1) Ask: “What outcome matters most for me?” Is it pain? walking? fatigue? speech? cognition? daily function? quality of life? A treatment might be studied for one outcome and discussed online for another. 2) Ask: “What does the best evidence say—specifically?” Not “Does it work?” in general, but: In what population? Using what method? At what dose? Over what timeframe? Compared with what? 3) Ask: “What are my options and trade-offs?” Talk with a qualified healthcare professional who understands your medical history, risk factors, and rehab plan. Ask about: Potential risks and side effects Opportunity cost (what else could you do with the same time, money, and energy?) Evidence-based rehab and supports that match your goals Listen to the full interview If you want the clearest explanation of the PESTO trial results—from the lead researcher himself—listen to the full episode with Professor Vincent Thijs. And if you'd like to support the podcast (and help keep these conversations going for stroke survivors who need hope and clarity): Bill's book: recoveryafterstroke.com/book Patreon: patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke Medical disclaimer This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult your doctor before making any changes to your health or recovery plan. PESTO Trial Results (Etanercept After Stroke) | Interview with Professor Vincent Thijs Confused about perispinal etanercept after stroke? Prof Vincent Thijs explains the PESTO trial results clearly, calmly, and evidence-first. More About Perispinal Etanercept: Etanercept Stroke Recovery: Wesley Ray's Relentless Comeback Dwayne Semple's Remarkable Stroke Journey and Perispinal Etanercept Etanercept for Stroke Recovery – Andrew Stopps Support The Recovery After Stroke Podcast on Patreon Highlights: 00:00 Introduction and Overview of the PESTO Trial 04:19 Design and Objectives of the PESTO Trial 11:23 Recruitment and Methodology of the Trial 18:31  PESTO Trial Results and Findings 24:28 Implications and Future Directions for Research 32:15 Conclusions and Final Thoughts Transcript: Introduction: PESTO Trial Results Bill Gasiamis (00:00) Hello and welcome back to Recovery After Stroke. Before we get started, a quick thank you to my Patreon supporters. Your support helps cover the hosting costs after more than 10 years of me doing this show solo. And it helps me keep creating episodes for stroke survivors who need hope and practical guidance. And thank you as well to everyone who comments on YouTube, leaves reviews on Spotify and Apple podcasts. buys the book and even to those of you who don’t skip the ads. Every bit of that supports keep this podcast going. Now today’s episode is about the PESTO trial results and I’m interviewing Professor Vincent Theis. If you’ve ever felt confused by the conversation online about perisponal antenna sept, some people sharing positive experiences while others are feeling disappointed and plenty of strong opinions in between, this episode is designed to bring clarity. We talk about what the PESTO trial set out to test, how the study was designed, what it found within the measured timeframes and what the results can and can’t tell us. Just a quick note, this conversation is educational and not medical advice. Always speak with a qualified health professional about your situation. All right, let’s get into it. Professor Vincent Dase, welcome to the podcast. Vincent Thijs (01:24) Thank you for having me, Bill. Bill Gasiamis (01:26) I’m really looking forward to this conversation. Atenosept is one of the most hotly discussed topics in stroke recovery. And there’s a lot of misconceptions about whether or not it is or is not efficacious. And while there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence where some people have had positive outcomes from injections, there’s also a lot of people’s feedback, which is very negative about their experience with the Etanercept injections and the lack of results. So today, the reason I reached out is because I wanted to get to the bottom of the findings of the PESTO trial. And I’m hoping that you can shed some light on that. The first question basically is, can you start by explaining in simple terms what it was that the PESTO trial set out to investigate? Vincent Thijs (02:22) All right. The PESTO trial was in response to community members, stroke survivors, wanting to find out whether the current practice of administering Etanercept has done in the U.S. in private practice. In Denmark, I hear there are some sites that provide this treatment. Whether the treatment and genders can be actually proven according to the standards that we use in the pharmaceutical industry to get it to become accepted as a standard of care treatment. For that, you need to do what we call a randomized controlled clinical trial, preferably two that show evidence that treatment does what it’s set out to do. And that’s why with this background and the community pressuring the minister several years ago, Mr. Hunt at the time, to fund a trial that would help answer that question. Design and Objectives of the PESTO Trial There was a call was set out to do this trial and several groups in Australia applied and then an independent committee decided to award the trial to the PESTO study group. And then we tried to design this trial to give an answer. So it’s mostly about people that have moderate to severe disability after their stroke that have reduced quality of life. And We wanted to know, does their quality of life improve when Etanercept is administered? And we wanted to test whether one or two injections were needed. Because that’s what we heard from stroke survivors that from Australia and internationally that went over to the US. Well, this is how it’s done. You get one or two injections and there was a paper that had shown big effects with one injection. So that was the primary endpoint, but then we also looked at whether two injections could help. And when you design a trial, you have to make a decision, will we focus on people with. pain after stroke, or will we look at people who have mobility issues or speech issues or cognitive issues? And we saw that current clinical practice actually was people with various impairments after stroke were accepted and received the treatment. And what would have been the advantage of doing say only mobility or only pain? Well, you can then look at the outcome of pain or mobility, does it improve? Or is your cognition improved? But because we wanted to be pragmatic and we know that recruitment in clinical trials needs to reflect how is current practice. So we thought let’s put in all the people with moderate to severe disability, whatever their impairment after stroke and reduce quality of life. And then we looked at quality of life as an outcome rather than an individual impairment. And so what we did then was to use the randomized technique and where it’s left up to the computer to decide what treatment a person will receive, the active Etanercept or a similar looking placebo, and then look at 28 days and we had to make a decision what makes sense 28 days, what is practical. to see whether that injection then had improved quality of life. And then we did another injection again with a placebo or the active drug. And then after 28 days again, we looked again whether that had made a difference. So we have people that had received two times the placebo, one time the placebo, and one active injection. And then we have people that had received two active injections. And then we were able to compare those and see whether they had made bigger improvements if you receive two injections versus one or zero. Unfortunately, we couldn’t show a difference in quality of life at 28 days. And we also couldn’t show an improvement at 56 days after people had two injections. But that was in a nutshell how we designed and the background of the study. Bill Gasiamis (07:25) So the main difference then between the Griffith University study and your particular study was that they did go after a specific improvement in one area, I believe. it in? Okay. So although those guys went after pain, you guys went after just a general improvement in quality of life after the injection and your stroke survivors. Vincent Thijs (07:39) Mostly, think. Bill Gasiamis (07:54) would have been as far as 15 years post stroke. Is that right? Vincent Thijs (07:59) Yes, correct. We wanted to have people early after stroke between one and five years, and then also between people five to 15 years after stroke. That was also for practical reasons. Once you start trial, you see how good recruitment is, how many people want to participate in the study. And we saw that if we went to up to five years. Recruitment was relatively slow. So we added this additional group of people later on after their stroke. that because many people, I’m five years, I’m six years after stroke. Why can’t I get the treatment? And you know, so we also wanted to expand the pool. And that’s also what happens in clinical practice. Current clinical practice, I don’t think the sites and the US and they would refuse the patient six years or so. We just wanted to reflect the people that we see on the website going for this treatment. Bill Gasiamis (09:01) Yeah, yeah. And then the difference between the Griffith trial and your trial as well was the actual dosage of Etanercept the amount that was in the injection. I do believe that your trial was a 25 milligram injection. And I believe that the Griffith University trial was 25 milligram. injection to 50 milligram injection. Vincent Thijs (09:34) Yeah, we just based on what people told us they received when they went to the clinic, also the other sites and then also 35 milligram was chosen because that’s in the patent for the street. Bill Gasiamis (09:49) Okay, I see. So you’re trying to as much as possible mimic what was happening out there in in the private practice Vincent Thijs (10:00) We wanted to answer the question, is current clinical practice, is that beneficial? And that’s what sort of what the call was to do a clinical trial in current clinical practice. You can, you have to make decisions, right? And I think this was the most relevant for a stroke survivor. Bill Gasiamis (10:17) Now that’s really interesting that stroke survivors were able to twist the arm of a minister to get the funding to begin that process of the trial. How long ago did this actually start? Vincent Thijs (10:28) I think it was 2016, 2017 or so. So it takes a while to get the minister and then I think that the trial started in 2019. took a while to complete as well. Bill Gasiamis (10:43) Right understood. Okay So then you recruit people they come along and they go through the trial through the particular trial How does that work on the day do they turn up are they admitted? We’ll be back with more of professor face explanation in just a moment But I want to pause here because if you’ve ever felt stuck between hope and uncertainty, you’re not alone When you’re recovering from stroke, you’re constantly making decisions and some decisions feel high stakes, especially when confronting information that’s conflicting. Recruitment and Methodology of the Trial In the second half of this conversation, we get into the parts that really help you think clearly. What the trial results do and don’t mean, and why placebo responses matter in blinded research, and how to frame smarter questions before you commit time, money, or energy to any path. If you want to support the podcast and keep these episodes coming, You can grab my book at recoveryafterstroke.com/book or join the Patreon at patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke All right, back to the episode. Vincent Thijs (11:51) All right, so we recruited from a variety of sources. So we had kept a log of people that were interested in this. We had a Facebook post in New Zealand, for instance, where we recruited as well. We had people from the Stroke Clinical Registry that were approached. We had a website and people could register their interest if they were doing a search online to participate in clinical trial. So the variety of sources and then we have to determine eligibility that was mostly done either via an in-person visit or remotely via telehealth. We tried to get their medical information, what type of stroke they had. And then we also questioned whether they had this modified rank in scale, the disability they had, the impairments they had from their stroke. so then people came. they were considered eligible, then we scheduled a visit and they would typically come in no overnight stay needed. It was a day procedure that was done. People were then receiving another questionnaire on the day itself to measure their quality of life and other measures like their fatigue levels and how much help they required, etc. And then we proceeded with the injection, which was done. We had bought a special bed that was able to do the, the, the tilting that was required. So we set the people up, injected and then tilted the table. so, we received the drug. It was prepared independently by the pharmacist. So the pharmacist, they took the drug off the shelf or the made the placebo. and they made sure it looked exactly alike. So then somebody from the trial team picked it up from the pharmacist. The pharmacist didn’t tell, of course, what it was. And then the administration happened. So the doctor who administered and the participant did not know what they received. So after the procedure, they were left like this for four minutes. And then after four minutes, people could sit up again. And we waited about half an hour. then we asked them how they were doing, whether there were any adverse reactions, ⁓ and ⁓ then after that half an hour of observation people could go back to their habitual situation. ⁓ it’s a very simple ⁓ procedure to do. Bill Gasiamis (14:35) I believe there was a was there 126 participants Vincent Thijs (14:40) Yes, 126 people participated. had anticipated a little bit more people to participate. So we had hoped 168, but recruitment fell flat after a while and we were not able to find more people to recruit. So we made a decision and then, you know, these clinical trials, they have some funding ⁓ and they require the treatment team to be paid, et cetera, and that ran out. So we had to stop at a certain time. Bill Gasiamis (15:13) Was the study stopped early because of a decrease in the amount of funding or was there an issue with the funding at some point? Vincent Thijs (15:23) Funding ran out. You hire people for a certain amount of years and then you have fewer patients than you anticipate. So you have to stop. Bill Gasiamis (15:32) huh, okay. So would that affect the outcome of the trial? Would you say the lack of funding or the lack of the ability to take the trial further? Vincent Thijs (15:42) Yeah, well, what we had when you do the trial, when you plan the trial, you say, well, this is what we’re going to expect in terms of efficacy. You have to make a guess and say, well, that many people will have an improvement in quality of life if we give them the placebo and that many people will have an improvement in quality of life with the trial drug. And we had thought that about 11 % would improve with the placebo based on an earlier study. And then we had to make a guess because nobody had done this type of study on what Etanosap would provide. But reading the report that was published several years ago now, where 90 % of the people reported improvement in their impairments, we thought, well, Let’s not go for 90%, but a 30 % improvement. And so that was based on that we needed 168 people to participate in the trial. So that was what we call the pre-planned sample size estimation, which is a guess. When we stopped at 126 participants, actually we saw that the results were very different. There was not that 11 % actually in the placebo arm. saw that 58 % of the people also had that improvement and 53 % had it with ethanosab. So our initial guess was very wrong based on some statistical advanced statistical techniques we have. We have quite a lot of power to estimate whether there was a difference. So I think the trial can provide us an answer. It’s large enough to give us an answer about this particular question. Is current clinical practice in these people with this range after their stroke, does it improve? quality of life after a month or after two months. I’m not speaking about early improvement, I’m not speaking about six months down the line. We only can decide what we see in this study. Bill Gasiamis (18:05) So you have some limitations because you can’t have the funding to test one month, two months, six months, 12 months. You have the funding to basically meet the design of your study and then you can report on that. Now what’s really interesting is that the placebo had such a large result. PESTO Trial Results and Findings Vincent Thijs (18:34) What kind of things were people reporting that improved for the people who had the placebo injection?Look, this is, course, when we were in the blinded phase, when neither myself or my colleagues who did these scales, we were totally blinded. And that’s, remember vividly people saying, it didn’t do anything for me. But then there were also people said that they could see again. And so people that had improvement in sensation. Some people had improvement in their speech. there were, we, we observed these things, but we didn’t know whether they were active or placebo. And then surprisingly we had some people in whom we thought, they must have had active drug that turned out to have the placebo, but that’s years after, right? Because it takes a little bit of time to accumulate a sufficient number of patients. And we were only reporting and breaking the blind when the trial was finished. because otherwise you may be biased in all your analysis, et cetera. You don’t want to do that. So you wait until the end of the study to break the blind. And that’s very frustrating for the participants because there were many people that said, I must have had the placebo because it didn’t do anything for me. And there were other people that were, and some people like that, they said, I still want to go to the US. Bill Gasiamis (19:37) I see. Vincent Thijs (19:59) And please, can you tell me if I received a placebo? And I understand it was terribly frustrating for these participants. But we were very strict. No, we don’t want to break the blind. This is against the rules that you have to adhere to in a clinical trial. And so we didn’t do that. Of course, once the trial was finished, we were able to report the results back to the the participants. And then there were some people that were very surprised that they had received the active drug. I remember one person vividly who said, you have to tell me now because I’m going. And then I said, hold off, hold off. And then we told them you had twice the active drug. And so they decided not to go anymore. So you see how From a clinical trial perspective, it’s very important to remain very objective and not being able to see what people have received. From a humane level, of course, I understand it was very important to these people. Bill Gasiamis (21:02) Yeah, that’d be difficult. ⁓ And then I imagine that had the placebo not worked and then the tenisept did work, then there would have been people who would have said, well, I’ve received the placebo. It didn’t work for me. Other people received the tenisept. It did work for them. Why can’t I get the tenisept injection now? Vincent Thijs (21:26) Yeah, and we also had two people, people that had twice the placebo who noticed an improvement and have told me the improvement is still there. Bill Gasiamis (21:35) Wow. Vincent Thijs (21:36) So it. Bill Gasiamis (21:38) That’s amazing. Now was the. Vincent Thijs (21:40) And often that, and I must tell you, often those were relatively little things that seemed to improve both with the placebo and in the active group. And you see that there are changes in quality of life that people have reported, but it happens as well with the placebo. Bill Gasiamis (21:58) Wow. Was the intention of the study that was funded at the very beginning in 2016 by Minister Hunt, was it to determine whether or not this was going to be an effective treatment for people in stroke and therefore to roll it out somehow in the Australian medical system for stroke survivors? What was the thinking for Minister Hunt? Do you know? Vincent Thijs (22:24) Of course, I was not involved in that lobbying to the minister or anything, but it was to bring it on a pathway towards regulatory approval. We know that Etanercept is a relatively cheap drug that you can get ⁓ and is approved already for some indications, especially in people with rheumatoid arthritis, the condition of the joints, but it’s not approved for stroke. And to be officially approved and then potentially re- reimbursed on the PBS. You need to have some trials that have been done such as PESTO. We do different trial phases. One would be a phase two trial and a phase three trial. So phase one is typically in people just to assess the safety and some dosages usually in healthy people. And then a phase two is safety amongst stroke survivors. and preliminary efficacy. And that’s where PESTO was what we call a phase two B trial. And then a phase three trial would then be a trial in many more participants based usually on the results of a phase two B trial. And then usually when you have a phase three trial and it’s convincing and the authorities may approve such a trial. Bill Gasiamis (23:46) So in this case, the phase two B trial, this PESTO trial didn’t find that it’s efficacious. And as a result, there’s not going to be a further trial. Would that be accurate? Vincent Thijs (23:56) Well, based on the findings we have in this particular type of ⁓ way of administering in this particular group of people, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to argue for a phase three trial. It may be that you could say, well, we want to focus on pain because that was more promising. Well, you’ll need to do another trial in that condition. Implications and Future Directions for Research After stroke or maybe within a year after stroke. I mean, there are other possibilities, but at the moment, current clinical practice type trials, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to move forward with that. Bill Gasiamis (24:43) What would the numbers have had to look like for the trial to conclude that there was evidence of efficacy? Vincent Thijs (24:51) Well, I think based on what we have now, you would need to design a much, much bigger trial because there was only a 5 % difference between the placebo and the active group. And actually it was in favor of the placebo. So the placebo did a little bit better, not statistically significant. So it could just be by chance, but you would need probably thousands of people. Bill Gasiamis (25:15) I see. And I imagine there’s not a lot of excitement about funding something like that by the people who fund these trials. Vincent Thijs (25:25) Yes, typically the funders will look at how good is the evidence to pursue this. And if you were a pharmaceutical company on a pathway to development for a drug, you probably would say, well, it looks safe, but it didn’t do what it intended to do. So let’s stop the development of this drug for this indication. Bill Gasiamis (25:45) I say so. I think one of the challenges with the path of administering a TANACEP to stroke survivors is that there seems to be a missing step. And the step to me is determining whether or not somebody is a candidate for a TANACEP. perhaps if we knew more about the stroke survivor, what was actually happening in their particular brain, and we were able to determine some similarities between the people who have had a positive result and we developed a method, then that would make it a lot easier. to say, well, I’m a stroke survivor. I’d like to have a TANACYPT and then go through a process of determining whether or not I was a candidate rather than just guessing whether I’m a candidate or not and then having to pay money to find out whether in fact I was a candidate. Vincent Thijs (26:33) The trial provides a little bit of answers to that. ⁓ You want to identify a marker or a subgroup of people in whom the drug will work particularly well. And so you could look at, and we looked at different things like females versus males, if you’re younger versus older, if you have very severe disability or less severe disability, if you have diabetes, are you early after your stroke or later? That one to five versus six to 15 category. And we could not identify a group in whom the the drug worked particularly well. Now there’s a caveat when you do a clinical trial, it’s really hard to look at subgroups, especially if your trial is relatively small and the PESTO trial is relatively small. So you have to take this with a grain of salt, but it was nothing really promising. that we could identify. So probably you need other markers. If you believe in Etanercept as a drug, you would possibly need to look at what are the levels of TNF alpha, the drug, the molecule that actually is targeted. Unfortunately, there’s nothing like readily available to do that. Could it be that people with a… a stroke in a particular location that would work particularly more than in others, but we don’t have any real way at the moment to do that. Bill Gasiamis (28:08) Okay, so we’re assuming that the people who experience an improvement after they’ve had an attempt to shut that the markers of TNF alpha were lower or higher or Vincent Thijs (28:21) Well, the theory is that they have a lot higher TNF-alpha. Now, as you know, the premise is Etanercept works by reducing this molecule and we have good evidence that it reduces this molecule in the blood, but we don’t have good evidence that it reduces the levels in the brain. That’s where you want it to be. And one of the difficulties and many scientists that work on the Etanercept and ⁓ have said, look, it doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. It doesn’t. go against the natural defense that we have to protect the brain against substances that could potentially be harmful for the brain or that have a large size. And the Tandacep we know has a large size would not cross the blood-brain barrier. So it doesn’t reach the brain. And many people look at it with relative skepticism that it actually enters the brain. Bill Gasiamis (29:18) ⁓ And then with regards to rheumatoid arthritis, doesn’t need to cross the blood-brain barrier. It just somehow gets to this, position or the place where inflammation is occurring. TNF-alpha is active and it can easily mitigate the impact that TNF-alpha is causing. In the brain, the brain is protected by the blood-brain barrier and it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier under normal conditions and therefore it can’t get to where the TNF-alpha is. if there’s any TNF alpha, if inflammation is the issue and it cannot resolve it one way or another. So for some people perhaps it can’t resolve it. Now, I don’t understand about Etanercept a lot. I don’t understand exactly how the molecule works, et cetera. But if it was injected into a blood vessel, is that not something that can occur? And if it was, if it can occur, would that then cross the blood brain barrier? Vincent Thijs (30:15) That wouldn’t cause a blood brain barrier, no. You would have to do what we call a lumbar puncture or put a little ⁓ injection into the ventricles and then hope that it would enter the area that is stark where the TNF alpha is elevated. Those experiments have not been done. Bill Gasiamis (30:17) Either. Okay, so a lumbar puncture is probably riskier than… Vincent Thijs (30:44) Well, it’s uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable and we do it to administer drugs if needed. Some people with brain cancer receive it. There are other trials ongoing in certain areas of stroke where it’s done. Bill Gasiamis (30:58) Then the difficulty is, and my job here is to report back to the community how they should proceed with Etanercept going forward. Now, I don’t expect you to answer that. However, your study probably gives enough information for people to be able to make an even more informed decision than they did before. Previously, what I think was happening is people, and it still happens every day. And I’ve interviewed a lot of stroke survivors who’ve had positive results with Etanercept. The challenge is getting interviews with stroke survivors who have had negative results with Etanercept. That is something I haven’t been able to do. So if somebody happens to be watching and listening to this and they have had the Etanercept shots and they didn’t get positive results, please reach out so that we can share a balanced story of what’s happening out there in the community. Would there be a reason for the community to perhaps begin again to lobby a government or a minister of a government to look at perisponinal tenosept and study it in a different way, like administration via a lumbar puncture. Conclusions and Final Thoughts Vincent Thijs (32:08) I think we need more, probably go back to the drawing table to see whether, because we’re just taking a step back. The idea is that there is inflammation after stroke and we know that there is inflammation after stroke. We don’t, we just don’t know how long it is. We don’t have a good marker. Is it present only for weeks or months after stroke or can it persist for years? The theory is that it persists for years, but if you look at the actual experiments that have been done, it’s really hard to study in humans because we don’t have good tests. But if you look in animals, it’s also hard to do long-term studies in animals, but nobody has really proven that conclusively that there is still after the stroke causes a scar, that process is still really active. Is TNF-alpha years after a stroke still present? Yes, it’s present because we use TNF as a transmitter in the brain or a chemical in the brain, but is it still worth reducing its activity? That’s probably, I think, a bigger question that science needs to answer is to understand that all inflammation piece and the time after stroke that it persists in my Bill Gasiamis (33:35) Yeah, because it could still be the fact that the person has had brain damage. The particular part of their brain that’s damaged has, for example, taken offline one of their limbs and there is no way to recover that once it’s gone. there is no, there may also be no inflammation ⁓ there. So somebody in that situation receiving Etanercept wouldn’t get a result even if it was able to cross the blood-brain barrier because the damage is done and that’s the challenge with the brain is once it’s damaged restoring the damaged part is not possible. Vincent Thijs (34:15) Yeah, look, after this experience with the PESTA trial, I think we need to work on other avenues and I’m not as hopeful with this based on the data that I have seen. Bill Gasiamis (34:28) Yeah Well, my final question then is, are you planning on exploring inflammation and recovery after stroke with any work that you’re doing in the future? Is there any more of this type of work being done? Vincent Thijs (34:46) we’ve just launched a new study, which is not a randomized trial, but it’s trying to get at this common symptom that people have after stroke, which is fatigue and cognitive changes. And one of my post-docs, Dr. Emily Ramech, she’s a physio by background. We just launched what we call the deep phenotyping study after stroke. And we are looking at young people that have had a stroke up to age 55 and we’re taking them into the scanner. We will do a PET scan that’s looking at inflammation. We’re taking their bloods and looking at markers of inflammation and see how that relates to fatigue after stroke. This is between the first month and the sixth month after stroke. That will give us a little bit of timeline of inflammation after stroke. It will give us some information about fatigue, which is very common, but I have no plans at the moment to look at ethanocephaly. Bill Gasiamis (35:53) Fair enough. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. All right, well, that brings us back to the end of the episode with Professor Vincent Dease on the PESLO trial results. My hope is that this conversation gives you more clarity, especially if you’re felt caught between personal stories, strong opinions, and a lot of uncertainty. The goal here isn’t to tell you what to do. It’s to help you ask better questions and make decisions with your eyes open alongside a qualified healthcare professional who knows your situation. If this episode helped you, please do a couple of things. Subscribe on YouTube or follow the podcast on Spotify or Apple. Leave a review if you can. It really helps more stroke survivors find the show. And if you’ve had an experience you’re willing to share respectfully, positive, negative or mixed, add a comment. Those real-world perspectives help community feel less alone. And if you’d like to support the podcast and keep it going, my book is at recoveryafterstroke.com/book. And you can join the Patreon at patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke. Thanks for being here with me. And remember you’re not alone in this recovery journey. Importantly, we present many podcasts designed to give you an insight and understanding into the experiences of other individuals. Opinions and treatment protocols discussed during any podcast are the individual’s own experience, and we do not necessarily share the same opinion, nor do we recommend any treatment protocol discussed. All content on this website and any linked blog, podcast or video material controlled this website or content is created and produced for informational purposes only and is largely based on the personal experience of Bill Gassiamus. Content is intended to complement your medical treatment and support healing. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice and should not be relied on as health advice. The information is general and may not be suitable for your personal injuries, circumstances or health objectives. Do not use our content as a standalone resource to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease for therapeutic purposes or as a substitute for the advice of a health professional. Never delay seeking advice or disregard the advice of a medical professional, your doctor or your rehabilitator. program based on our content. you have any questions or concerns about your health or medical condition, please seek guidance from a doctor or other medical professional. If you are experiencing a health emergency or think you might be, call 000 if in Australia or your local emergency number immediately for emergency assistance or go to the nearest hospital emergency department. Medical information changes constantly. While we aim to provide current quality information in our content, we do not provide any guarantees and assume no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of the content. If you choose to rely on any information within our content, you do so solely at your own risk. We are careful with links we provide. However, third-party links from our website are followed at your own risk and we are not responsible for any information you find there. The post PESTO Trial Results (Etanercept After Stroke) | Interview with Professor Vincent Thijs appeared first on Recovery After Stroke.

In this edition of Weekend Conclusions, Mac & Bone talk about their conclusions from the CFP weekend, they address a big UNC win, a Duke loss, & more See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sales 101: Curiosity Before ConclusionsOne of the fastest ways to lose trust in a sales conversation is jumping to conclusions too early. In this episode, Sam Wakefield breaks down why confidence in sales doesn't come from having answers—it comes from genuine curiosity.What You'll Learn in This EpisodeWhy jumping to conclusions creates resistance and confusionThe difference between symptoms and stories in discoveryHow curiosity slows the conversation down in the right wayWhy top performers ask better questions and talk lessHow curiosity builds trust without pressure or tactics

They always do that. Here, Dan explains how to avoid being so certain they will be just like they are. Connection with others gives them room to be a new self. Be curious.

Apply to work with me here04:24 Understanding Discipline in Health and Fitness09:13 Gender Differences in Food Planning and Body Image13:37 The Myth of Cortisol Belly27:49 Conclusions

In this final video of our study of Leviticus, we cover both Leviticus 26 and 27. Chapter 26 is a warning from the Lord of the consequences if they follow his decrees and if they do not. If they DO follow his law, God promises blessings, but IF THEY DO NOT, he promises punishment (or better known as chastisement). We look at these warnings as well as examples of where we see both play out in the Old Testament history of Israel. We also cover Leviticus 27, in which we study the dedication and redemption value of items devoted to the Lord.

I offer my scorched earth solutions to fighting Antifa and communism in the US.. America is in a Civil War with a major political party and its blacked-shirted paramilitary arm going from cold to hot war. Prepare accordingly. Part Four at Episode 075 Part Three at Episode 074 Part Two at Episode 073 Part One at Episode 072. I did a primer on cell organization in Ep 051 “Cellular Ecology: Guerrilla Organizations and Grunt Math”. References: House Un-American Activities Committee records, 1945-1975 How They Hunt Why Schools Don't Educate by John Taylor Gatto *** F A Hayek The Intellectuals and Socialism Bryan Borrough Days of Rage: America's Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence Andy Ngo Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy AQ Training Manual The IRA Greenbook Hunting the Sleepers An Analysis of Al-Qaida Tradecraft Modeling Terrorist Networks - Complex Systems at the Mid-Range Understanding the Form, Function, and Logic of Clandestine Insurgent and Terrorist Networks: The First Step in Effective Counternetwork Operations Stephen Biddle Nonstate Warfare: The Military Methods of Guerillas, Warlords, and Militias Email at cgpodcast@pm.me

Is an elder always an Elder, or are they simply an elder—and how does that change what Peter says about them in chapter five? Tune in to today's episode to make sense of that sentence and to dive into the closing remarks of 1 Peter, with a view of leadership that resists the worldly temptation to wield authority over others. Instead, see how submitting to one another out of obedience to the Lord elevates our life together and amplifies our witness to the watching world. In this episode, the guys tie all the verses together to show how these concepts are lived out today, and challenge some translation choices along the way. Join us for the conclusion of our series on the book of 1 Peter, and feel free to drop any unanswered questions about the series on Facebook! 

I offer my scorched earth solutions to fighting Antifa and communism in the US.. America is in a Civil War with a major political party and its blacked-shirted paramilitary arm going from cold to hot war. Prepare accordingly. Part Four at Episode 075 Part Three at Episode 074 Part Two at Episode 073 Part One at Episode 072. I did a primer on cell organization in Ep 051 “Cellular Ecology: Guerrilla Organizations and Grunt Math”. References: House Un-American Activities Committee records, 1945-1975 How They Hunt Why Schools Don’t Educate by John Taylor Gatto F A Hayek The Intellectuals and Socialism Bryan Borrough Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence Andy Ngo Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy AQ Training Manual The IRA Greenbook Hunting the Sleepers An Analysis of Al-Qaida Tradecraft Modeling Terrorist Networks – Complex Systems at the Mid-Range Understanding the Form, Function, and Logic of Clandestine Insurgent and Terrorist Networks: The First Step in Effective Counternetwork Operations Stephen Biddle Nonstate Warfare: The Military Methods of Guerillas, Warlords, and Militias My Substack Email at cgpodcast@pm.me

In this edition of Weekend Conclusions, Mac delivers an interesting take he has about LaMelo Ball and the Hornets, Bone investigates the relationship between a Steelers legend and Mike Tomlin, and Fitty ends a friendship with a WFNZ co-worker See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After much anticipation, Josh Brahm FINALLY gets to interview Monica Snyder from Secular Pro-Life about her background and expertise in Forensics. Monica explains how her work in forensics and DNA analysis affects her view on the abortion issue, particularly when it comes to questions about the justice system and why we shouldn't prosecute women who have had abortions.  Content warning: Includes discussion of forensic rape kits as well as methods of testing whether a baby was aborted instead of miscarried.  Links: Testing biological tissue for abortion drugs "Was the Infant Born Alive?" A Review of Postmortem Techniques Used to Determine Live Birth In Cases of Suspected Neonaticide National Right to Life: Joint Open Letter: Criminalizing Women Who Have Abortions is Not Pro-Life ERI Statement: Should Women Be Prosecuted for Illegal Abortions? Secular Pro-Life Equal Rights Institute Equal Rights Institute Blog Equipped for Life Academy Equipped for Life Course Sidewalk Counseling Masterclass Chapters: 00:00:00 Introducing Monica's forensics credentials and background 00:03:25 Describing the Innocence Project 00:06:25 Monica describes her forensics work 00:09:30 Real forensics vs. TV forensics 00:15:50 Why rape cases are difficult to prosecute 00:21:40 Where forensics touches the abortion debate in a post-Dobbs world 00:24:45 Distinguishing abortion pills and miscarriage? 00:34:16 Concerns with attaching criminal penalties to women who have had abortions 00:41:55 What rights do convicted people have? 00:48:35 What would a dystopian prosecution of all women who had abortions look like? 00:49:50 What is a more realistic interpretation of pro-lifers who want to attach criminal penalties to abortion look like? 00:51:10 Plea deals and public defenders 00:54:40 'Steel-manning' the pro-lifers who want to attach criminal penalties to abortion 00:58:10 Trauma associated with miscarriage  00:59:45 Relevant questions from real cases 01:02:20 WARNING: Morbid description 01:03:45 Conclusions from Monica  01:06:30 Josh's eyewitness testimony story 01:11:16 Monica's eyewitness testimony story 01:13:55 Applying this to a recent case  01:17:25 Wrapping up Host: Josh Brahm Guest: Monica Snyder Audio/Video Editors: Joshua Head, Josh Brahm Publisher: Ellen Campbell

Today's Topics:1. Sound Signature Review 6.206 – Battle Born Supply Co. Whiskey Quebec 5.56 on the 14.5-in mid-length gas M4. The Purged version was evaluated in Report 6.207. This is the technical discussion accompanying those two analytical test reports, exploring the performance efficacy of Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) baffle structures.a. Intro and recap (00:06:56)b. Basic TPMS geometry and applications to silencers, pros and cons (00:17:20)c. Overall technical observations (00:29:25)d. Conclusions (00:47:24)2. Silencer Hazard Map Brief 8.1.5 – SilencerCo Saker 556 vs. the HUXWRX FLOW 556k on the MK18. Due to popular request to showcase a high backpressure conventional 5.56 silencer, we went back into the archives, all the way to Report 6.53 from 2021 and ran the test results through the PEW-SOFT HD Hazard Mapper. Does this Silencer Hazard Map for the Saker 556 help illustrate operator risk when using these types of legacy silencer designs? Can a HUXWRX FLOW 556k save you? Maybe not. (00:50:17)Sponsored by - Silencer Shop, Top Gun Range Houston, Legion Athletics, Capitol Armory, and the PEW Science Laboratory!Legion Athletics: use code pewscience for BOGO off your entire first order and 20% cash back always!Magpul: Use code PSTEN to receive $10 off your order of $100 or more at Magpul

In this episode, we perceive the angst of a lady, as portrayed in Sangam Literary work, Aganaanooru 138, penned by Ezhuvoo Pandri Naakan Kumaranaar. The verse is situated amidst the dark paths of the ‘Kurinji’ or ‘Mountain Landscape’ and etches a scene from a ritual of worship. இகுளை! கேட்டிசின், காதல் அம் தோழி!குவளை உண்கண் தெண் பனி மல்க,வறிது யான் வருந்திய செல்லற்கு அன்னைபிறிது ஒன்று கடுத்தனள்ஆகி வேம்பின்வெறி கொள் பாசிலை நீலமொடு சூடி,உடலுநர்க் கடந்த கடல் அம் தானை,திருந்துஇலை நெடு வேற் தென்னவன் பொதியில்,அருஞ் சிமை இழிதரும் ஆர்த்து வரல் அருவியின்ததும்பு சீர் இன் இயம் கறங்க, கைதொழுது,உரு கெழு சிறப்பின் முருகு மனைத் தரீஇ,கடம்பும் களிறும் பாடி, நுடங்குபுதோடும் தொடலையும் கைக்கொண்டு, அல்கலும்ஆடினர் ஆதல் நன்றோ? நீடுநின்னொடு தெளித்த நல் மலை நாடன்குறி வரல் அரைநாட் குன்றத்து உச்சி,நெறி கெட வீழ்ந்த துன் அருங் கூர் இருள்,திரு மணி உமிழ்ந்த நாகம் காந்தட்கொழு மடற் புதுப் பூ ஊதும் தும்பிநல் நிறம் மருளும் அரு விடர்இன்னா நீள் இடை நினையும், என் நெஞ்சே. It’s a walk at night through this landscape as we hear the lady say these words to her confidante, pretending not to notice the man listening nearby but making sure he’s in earshot: “O companion! Listen to me, my loveable friend! As my blue-lily-like, kohl-streaked eyes filled with clear tears, perceiving my sadness, mother decided that it was because of a different reason. Becoming worried, she arranged for a worship of ‘Murugu', known for his glorious form, inviting the god home, with folded hands, singing about his burflower trees and elephants, holding a fluttering garland of palm fronds in hand, and dancing, with the accompaniment of musical instruments, brimming over with fine notes, akin to the sound of cascades that resounds and descends from the formidable peaks of the Pothiyil mountains, ruled by the Southern King, the one who wields a tall spear and commands a sea-like army that triumphs over enemies. If this worship goes on all day, is this right? The lord of the fine mountains, who has spoken for long and clarified the future to you, comes for trysts in the middle of the night, descending from the mountain's peak, in a sharp and thick darkness that makes one lose the path, and herein a serpent, which has spit a fine jewel, looks at the bee buzzing around the new flower of the thick-petaled flame lily and mistakes its rich shine for its stone in those deadly clefts. When I think about his dangerous walk through those long paths, my heart trembles!” Let’s walk on through the mountain paths, skirting over serpents and noting the glow of the buzzing bees! The lady starts by beckoning the attention of her friend and recounts how when mother saw her tear-filled eyes, she decided that was because they had invited the ire of ‘God Murugu’ in some way and so to appease him, she arranges for the ‘Veri’ ritual. In this ritual, there’s worship with folded hands, singing about the elements that signify this God, such as his burflower tree and the elephants of his domain, and then there’s dancing to the tune of resounding musical instruments, and to etch this sound, the roaring cascades in the mountains of the victorious, battle-worthy Pandya King is called in parallel. After describing the Veri ritual, the lady asks the confidante if this goes on all day and night, is this right? Why the lady asks this question is because she’s absolutely clear her sorrow is not because of this God, but only because she worries about the man, walking in the darkness of midnight, when he comes to tryst with her every night, fearing he may lose his path, in those mountain clefts, where serpents which have spit their gems, come searching for it and mistake the buzzing bees for their sapphires! A moment to note the Sangam belief that snakes spit gems and then moved about in the light of the same! In this scene of the snake mistaking the bees for its gems, lies a metaphor for mother mistaking the lady’s anxiety about the man as God’s ire. These words are especially for the benefit of the listening man, who had clarified to the confidante that he would wed the lady soon. This is to make him realise that the situation he’s subjecting the lady to, is unbecoming of his promise, thereby nudging him to hasten the steps to seek the lady’s hand in marriage. My wonder is why don’t these people talk directly? Why doesn’t the daughter tell her mother what she’s feeling and why she’s feeling so? Why doesn’t the lady tell the man what she wishes for him to do? Perhaps that would have suited a peaceful life but not a piece of poetry that lives on to educate us about the past! As long as we are not penning poetry, don’t you think being direct is better for our complicated lives of today?

In Part II of their SOTR wrap-up, Chris and Britt have an actually hopeful discussion

In this vintage episode of the Brand X Podcast 11, recorded on July 23, 2016. John Jamingo and Deuce dive into current events, reflect on their relationships with longtime friends, and playfully brainstorm launching a business. They share insights about podcasting as a creative outlet and address hot-button issues in the news with humor and candor. The episode also features a hilarious segment spinning up names for a mock Chinese restaurant and rounds out with the much-anticipated Hot Babes bracket. Whether you're here for laughs, commentary, or pure nostalgia, this episode brings vintage Brand X energy.Tune in for:We received an iTunes review from our friend Don!People stop reacting to news soundbites and start thinking and using logic, please!!!With all the recent terror attacks, the media clamors to get the scoop and sometimes misses the mark on accuracy. John and "The Jimmy" had an argument on the subject.Deuce wants to start a new Chinese Restaurant, and it needs a good name. So Deuce breaks out the Chinese Restaurant name generator. And John picks the fantastic four in the Brand X Hot Babe contest.

PREVIEW — Husain Haqqani — Conclusions of Russia-Washington negotiations over Ukraine conflict. Haqqani examines the outcomes of U.S.-Moscow negotiations on the Ukraine conflict, predicting favorable conclusions for Russia and unfavorable ones for the United States. Should Russia succeed, its global player status returns, yet inherent suspicion of Russian intentions endures because they extract more than they contribute. The key negative outcome remains the perception that the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally that secures nations' freedom.

In this edition of Weekend Conclusions, Bone tells a road rage story from his trip to Chick-fil-A, and pays tribute to a long career from his childhood friend Chris Paul, Mac delivers some Panther related conclusions ahead of tonight's MNF contest, & more See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Harvey reads the FINAL chapter of his book, Contending Perspectives. Here's the original video from where this audio came. Here's a list of links to John reading every chapter (released so far) in his 2021 book Contending Perspectives. I have edited both the video and audio to eliminate mistakes, coughs, interruptions, and etc. Sections in this chapter These timestamps are exact for the audio. For the video, you'll need to add around seven seconds in order to get to the precise spot. (This is because of the opening credits, which occur over around seven seconds of silence.) 5:10 - The big reveal

Led by the estimable Percy Jones on bass and supported by a cast of elite co-conspirators, England's Brand X released a covey of essential fusion albums in the '70s and early '80s. Blending rock and jazz with uncommon aggression and dexterity, Brand X cuts across genres and decapitates rivals. Join us on this deep dive into one of fusion's oft-overlooked champions. Note I: Jeff's Voivod book, Always Moving: The Strange Multiverse of Voivod, is finally available. Taking orders now for this 540-page, 3-pound behemoth…ONLY available HERE: radicalresearch.org/voivod Note II: The Radical Research Patreon page is now set up and ready for your patronage. We are offering tiered subscription levels for those who want a set-it-and-forget-it donation option. As ever, if you choose to support us, we are humbled and grateful! patreon.com/RadicalResearchPodcast Music cited in order of appearance: “Nuclear Burn” (Unorthodox Behaviour, 1976) “Smacks of Euphoric Hysteria” (Unorthodox Behaviour, 1976) “Disco Suicide” (Moroccan Roll, 1977) “Macrocosm” (Moroccan Roll, 1977) “Access to Data” (Masques, 1978) “The Ghost of Mayfield Lodge” (Masques, 1978) “Don't Make Waves” (Product, 1979) “Dance of the Illegal Aliens” (Product, 1979) “Act of Will” (Do They Hurt?, 1980) “Fragile” (Do They Hurt?, 1980) “Triumphant Limp” (Do They Hurt?, 1980) Radical Research is a conversation about the inner- and outer-reaches of rock and metal music. This podcast is conceived and conducted by Jeff Wagner and Hunter Ginn. Though we consume music in a variety of ways, we give particular privilege to the immersive, full-album listening experience. Likewise, we believe that tangible music formats help provide the richest, most rewarding immersions and that music, artwork, and song titles cooperate to produce a singular effect on the listener. Great music is worth more than we ever pay for it.

Diving into the first part of their concluding thoughts on SOTR, Britt and Chris discuss ideas of found family, community vs solo resistance, and purposeful fracturing of society. They also explore Clerk Carmine's appearance in Mockingjay and some powerful Romani poetry. Please tell a geeky friend about us and leave a review on your podcast app! If you really enjoy our content, become one of our amazing patrons to get more of it for just $1 per month here: https://www.patreon.com/geekbetweenthelines Every dollar helps keep the podcast going! You can also buy us a ko-fi for one-time support here: https://ko-fi.com/geekbetweenthelines Please follow us on social media, too: Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/geekbetweenthelines Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/geekbetweenthelines Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/geekbetweenthelines Twitter : https://twitter.com/geekbetween Website: https://geekbetweenthelines.wixsite.com/podcast Logo artist: https://www.lacelit.com

Orna Ross and Joanna Penn sit down for a candid, back-and-forth debrief on Author Nation and SelfPubCon 2025, and some of the bigger creative questions raised by the conferences. They unpack the benefits and challenges of physical versus online events, then broaden the conversation into creative courage and change. Discover Drew Davies's "kill two things" rule, why Orna pressed pause on her Go Creative! series, and how Joanna is stepping into a new season with her Masters in Death, Religion, and Culture. As ever, you'll enjoy honest reflection, practical takeaways, and permission to step boldly into your own next creative chapter. About the Hosts Joanna Penn writes nonfiction for authors and is an award-nominated, New York Times and USA Today bestselling thriller author as J.F.Penn. She's also an award-winning podcaster, creative entrepreneur, and international professional speaker. Orna Ross launched the Alliance of Independent Authors at the London Book Fair in 2012. Her work for ALLi has seen her named as one of The Bookseller's "100 top people in publishing". She also publishes poetry, fiction, and nonfiction and is greatly excited by the democratizing, empowering potential of author-publishing. For more information about Orna, visit her website.

SPONSORS: 1) HOLLOW SOCKS: For a limited time Hollow Socks is having a Buy 3, Get 3 Free Sale. Head to Hollowsocks.com today to check it out. . #Hollow Sockspod 2) AMENTARA: Go to https://www.amentara.com/go/julian and use code JD22 for 22% off your first order! PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey (***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ John Kiriakou is a former CIA spy who was the agency's chief of counterterrorism in the Middle East prior to being prosecuted by the DOJ. JOHN's LINKS: All of John's uncensored content is available exclusively here: https://rebrand.ly/juliandorey YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@realjohnkiriakou X: https://x.com/JohnKiriakou IG: https://www.instagram.com/realjohnkiriakou/ FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 0:00 — Intro 02:25 — John's Pardon? Iran Troops, Greater Tunb, Middle East Complexity, Israel Intelligence 15:30 — Intelligence, Cell Phone Tracking, B0mbing Iran, Obama v Netanyahu, South African Nukes 26:41 — The “Peace Deal” Ceasefire, Israeli Gov, Palestine, Kuwait 1990, Black September, Egypt 40:15 — Abraham Accords, MBS, King Abdullah II, Gaza, Palestinian-Israeli Future 52:08 — Christian Zionists, Evangelical Influence, Gaza Christians, Rising U.S. Anti-Semitism 01:00:50 — Tucker Issue, Israeli Schools & Antisemitism, Psy-Op Claims 01:09:52 — Rise of NF, Bot Campaigns on X, John's Prison Years, John's Cemetery Guide 01:21:44 — Unofficial Graveyards, Saving the Declaration of Independence, Wonder Bread Origins 01:32:39 — Overseas Cemeteries, D3ath Rituals in Greece, Iran Pushed Into a Nuclear Corner 01:45:55 — French Espionage Kerfuffle, Elite French Intelligence, Post-9/11 Serial-Killer Mentality 01:54:40 — French Intel & MI6, Princess Diana's D3ath, Nuclear Protocols, Soylent Green 02:07:14 — The Omega Man, John Meets Charlton Heston 02:09:04 — John Brennan, Forum Shopping in Courts, Biden Should've Pardoned Trump 02:21:34 — Attempted CIA Coup, Congress, Independent Thinkers, Saikat Chakrabarti 02:32:28 — People Jump to Conclusions, India vs Pakistan, Human Nature & Power 02:38:39 — Next-Level Operators After 9/11, Ethical Collapse, High-Level CIA Performance Pre-9/11 02:51:32 — Vault 7, CIA Remote Car Hacks, Smart TV Mics, Parallel Ops with NSA, Black Budget 02:57:38 — In-Q-Tel, Palantir, Civil Liberties Concerns, Classified Drone Base, Karp & Thiel, Abraxis 03:10:18 — Finding Money, Elon's Shift, “Make Your Own Way,” John's Kids Not Bound by His Past CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef - https://www.instagram.com/joeydeef/ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 356 - John Kiriakou Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How should we think about diets that claim to optimise both human and planetary health? Can a single "reference diet" really balance the complex trade-offs between nutrition adequacy, chronic disease prevention, and environmental sustainability? These questions have gained renewed attention with the release of the 2025 update to the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet. The original 2019 report proposed a mostly plant-based dietary pattern designed to improve population health while staying within planetary boundaries. But since then, new data have emerged—on nutrient requirements, disease risk, and environmental modelling—that complicate many of the original assumptions. What does the updated evidence actually say about the health impacts of eating in line with this framework? How have the environmental projections changed? And what do these evolving targets mean for individuals, policymakers, and researchers trying to translate broad sustainability goals into practical dietary guidance? These are some of the questions explored in this episode of Sigma Nutrition, which examines the 2025 EAT-Lancet update, its scientific foundations, and what it reveals about the intersection of nutrition, health, and planetary sustainability. Timestamps [01:46] Focus on the 2025 EAT-Lancet report [02:27] Overview of the Planetary Health Diet [03:13] Comparing 2019 and 2025 reports [03:40] Dietary recommendations and nutrient targets [04:14] Health and environmental impacts [09:12] Scoring methods and dietary patterns [27:00] Mortality and chronic disease outcomes [40:01] Type 2 diabetes [44:13] Neuroimaging and cognitive outcomes [49:48] Conclusions and practical implications [58:55] Key ideas segment (Premium-only) Links & Resources Go to episode page (with links to studies) Join the Sigma email newsletter for free Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Alan Flanagan's Alinea Nutrition Education Hub Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course Report: EAT-Lancet

In this episode, we take a close look at the growing complexity of legislation in the age of artificial intelligence and how longer, denser bills create new incentives for politicians to hide provisions that voters would never spot on their own. We also examine the Trump administration's new visa rules, including the unexpected decision to classify obesity as grounds for denial, and what this says about public policy and shifting cultural norms. We analyze Trump's proposal for $2,000 tariff-funded checks and the Supreme Court case that could unravel the entire tariff structure, followed by a deeper dive into the real economics of trade, revenue, and political incentives. We finish with a look at the housing market, the push for 50-year mortgages, and why extending loan terms does little to address the underlying supply constraints driving home prices and unaffordability. 00:00 Introduction and Overview 00:28 The Future of Legislation in the Age of AI 08:07 No Visas for Obese People 12:12 Foolishness of the Week: $2,000 Checks for All Americans 19:40 Trump's Political Gambit 22:35 Budget Deficits and the Myth of Tariff Revenue 28:13 The Housing Affordability Crisis 31:16 Mortgage Rates, Down Payments, and Lending Standards 35:56 The 50-Year Mortgage Proposal and Its Real Costs 45:08 30-Year vs 50-Year Mortgage Interest Rates 51:51 Are Tiny Homes the Solution? 53:50 How Politicians Could Implement 50-Year Mortgages 56:17 The Role of Banks in the Lending Business 57:18 What Mortgages and Loans Allow 01:03:20 Predictions for 50-Year Mortgages 01:07:01 Is Inflation Falling? 01:09:19 Conclusions on Mortgages and Lending 01:13:06 James's Personal Mortgage Story 01:15:41 The Problems with Higher Education and Student Loans Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join the Voxology Podcast for an engaging exploration of "Lament & Hope: Resisting Christian Nationalism." Hosts Mike Erre and Tim Stafford dive into the pressing issue of Christian nationalism, discussing its implications for Christianity, faith, and the role of the church in society. With a focus on cruciformity and the teachings of Jesus, they unpack the cultural challenges of political idolatry, the misuse of theology, and the erosion of justice. They reflect on lament as a spiritual practice, addressing its power to navigate cultural issues and foster humility amidst complex and divisive times. How do we respond faithfully as individuals and the church when faced with injustice and dehumanization in society? What does it mean to pray, resist oppression, and embody the way of Jesus in a world grappling with faith and politics? Explore these questions and more as the hosts offer critical insights, thought-provoking commentary, and a call to engage these discussions with curiosity and grace.  Tim's New Songs: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6OoyoyC2mh52hahZoqSEVN?si=ov5ZjoNTQ7KD_SYzcQcCLQ https://music.apple.com/us/artist/brudes/1838723669 We encourage and would love your feedback and discussion as we pursue these pivotal conversations together. Connect with us on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, and feel free to share your thoughts and questions with us. Let's continue the journey together! CHAPTERS: 00:00 - Intro 04:35 - This Week in Christian Nationalism 10:42 - Book Review: Taking America Back for God 12:02 - Understanding Christian Nationalism 20:37 - Theological Implications of Christian Nationalism 21:30 - Christian Nationalism and Social Order 24:28 - Importance of Discussing Christian Nationalism 26:20 - Tim Keller's Conclusions on Nationalism 32:55 - Reintroducing Hierarchy in Society 40:41 - How to Posture in Discussions 44:10 - Punk Rock as Communal Lament 46:00 - The Role of Lament in Faith 49:10 - Joy in the Collision of Ideas 54:10 - Complaint vs. Lament: A Comparison 57:20 - Exploring Daniel 10 01:01:40 - Why Pray if God is in Control? 01:05:50 - The Gethsemane Prayer Explained 01:08:19 - Understanding God's Will 01:10:10 - God's Will in the Context of Evil 01:12:19 - Support the Podcast 01:12:50 - Thank You As always, we encourage and would love discussion as we pursue. Feel free to email in questions to hello@voxpodcast.com, and to engage the conversation on Facebook and Instagram. We're on YouTube (if you're into that kinda thing): VOXOLOGY TV. Our Merch Store! ETSY Learn more about the Voxology Podcast Subscribe on iTunes or Spotify Support the Voxology Podcast on Patreon The Voxology Spotify channel can be found here: Voxology Radio Follow us on Instagram: @voxologypodcast and "like" us on Facebook Follow Mike on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikeerre Music in this episode by Timothy John Stafford Instagram & Twitter: @GoneTimothy

In this edition of Weekend Conclusions, the guys vent about the Hornets' injury situation. With LaMelo Ball set to miss another game, they rave about Caleb Wilson's effort after a big UNC win over Kansas, they talk about Charlotte FC's season coming to an end, & more See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's Topics:1. Today we are launching Section 8 of the Silencer Sound Standard: SSS.8 – Advanced Silencer Research. Outside of public view, PEW Science performs a significant amount of testing and engineering analysis on a variety of systems; most of which is never published. Not everything has to remain behind closed doors. Section 8 of the Standard presents further research advancements that are cleared for public release. (00:04:02)2. The first section in Section 8 is live today with this episode! The first report in this section is SSS.8.1.1 - Introducing PEW-SOFT HD Hazard Maps. The Suppression Rating has made you powerful. Now, you will become even more powerful, as you navigate personnel hazards from silencers in both the free field and near reflecting surfaces; everywhere. We'll walk you through the report in today's talk. Here is an outline:a. Introduction (00:08:22)b. 8.1.1.1 - Dimensional Variations (00:20:12)c. 8.1.1.2 - Free Field Data, and You (00:22:55)d. 8.1.1.3 - PEW-SOFT HD Hazard Mapper (00:31:19)e. 8.1.1.4 - MK18 Case Study: 556-RC2 vs. 556-RC3 vs FLOW 556k (00:41:04)f. 8.1.1.5 - Reflections - Moving outside of the Free Field (01:02:20)g. 8.1.1.6 - Conclusions and Acknowledgements (01:07:24)Sponsored by - Silencer Shop, Top Gun Range Houston,Legion Athletics, Capitol Armory, and the PEW Science Laboratory!Legion Athletics: use code pewscience for BOGO off your entire first order and 20% cash back always!Magpul: Use code PSTEN to receive $10 off your order of $100 or more at Magpul

Brian Feroldi discusses the current state of the stock market, providing insights on market valuations, personal investment strategies, and the impact of artificial intelligence on stock analysis. The conversation highlights the importance of sustainability in stock market growth, potential investment pitfalls, and the benefits of leveraging AI tools for detailed analyses. Key Topics & Timestamps Introduction to the State of the Stock Market (00:01:01) Overview of stock market performance in 2025, with S&P 500 recording over 15% growth year-to-date. Current Market Valuation Insights (00:02:04) Discussion on historical performance indicators and high valuation levels. "Sustained double-digit growth in the stock market isn't feasible long-term." (00:02:15) Brian Feroldi's Personal Investment Strategy (00:05:00) Brian shares his strategy of maintaining a 30% cash position during high valuations and investing 70% in the market. Importance of personal financial situations when making investment choices. Impact of AI on Stock Analysis (00:24:19) Insights on how AI can enhance stock analysis when provided with clear directives. "As long as you're giving AI clear directions, it can provide incredible analysis." (00:26:10) Audience Questions and Answers (00:30:00) Discussion on individual stocks vs. index funds and thoughts on tax implications. Benefits of Fee-Only Financial Advisors (00:53:24) Advocating for fee-only hourly consultations for transparent financial advice versus traditional AUM models. Conclusions and Future Predictions (01:03:05) Summary of Brian's thoughts on market sustainability and advice for investor strategies moving forward. Actionable Takeaways Maintain a cash reserve during high market valuations to ensure better investment opportunities. (00:06:32) Utilize AI tools for deeper stock analysis, focusing only on credible data sources. (00:26:10) Regularly consult fee-only financial advisors for actionable insights without ongoing asset management fees. (00:53:24) Key Quotes Brian Feroldi: "Investment strategies should reflect personal financial situations." (00:05:00) Brian Feroldi: "Dollar-cost averaging into total stock market index funds is just so rock solid." (00:21:27) Related Resources Notebook LLM (00:25:05) Finviz Stock Screener (00:40:09) Nectarine (00:53:24) OpenPath Financial (00:54:32) Abundo Wealth (00:54:32) Discussion Questions How has the recent performance of the S&P 500 influenced your investment strategy? (00:02:04) What role do you think AI will play in future investment decisions? (00:26:10) How do you approach high market valuations as an investor? (00:06:32)

There is a lot going on that will not end well for many people. Something huge is coming down the pipeline. Protect yourself by staying away from obvious trouble. Yes, there are serious foreign assets involved. Bookstore are known to drop the dog whistle hints of things to come. Left groups are getting together and plotting. They don't think we know. Tina Peters does not deserve to be in prison. Even the Ivy League professors are asking questions. Setting the bar on what speech is allowed. The judge was biased and aggressive. There is collusion and communication to prove it. Violence is part of left coms. Let's keep an eye on things and concentrate on the funding. The main media pitch is an operation. When you are young at 20, it seems like a weird age. When we were in Rome, something was going on. Progress is being made in the real justice category. Now, our persistence is key. We have to keep fighting.

EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/thefightingcock Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee! Spurs are tougher to beat but still searching for a spark. We unpack the 0–0 in Monaco, Vicario's big night, and why the No. 10 keeps getting bypassed. Is the Bentancur–Palhinha double pivot leaving a chasm to the forwards, and could Kudus through the middle help the ball stick? We talk Archie Gray's versatility, Porro's playmaking, Richarlison's struggles, and what changes once Solanke, Kulusevski, Maddison, and Romero return. Plus: patience with Thomas Frank, away vs home identity, and January priorities for a deep-lying playmaker and a left winger. Listener questions included. > Patreon - http://bit.ly/2uECfa3 > Twitter - http://bit.ly/2wleG6z > Facebook - http://bit.ly/39bN7LM > Instagram - http://bit.ly/3ae2GCx > WhatsApp - https://bit.ly/3dhrQTd > YouTube - http://bit.ly/2I31iH7 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices