Podcasts about Edelman

Brad Edelman: High Roller President Download LISTEN TO MORE SHOWS

Managing type 2 diabetes can change over time, but having the right information for your patients can make those changes feel a lot more manageable. CGM can help your patients see what's happening with their blood sugar and guide what comes next.In this episode of the TCOYD Podcast, Dr. Steve Edelman and Dr. Jeremy Pettus discuss how continuous glucose monitoring is changing the way type 2 diabetes is managed for your patients, especially as treatment needs evolve over time. They explain why type 2 diabetes can progress from lifestyle changes and oral medications to GLP-1 therapies and insulin, and why needing insulin isn't a personal failure. They also explore how seeing glucose data in real time can help your patients better understand how meals, exercise, medications, and insulin affect their glucose throughout the day. The conversation gets practical with how CGM can help guide your patients' transition to basal insulin, make insulin adjustments easier and safer, and identify when mealtime insulin may be needed. Dr. Edelman and Dr. Pettus explain what overnight glucose patterns can tell you about your patients' basal insulin dose, how to recognize post-meal spikes, and why starting mealtime insulin doesn't necessarily mean adding injections at every meal for your patients. They also discuss newer basal insulins, avoiding too much basal insulin, and how automated insulin delivery systems may fit into the future of type 2 diabetes management. Ultimately, CGM gives your patients living with type 2 diabetes more than glucose numbers. It provides feedback that can help them recognize patterns, see how their treatment is working, and work with their healthcare team to make more informed adjustments as their diabetes management needs change.Key Topics:Why type 2 diabetes treatment needs can change over timeHow insulin resistance and declining insulin production affect glucose managementWhy needing insulin is not a personal failureHow CGM use is expanding in type 2 diabetesUsing CGM with lifestyle changes, oral medications, GLP-1 therapies, and insulinWhat time in range, GMI, and glucose variability can tell youHow CGM can help determine when basal insulin may be neededUsing overnight glucose patterns to adjust basal insulinWhy insulin titration matters more than the initial starting doseHow CGM can make insulin adjustments easier and saferWhen mealtime insulin may be neededWhy mealtime insulin doesn't always have to be taken with every mealHow to recognize and avoid too much basal insulinThe benefits of newer long-acting basal insulinsWhen patients with type 2 diabetes may want to consider an insulin pump or automated insulin delivery systemHow real-time glucose feedback can help people take a more active role in their diabetes management✨ Subscribe for practical diabetes management tips, technology updates, and treatment breakthroughs that help people with diabetes live healthier, more flexible lives.More diabetes resources:Website: tcoyd.orgBlog: tcoyd.org/blogPodcast: tcoydthepodcast.transistor.fmInstagram:   / tcoydFacebook:   / tcoydStay connected! Sign up for our monthly newsletter here!Support TCOYD's educational programs: tcoyd.org/donate ★ Support this podcast ★

For this special bonus episode, Bryan Kluger and Marc Ciafardini welcome the legendary musician and film composer Randy Edelman, a man whose résumé is so packed with movies that there is a decent chance his music has been playing somewhere in your life without your permission. You may not immediately recognize the name, but you certainly recognize the sound in films like The Mask, Six Days Seven Nights, Ghostbusters II, Dragonheart, Twins, MacGyver, My Cousin Vinny, Billy Madison, and plenty more. Edelman has spent decades doing one of cinema's strangest and most important jobs, which is making us feel things before we've quite figured out why we're feeling them. The post Bonus Episode with Musician Randy Edelman first appeared on Boomstick Comics.

What if the problem with the church isn't that it is organized, but that we sometimes organize it around the wrong things? We live in a culture that values independence, flexibility, and the freedom to come and go, yet Jesus calls us into something deeper, a people who gather, belong, serve, and care for one another. Why did Jesus create the church as a community instead of leaving Christianity as something private between us and God? And is church membership really biblical, or is it just another human institution we have created? In this message, we'll explore what the New Testament actually says about the church, organization, and belonging. Because when Jesus says, “I will build my church,” there may be far more at stake than simply showing up on Sunday.Scripture: Matthew 16:18-19, Romans 12:5 ESV

The industry is buzzing about the role of the chief communications officer, a topic jumpstarted this month by this op-ed in PRWeek by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Torod Neptune, a former top comms exec himself. Adding her expertise on this week's episode is Candace Steele Flippin, VP of thought leadership and professional development at Page, who talks about her organization's new research on the topic. Plus, the biggest marketing and communications news of the week, including why Converse apologized for a new campaign, layoffs at Edelman, the launch of Trump TV and the latest provocative Sydney Sweeney ad. PRWeek.comTheme music provided by TRIPLE SCOOP MUSICJaymes - First One Follow us: @PRWeekUSReceive the latest industry news, insights, and special reports. Start Your Free 1-Month Trial Subscription To PRWeek Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Trust in financial services in Ireland sits at 49%, against a global average of 63%. Paddy Delaney goes through the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer research on financial services, where Ireland ranks, and what sits behind the number. Edelman surveyed almost 34,000 people across 28 countries and publishes a separate report on financial services. Ireland comes in 23rd of 28, inside the distrust band, below the developed-economy average of 53% and well below the global figure. In this episode, Paddy goes through the following: Where Ireland ranks for trust in financial services, and which countries sit above and below Why trust in financial services runs at 73% in developing economies and 53% in developed ones Which sub-sectors are trusted least, and why banks score higher than financial advisers What the tracker mortgage scandal actually cost, and why it is far more recent than most people remember The one question to ask any adviser about how they are paid, and what the answer tells you If you are weighing up financial advice in Ireland, particularly with significant pension or investment assets behind you, this episode is about how to judge who is worth listening to.

Can you lose your spot in heaven, or once you belong to Jesus, are you truly secure in His hands?The Bible gives us incredible promises about God's power to save, keep, guard, and complete His work in us, but it also gives us some deeply troubling warnings about turning away from Him. So what do we do with the passages that seem to pull us in opposite directions?In this message, we will wrestle honestly with the difficult passages and discover how assurance, perseverance, obedience, and the grace of Jesus fit together. Come ready to be challenged, encouraged, and reminded that when the warnings come, the invitation is not to run from Jesus, but to run toward Him.Scripture: Philippians 2:12-13; Galatians 5:1-5; 1 Cor. 15:1–5; John 10:27–30 ESV

In episode 201 of 'On the Whorizon' SWCEO founder and host MelRose Michaels makes the case that the attention economy is handing off to something else, and that the handoff is already underway. Herbert Simon called the attention economy in 1971 with one line: whatever becomes abundant makes something else scarce. Information got cheap, so attention got expensive. MelRose walks through the research on where AI content volume actually sits, why suspicion did not plateau even as that volume did, and what the Edelman finding about trust relocating rather than falling means for a creator business.

Emmy and Tony Award-winning comedian, writer, and actor Alex Edelman joins Kevin Fallon to talk about his role in The Paper, the new comedy set in the world of The Office, and the surprising secret behind the original show's enduring success. Edelman also reveals the unforgettable moment Barack Obama recognized his comedy special Just for Us—and what the former president said to him about it. Plus, Edelman opens up about creating his hilariously clueless character, the state of local journalism, his new comedy show, and why even an Emmy and Tony haven't made him feel like he's “made it.” Follow Kevin Fallon on Instagram ⁠@kpfallon⁠ Follow Matt Wilstein on Instagram ⁠@mattjwilstein⁠ New episodes every Thursday, and Saturday; ⁠early drops on YouTube⁠. Go to https://zbiotics.com/OTP and use OTP at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Massachusetts is full of riches. We have the best schools, world class hospitals, and a great quality of life. So why are tens of thousands of people leaving every year - and taking their companies with them? Where has our mojo gone? This week on Say More, host Shirley Leung talks to Larry Edelman, author of the Trendlines newsletter, about whether Massachusetts can pull off another ‘miracle.' email us at saymore@globe.com. 

Jaime welcomes Lauren Griswold, Chief Communications and Marketing Officer, the University of Vermont, to discuss her bold decision to decentralize communications by re-embedding communicators into their respective colleges and divisions. Lauren shares why alignment and relationship-building matter more than strict organizational hierarchies, how MOUs help establish shared expectations with deans, and why higher education marketing must dare to be different in a sea of sameness.Guest Name: Lauren Griswold, Chief Communications and Marketing Officer, the University of VermontGuest Social: https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurengriswold1/Guest Bio: Lauren Griswold was appointed Chief Communications and Marketing Officer in November 2025 and leads the university's Division of Strategic Communications. An innovator, storyteller, and culture keeper, Griswold has worked in higher education at both the university and community college levels. Her expertise includes building brand reputation, as well as leading and creating strategy and successfully scaling it across enterprises for local, national, and global organizations.Griswold comes to UVM from Boise State University, where she led that institution's Office of Communications and Marketing as the Chief Communications and Marketing Officer. During her time in that role Griswold led the launch of the Northwest Emmy-nominated commercial, “Out of The Blue,” and was also recognized by the American Marketing Association as a finalist for marketer of the year in higher education in 2024.Prior to joining Boise State, Griswold worked at Arizona State University, Mt. Hood Community College, Edelman, Microsoft, and Major League Baseball. She has a wide range of experience in sales, marketing, communications, community relations, branding, and creative strategy. Griswold has a master's degree in communication studies from Arizona State University and a bachelor's degree in journalism from Eastern Washington University. - - - -Connect With Our Host:Jaime Hunthttps://www.linkedin.com/in/jaimehunt/https://twitter.com/JaimeHuntIMCAbout The Enrollify Podcast Network:Confessions of a Higher Ed CMO is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too! Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — The AI Workforce Platform for Higher Ed. Learn more at element451.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Perception d'expertise : ce que la recherche démontre sur les femmes compétentes qu'on sous-estime, et comment rendre son expertise lisible.On te voit et pourtant on ne te situe pas au niveau de ta maîtrise réelle. Dans cet épisode, je démonte l'explication qu'on sert aux femmes depuis 45 ans : le syndrome de l'imposteur, et je la remplace par un mécanisme documenté : le biais d'attribution se nourrit de l'ambiguïté, et il s'éteint quand la contribution devient lisible. Heilman et Haynes l'ont établi en laboratoire, Heather Sarsons l'a retrouvé dans les carrières académiques réelles, Mary Ann Sieghart en a fait une somme dans The Authority Gap. Bref, on s'appuie sur les études pour comprendre comment être enfin vue comme l'experte que tu es.Bonne écoute

We live in a world where we can have a conversation anytime, with anyone, yet many of us are lonelier than ever.AI can listen to us, affirm us, and give us advice, but can it really be a friend? Jesus calls us to something deeper, a friendship where we are known, loved, challenged, and changed. Real friendship is not always convenient, comfortable, or easy, but maybe those are the very things that make it meaningful. In John 15, Jesus shows us what it means to love one another, serve one another, and have the courage to help each other become more like Him. This Sunday, we'll ask, How can I have authentic friendship in the age of AI?Scripture: John 15:12-17 ESV

It's a very special episode as Steve Barrett makes his return to The PR Week. The guest on the September 10, 2026, edition of The PR Week is Kenny Gold, who was appointed this year as Edelman's first chief creator officer. He talks about the changing creator economy and creators as media outlets and news sources in their own right, as well as how his agency advises brands that are working with them. Plus, the biggest marketing, PR and communications news of the week, including how Publicis Groupe ended up handling media for both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, the start of the 2026 NFL season and the legacy of Gloria Steinem. PRWeek.comTheme music provided by TRIPLE SCOOP MUSICJaymes - First One Follow us: @PRWeekUSReceive the latest industry news, insights, and special reports. Start Your Free 1-Month Trial Subscription To PRWeek Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On this episode of Reaganism, Ronald Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim sits down with Amb. Eric Edelman to discuss the lasting legacy of Ronald Reagan's “peace through strength” strategy. They examine the weakened U.S. military and growing Soviet assertiveness that preceded Reagan's presidency, the defense buildup led by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and Reagan's belief that American strength enabled diplomacy, freedom, and eventual Cold War victory. Edelman also explains why Reagan's first- and second-term approaches were more continuous than often portrayed, highlighting the importance of perseverance, strategic flexibility, and sustained investment in national defense.   "Peace Through Strength: How Reagan's Military Buildup Won the Cold War" by Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim releases on November 17th and is available for pre-order now: https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510788480/peace-through-strength/ 

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the most common complications of diabetes, but here's the tricky part: you can have it for years without feeling any symptoms. The good news? Kidney disease can often be detected early, and with the right screening, treatments, and lifestyle changes, its progression can be dramatically slowed. In this episode, Dr. Steve Edelman and Dr. Jeremy Pettus are joined by nephrologist Dr. Bethany Karl to break down what everyone with diabetes should know about kidney health. Dr. E also steps into the patient seat to share his own experience living with chronic kidney disease, from discovering it without symptoms to navigating kidney tests and newer treatments. Together, they explain the two simple tests that can uncover kidney problems, why blood pressure and cardiovascular health matter, and how today's growing toolbox of medications is giving people with diabetic kidney disease more reasons for hope.Key Topics:Why chronic kidney disease is often a “silent” complication of diabetesHow diabetes can affect the kidneys over timeDr. Edelman's personal experience with diabetic kidney diseaseThe two important kidney tests: eGFR and UACRWhy urine protein can be an important early warning signHow often people with diabetes should have their kidneys screenedThe connection between glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, heart health, and kidney healthLifestyle considerations for protecting kidney functionMedications that can help slow the progression of diabetic kidney diseaseNewer kidney-protective therapies and why there is more reason for optimism today✨ Subscribe for practical diabetes management tips, technology updates, and treatment breakthroughs that help people with diabetes live healthier, more flexible lives.More diabetes resources:Website: tcoyd.orgBlog: tcoyd.org/blogPodcast: tcoydthepodcast.transistor.fmInstagram:   / tcoydFacebook:   / tcoydStay connected! Sign up for our monthly newsletter here!Support TCOYD's educational programs: tcoyd.org/donate ★ Support this podcast ★

Richard Sherman and Julian Edelman break down Christian Gonzalez’s new deal and why locking up the Patriots’ star corner matters ahead of Week 1. Edelman also picks New England to upset the Seahawks on banner night, while Sherm explains why Seattle’s defense, home-field advantage, and championship mindset make this Super Bowl rematch must-watch football. Plus, they revisit their Super Bowl XLIX battle and make predictions for the rest of Week 1, including San Francisco 49ers vs. Los Angeles Rams, Dallas Cowboys vs. New York Giants, Buffalo Bills vs. Tennessee Texans, Denver Broncos vs. Kansas City Chiefs, Green Bay Packers vs. Minnesota Vikings, Chicago Bears vs. Carolina Panthers, Baltimore Ravens vs. Indianapolis Colts, and New Orleans Saints vs. Detroit Lions. 18+ Only. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Not available in all jurisdictions. Trading is risky. 100% loss can occur. See polymarket.com/tos for more information. The Polymarket US App serves as an independent software provider and affiliate of Polymarket US and Polymarket Clearing, the CFTC-regulated exchange and clearing organizationSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To get the magic, customers have to let AI know almost everything — and trust in AI is falling, not rising. In this episode, Joseph Michelli makes the case that trust is the real currency of the AI era. Drawing on data from Edelman, Cisco, and Salesforce, he shows why transparency — not capability — is the differentiator and offers three disciplines for earning the “trust dividend” when your AI knows everything.

Hot flashes, blood sugar swings, brain fog... is it menopause, diabetes, or both?In this episode of the TCOYD Podcast, Dr. Steve Edelman is joined by renowned menopause expert Dr. Cindy Stuenkel, endocrinologist and Professor Emerita at UC San Diego, for an insightful conversation about how menopause affects women living with diabetes. Together, they explain why menopause is much more than a normal stage of aging. It's a major metabolic transition that can influence blood sugar management, insulin resistance, heart health, sleep, mood, and overall quality of life. The conversation explores what actually happens during perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopause, why hormonal fluctuations can make glucose management more challenging, and how continuous glucose monitoring can help distinguish hot flashes from hypoglycemia. Dr. Edelman and Dr. Stuenkel also discuss the latest evidence on hormone replacement therapy, newer non-hormonal treatment options, the importance of protecting heart health, and practical strategies to help women navigate this stage of life with greater confidence. Whether you're living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, approaching menopause, currently experiencing it, or supporting someone who is, this episode provides practical guidance and evidence-based information to help you feel more prepared. Key TopicsWhat is perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopause?How hormonal changes affect blood sugar and insulin resistanceWhy menopause can increase glucose variability in women with diabetesThe difference between hot flashes and hypoglycemiaHow continuous glucose monitoring can help during menopauseMetabolic changes that occur during the menopause transitionWhy cardiovascular risk increases after menopauseThe connection between menopause, weight gain, and abdominal fatGLP-1 medications and menopauseThe latest recommendations on hormone replacement therapyNew non-hormonal treatments for hot flashesSleep, mood, brain fog, and quality of life during menopauseHeart health strategies for women living with diabetesHow partners can better support someone going through menopauseTrusted menopause resources and when to seek medical care Subscribe for practical diabetes management tips, expert conversations, and the latest advances in diabetes care to help people living with diabetes live healthier, more confident lives. ★ Support this podcast ★

The scientific work submitted on Bryan Kohberger's behalf in support of moving his trial out of Latah County had focused on whether years of publicity, community involvement and emotional exposure to the murders had created a jury pool that could realistically be considered impartial. Defense experts examined media saturation, public attitudes and psychological research concerning how people formed and retained opinions after repeated exposure to highly emotional information. Social psychologist Dr. Amani El-Alayli explained that greater exposure to publicity about Kohberger was associated with stronger negative attitudes toward him and a greater tendency to view him as guilty. She also emphasized that fear and anger could make initial beliefs unusually resistant to later contradictory information, because people tended to favor information that reinforced opinions they had already formed. In her assessment, the problem in Latah County went beyond whether prospective jurors consciously believed they could be fair; residents had lived much closer to the murders, the University of Idaho and the investigation itself, creating emotional and psychological connections that could influence them even without their recognizing it. She concluded that the safest way to provide Kohberger with an impartial jury was to select people who were both physically and psychologically removed from Latah County.The defense also relied heavily on survey research conducted by trial consultant and social psychologist Dr. Bryan Edelman, who compared prospective jury populations in Latah, Ada, Canyon and Bannock counties. His research found widespread familiarity with the case throughout Idaho, including 98 percent recognition among Latah County respondents, while 67 percent of those familiar with the case there said they believed Kohberger was guilty. Although similar levels of presumed guilt appeared elsewhere, Edelman explained that Latah County's much smaller population dramatically reduced the number of potentially unbiased jurors available, while a county such as Ada offered a vastly larger pool from which an impartial jury could be selected. More importantly, his research found significantly greater levels of fear, stress, anxiety and personal connections to the University of Idaho and local law enforcement among Latah County residents. Dr. Veronica Dahir separately evaluated Edelman's methodology and testified that the surveys had been conducted according to accepted standards and produced sound results. Taken together, the scientific evidence supported the defense's argument that the combination of intense publicity, a small population and the community's personal and emotional connection to the killings created a reasonable likelihood of prejudice in Latah County, an argument Judge John Judge ultimately found persuasive when he granted the change of venue.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

I've been talking with hundreds of companies about AI and employee issues, and in many ways the entire world of HR, management, and leadership has changed. Employers are worried about job redesign, AI solutions, skills, and strategic of high-volume hiring. They're slowing the hiring process, trying to be more strategic about growth, with a frenzied push for productivity. And that word means different things in each industry. Employees and workers, by contrast, have the lowest level of company commitment in decades. Inflation is robbing people of a sense of personal growth and only 32% of workers (Edelman) believe their children will be better off than they are. Only 31% of employees are happy with their jobs and employees are moonlighting and starting new businesses at a record rate to keep up. And CEO pay inequity is higher than ever, opening the door to “socialism” as a topic of debate. So we have high expectations by companies and a deep sense of frustration among workers. How do we square this paradox? In this week's podcast I try to give you our perspective (video version here), and I encourage you to read Irresistible and our upcoming book Superpowered for more. Additional Information Video of this podcast Chapters (00:00:00) - Employment, Financial Rewards and AI(00:06:42) - What Is the Fear of Data Centers?(00:09:08) - The Future of Work

The scientific work submitted on Bryan Kohberger's behalf in support of moving his trial out of Latah County had focused on whether years of publicity, community involvement and emotional exposure to the murders had created a jury pool that could realistically be considered impartial. Defense experts examined media saturation, public attitudes and psychological research concerning how people formed and retained opinions after repeated exposure to highly emotional information. Social psychologist Dr. Amani El-Alayli explained that greater exposure to publicity about Kohberger was associated with stronger negative attitudes toward him and a greater tendency to view him as guilty. She also emphasized that fear and anger could make initial beliefs unusually resistant to later contradictory information, because people tended to favor information that reinforced opinions they had already formed. In her assessment, the problem in Latah County went beyond whether prospective jurors consciously believed they could be fair; residents had lived much closer to the murders, the University of Idaho and the investigation itself, creating emotional and psychological connections that could influence them even without their recognizing it. She concluded that the safest way to provide Kohberger with an impartial jury was to select people who were both physically and psychologically removed from Latah County.The defense also relied heavily on survey research conducted by trial consultant and social psychologist Dr. Bryan Edelman, who compared prospective jury populations in Latah, Ada, Canyon and Bannock counties. His research found widespread familiarity with the case throughout Idaho, including 98 percent recognition among Latah County respondents, while 67 percent of those familiar with the case there said they believed Kohberger was guilty. Although similar levels of presumed guilt appeared elsewhere, Edelman explained that Latah County's much smaller population dramatically reduced the number of potentially unbiased jurors available, while a county such as Ada offered a vastly larger pool from which an impartial jury could be selected. More importantly, his research found significantly greater levels of fear, stress, anxiety and personal connections to the University of Idaho and local law enforcement among Latah County residents. Dr. Veronica Dahir separately evaluated Edelman's methodology and testified that the surveys had been conducted according to accepted standards and produced sound results. Taken together, the scientific evidence supported the defense's argument that the combination of intense publicity, a small population and the community's personal and emotional connection to the killings created a reasonable likelihood of prejudice in Latah County, an argument Judge John Judge ultimately found persuasive when he granted the change of venue.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this episode of Seekers of Meaning, Rabbi Address interviews Judith Edelman-Green about her book, The Well of Compassion. They discuss spiritual care, the symbolism of wells, and the importance of compassion and humor in healing. The book serves as a guide for compassionate care in diverse, challenging contexts. [Read more...] The post The Art of Spiritual Care: Insights from Judith Edelman-Green – Seekers of Meaning 8/14/2026 appeared first on Jewish Sacred Aging.

Have you or someone you know been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, only to discover later it was actually type 1? You're not alone.In this episode of the TCOYD Podcast, Dr. Steve Edelman is joined by Dr. Schaefer Boeder, endocrinologist, Medical Director of Paradigm Research, Associate Professor at UCSD, for an eye-opening discussion about LADA (Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults)—one of the most commonly misdiagnosed conditions in diabetes. Together, they explain why so many adults are initially misdiagnosed with type 2 diabetes despite the warning signs that should raise suspicion for LADA, and why getting the correct diagnosis can dramatically change treatment and long-term outcomes.The conversation explores how LADA differs from both classic type 1 and type 2 diabetes, why the autoimmune process develops more slowly, and when antibody testing should be considered. Dr. Edelman and Dr. Boeder also discuss the importance of preserving beta cell function, the role of continuous glucose monitoring, advances in disease-modifying therapies, and why there has never been a more exciting time for research in adults who developed type 1 diabetes later in life. Whether you've been diagnosed with LADA, care for someone who has, or simply want to better understand adult-onset autoimmune diabetes, this episode provides practical guidance and hope for more accurate diagnoses in the future.Key Topics:What is LADA (Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults)?Why LADA is so often mistaken for type 2 diabetesCommon signs that may point to a misdiagnosisHow LADA differs from classic type 1 and type 2 diabetesWhy many adults don't fit the "typical" diabetes profileAutoantibody testing and when it should be consideredThe role of GAD antibodies and C-peptide testingWhy preserving beta cell function mattersPreventing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) through earlier diagnosisHow continuous glucose monitoring can ease the transition to insulinCurrent treatment approaches for adults with LADAThe latest research on disease-modifying therapies and preserving insulin productionScreening resources, clinical trials, and where the future of LADA research is headed✨ Subscribe for practical diabetes management tips, technology updates, and treatment breakthroughs that help people with diabetes live healthier, more flexible lives.More diabetes resources:Website: tcoyd.orgBlog: tcoyd.org/blogPodcast: tcoydthepodcast.transistor.fmInstagram:   / tcoydFacebook:   / tcoydStay connected! Sign up for our monthly newsletter here!Support TCOYD's educational programs: tcoyd.org/donate ★ Support this podcast ★

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Executive Summary: Workplace betrayal doesn't just cost you a relationship — it costs you trust in your own judgment. Dr. Debi Silber joins Sabrina Braham to unpack a stage-based path back to confidence, using real coaching stories instead of easy platitudes, so leaders can rebuild what betrayal breaks: themselves. Quick Takeaways: Betrayal breaks trust in yourself, not just in the person who betrayed you Losing your voice in meetings is often a betrayal symptom, not a confidence problem Recovery moves through stages — you can't skip to "just get over it" Your intuition can be rebuilt with a simple daily practice 78% of employees say they trust their employer most of any institution (Edelman, 2026) As an executive leadership coach with over 30 years of experience (MA, MFT, PCC), I've sat across from directors, VPs, and C-suite leaders who could run a board meeting flawlessly and still couldn't shake the feeling that they didn't trust their own read on people anymore. That's what workplace betrayal does. It doesn't announce itself as trauma — it shows up as hesitation, over-checking, and a leader who used to speak up in meetings suddenly going quiet. In this episode of the Women's Leadership Success Podcast, I sit down with Dr. Debi Silber, a holistic psychologist and founder of the PBT Institute, for a workplace betrayal recovery conversation about what betrayal actually does to a leader's confidence, judgment, and career trajectory — and what it takes to rebuild. Why Workplace Betrayal Hits Differently Than Other Career Setbacks Most leadership content treats betrayal like a subcategory of stress or conflict. Dr. Silber's central point in this conversation is that it isn't. A layoff, a missed promotion, even a bad performance review — these are painful, but they don't usually make you question your own perception. Betrayal does. When someone you trusted — a boss, a peer, a mentor — acts against you, the injury isn't just what they did. It's that your internal compass, the one that told you this person was safe, was wrong. That's a different kind of damage, and it requires a different kind of recovery. This distinction matters for women in leadership specifically. Executive presence is built on decisiveness and trust in your own judgment — the "gravitas" that research consistently identifies as the core pillar of how leaders are evaluated for advancement. When betrayal quietly erodes that self-trust, it doesn't just hurt personally. It shows up publicly, in hesitation during exactly the moments a leader is expected to be most sure of herself. A Client Story: When Betrayal Shows Up as "Losing Your Voice" I shared a story with Dr. Debi about a client I'll call Jenny. Jenny was sharp, capable, and well-respected — until a workplace betrayal knocked something loose. She stopped negotiating. She stopped advocating for herself in meetings where she used to be the first voice in the room. From the outside, it looked like a confidence problem. It wasn't. It was betrayal doing exactly what it does: convincing a capable leader that her own instincts couldn't be trusted anymore. The Real Cost: What Betrayal Quietly Takes From Leaders Left unaddressed, workplace betrayal tends to produce three patterns in otherwise strong leaders: Loss of personal power. Leaders stop negotiating for themselves — raises, promotions, credit for their work — because some part of them no longer trusts that speaking up is safe. Self-protective isolation. As Dr. Debi put it in our conversation, many people conclude it's "better to keep everyone at a distance than risk that chance that someone may get close to us again." It feels like self-protection. It functions like a ceiling on your influence. Eroded intuition. The instinct that once flagged red flags in coworkers or bosses goes quiet, because the last time it "worked," it still let you get hurt. Ready to rebuild the confidence workplace betrayal quietly took from you? Download our FREE Leading Before You're Ready playbook and get: ? A framework for rebuilding executive presence when your confidence has taken a hit ? Practical language for reclaiming your voice in meetings within days, not months ? The mindset shift that lets you lead before you feel "fully ready" again ? Tools used with clients who've gone on to earn promotions and six-figure roles Get the Leading Before You're Ready Playbook ? How to Notice You're Still Carrying It One of the most useful moments in this conversation is Dr. Debi's answer to a simple question: how does someone even realize betrayal is still affecting them? Her answer wasn't a checklist of symptoms — it was three places to look: your health, your work, and your relationships. If any of those three areas feels "off" in a way you can't quite explain, unresolved betrayal is worth considering as a root cause, not just stress or burnout. Workplace Betrayal Recovery: Why You Can't Skip to "Just Move On" A recurring frustration Dr. Debi and I discussed is how often people are told to "just get over it" — as though healing from betrayal were a decision instead of a process. In her framework, recovery moves through stages, not a single leap. You can't talk yourself into Stage Four while you're still standing in Stage One. Trying to skip ahead is exactly why so many leaders feel stuck: they've done the mental work of "deciding to move on" without doing the deeper work each stage requires. The practical implication for leaders: if you've told yourself to "get over" a workplace betrayal and it hasn't stuck, that's not a willpower failure. It's a sign you skipped a stage. Rebuilding Trust in Your Intuition Dr. Debi was direct about this: "we have to rebuild trust in our intuition, in our wise inner guide, whatever you want to call it." The practice she described is simple — the next time something feels off with a coworker or a boss, a small signal that something "feels shady," pause and name it instead of dismissing it. Every time you notice the signal and honor it, even in a small, low-stakes way, you rebuild the muscle betrayal weakened. Rebuilding Identity: Keep What You Love, Release the Rest The second piece of the framework is about identity, not just instinct. As Dr. Debi framed it: figure out "what are all the parts you love" about who you are — those come with you into the next chapter. The rest doesn't have to. This isn't about becoming a different person. It's about consciously choosing which parts of your pre-betrayal self are worth rebuilding and which parts were never serving you anyway. That reframe — "you're rewriting a new script" — is the shift from surviving betrayal to authoring what comes after it. A useful self-check Dr. Debi offered: picture the version of you on the other side of this, fully rebuilt. Would she do the things you're currently doing and saying? If not, that gap is exactly where to start. Implement This Week: A 4-Step Action Plan Step 1 (15 minutes): Run the three-area check. Write down one honest observation each about your health, your work, and your relationships right now. Look for the thread connecting them. Step 2 (10 minutes/day): Practice the intuition pause. Once a day, when something feels slightly off in an interaction, pause and name it silently instead of dismissing it. Track how often your read turns out to be accurate. Step 3 (30 minutes): Do the "parts you love" inventory. List the traits, habits, and strengths you want to carry forward. Separately, list what you're willing to release. Keep the first list somewhere visible. Step 4 (ongoing): Use the future-self test. Before a hard conversation or decision this week, ask: would my fully rebuilt self do this? Let the answer guide you, not the fear in the moment. Success metric: By the end of one week, aim to catch and honor your intuition at least five times — even in small moments. That's the rebuild in motion. Common Mistakes Leaders Make After a Workplace Betrayal Mistake 1: Treating it as a confidence problem instead of a trust problem. Confidence-building tactics (power poses, affirmations) don't address a broken intuition. They mask the symptom while the root cause stays untouched. Mistake 2: Trying to "just get over it" without moving through the stages. Deciding to move on isn't the same as doing the work each stage requires. This is why the same hurt tends to resurface in new relationships and new roles. Mistake 3: Isolating as a permanent strategy. Keeping everyone at a distance feels protective short-term. Long-term, it caps your influence, your network, and your visibility for the next promotion. Mistake 4: Trying to heal alone. You don't have to do this without support — a coach, a trusted peer, or a mentor can see the gap between where you are and your future self faster than you can see it yourself. People Also Ask What is workplace betrayal, exactly? Workplace betrayal happens when someone you trusted at work — a manager, peer, or mentor — acts against your interests in a way that violates that trust. It's distinct from ordinary workplace conflict because it damages your trust in your own judgment, not just your view of the other person. How is betrayal different from burnout? Burnout is typically caused by chronic overwork or lack of resources. Betrayal is caused by a specific breach of trust and often produces symptoms — hesitation, isolation, eroded intuition — that can look like burnout but require a different kind of recovery. Can you really rebuild trust in your own intuition? Yes. Dr. Debi Silber describes it as a practice, not an event: consistently noticing and honoring small intuitive signals rebuilds the confidence in your own perception that betrayal damaged. How do I know if I'm still carrying an old workplace betrayal? Look at three areas: your health, your work, and your relationships. Unexplained tension in any of them can be a sign that an old betrayal hasn't fully been processed. ...

The latest guest on The PR Week is Ann Melinger, CEO of Bink, which works with biotech and life sciences companies on organizational culture, employee engagement and change management.  She talks about Bink's new Culture at Work Study and its key findings about how some companies fail to produce winning cultures while others thrive.  Plus, PRWeek's Diana Bradley on the biggest PR and communications news of the week, including key executive exits at Conagra, Edelman and Airbnb and acquisitions by FGS Global and One Strategy Group. PRWeek.comTheme music provided by TRIPLE SCOOP MUSICJaymes - First One Follow us: @PRWeekUSReceive the latest industry news, insights, and special reports. Start Your Free 1-Month Trial Subscription To PRWeek Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pastor Bryce is continuing our series called, "Who God Calls." Listen and enjoy!STAY CONNECTED:Website: https//www.clcc.ca/Instagram: @clcc.church

When the Title Changes but the Authority Doesn't: Family Business Succession with Paul Edelman Most family business succession plans fail not because the legal structure is wrong, but because authority never actually moves. In this episode of Wealth Actually, Frazer Rice talks with Paul Edelman, PhD of Edelman & Associates about how to tell the difference between a real handoff and a cosmetic one. Edelman unbundles succession into six separate questions, explains the three behavioral tells that reveal who is really in charge, draws a hard line between a legitimate safeguard and an open-ended veto, and makes the case that agreement from a family is not the same thing as ownership of a decision. https://youtu.be/p2KCsftvM74 Key Takeaways Succession is not one decision — it is at least six. Who gets the economic benefit of ownership, who votes the shares, who appoints and removes directors, who runs operations, who receives what information, and who retains informal influence after formal authority ends. Watch behavior, not titles. Compensation changes and org charts are easy to read and easy to fake. How decisions actually get made — and whether they get reversed — is the real signal. Three tells that authority hasn't moved: the next management layer still routes real decisions to the founder; the successor has never had a disputed call stand; and in a genuine crisis, the founder is the one who walks into the room. Speed is not the test. A five-year transition can be disciplined development; a six-month transition can be denial with a deadline. The test is whether milestones and readiness criteria are observable and stable, or whether the goalposts keep moving. “Not ready” is not a concern — it is a placeholder. If a founder cannot restate it in specific, testable terms, the obstacle is emotional rather than substantive, and it needs a different path. Advisor impatience often masquerades as clarity. When you catch yourself thinking “why can't they just do this,” ask whose timeline is actually being served — the family's, or your need to close the file. A safeguard is bounded; a veto is not. Reserve specific extraordinary decisions with defined scope, thresholds, triggers, evidence, and duration. “The successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable” is an undefined operational veto. Agreement is not ownership. A family can be outvoted and formally agree while owning nothing. Ownership comes from having weighed the trade-offs and the implications of each option in the room. Timestamps [00:00] Cold open — why “he's just not ready” is untestable [01:05] Welcome: founders at the sell-or-transfer crossroads [01:48] Unbundling succession into six separate questions [02:23] Running a diagnostic on where the founder actually is [03:00] Watch behavior, not titles — and what the CFO tells you [04:00] Decision reversals and the second-guessing test [05:00] The crisis test: who owns the emergency [05:36] Fast handoff vs. staged succession and prolonged ambiguity [06:10] Milestones that show it's working — and goalposts that keep moving [08:00] Inside vs. outside successors and family dynamics [08:54] Competing heirs and the outside CEO as bridge or avoidance [09:47] Reading resistance: making “not ready” addressable [11:10] The advisory ecosystem's frustration with stalled progress [12:16] Whose timeline is being served? [13:31] Push, pause, or reframe — the art and science of advising [15:00] When to change the forum, the decision rights, or bring in a facilitator [15:36] Safeguards vs. vetoes and the trap doors founders build [17:37] Board composition: independence vs. familiarity [20:00] Restructuring boards to create seats for new expertise [20:54] Income-dependent family members vs. growth-minded owners [21:34] Agreement is not ownership: dividends vs. reinvestment [23:31] Matching complexity to the outcomes you need [25:00] Communicating decisions to people who weren't in the room [25:26] How to reach Paul Edelman [25:46] The Edelman–Shenkman trilogy for estate planning attorneys [29:19] Close Pull Quotes “If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story.” — Paul Edelman “To have authority when things are going well is fine. But the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership.” — Paul Edelman “A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision.” — Paul Edelman “Just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision.” — Paul Edelman About the Guest Paul Edelman, PhD is a coach, facilitator, and mentor at Edelman & Associates, where he works with family enterprise and family office leaders on decisions that cannot be delegated. He holds a PhD in developmental psychology from Harvard University and a BS in physics from MIT, and serves as faculty at The UHNW Institute and the Bertarelli Institute for Family Entrepreneurship at Babson College. Contact Paul Edelman Email: paul@edelmancoaching.com Website: edelmancoaching.com (contact form on site) LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/pauledelman The Edelman & Shenkman Trilogy Paul and Martin M. “Marty” Shenkman, CPA, MBA, JD, PFS, AEP (Distinguished), of Shenkman Tietz, have written a three-part series aimed at estate planning attorneys: Simplicity and its trade-offs — When Clients Ask for a Simple Estate Plan, WealthManagement.com / Trusts & Estates, July 8, 2026. The language of estate planning conversations — published in Steve Leimberg's LISI Estate Planning Newsletter (subscriber archive). Beneficiary education — forthcoming October 2026, expected in Estate Planning. Paul's running author archive: wealthmanagement.com/author/paul-edelman More from Paul Edelman Approval Is Not Ownership: Helping Family Office Investment Decisions Hold Under Pressure — Family Wealth Report, July 1, 2026 How Families Can Override Emotions to Make Better Judgments — Family Business Magazine, April 9, 2026 Lessons For Families And Their Advisors From A Hit TV Series — Family Wealth Report, February 24, 2026 Stronger Family Bonds and Better Strategic Decisions — FFI Practitioner, January 20, 2026 Frequently Asked Questions What are the six questions a family business succession decision should be broken into?Who receives the economic benefit of ownership; who votes the shares; who appoints and removes directors; who runs the company operationally; who receives what information; and who continues to hold influence after formal authority ends. Bundling these into a single “handoff” decision is what creates ambiguity. How can you tell whether authority has really transferred to a successor?Watch three behaviors. First, where the next management layer goes for real decisions — employees are excellent at reading where power actually lives. Second, whether the successor has ever made a call the founder disagreed with and had it stand. Third, the crisis test: when a covenant breaks or a key employee leaves, who walks into the room and who gets briefed afterward. Is a fast succession better than a gradual one?Speed itself is not the test. A five-year transition can represent disciplined development, and a six-month transition can be avoidance followed by an arbitrary deadline. What matters is whether responsibility moves against observable milestones, whether the successor learns from outcomes instead of being rescued, and whether readiness criteria stay fixed rather than shifting each time the successor advances. What is the difference between a safeguard and a veto?A safeguard is limited, explicit, and tied to extraordinary risk — selling the company, debt above a threshold, issuing new equity, changing core strategy, or related-party transactions — with defined scope, thresholds, process, duration, trigger, evidence, and who decides. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse ordinary decisions. If the founder can intervene whenever they feel uncomfortable, that is an undefined operational veto. How should advisors handle their own frustration with a stalled family?Notice that impatience often feels like clarity. When you think “I see exactly what they need to do, why can't they just do it,” that is often the moment to slow down and ask whose timeline is being served — whether the ambiguity is genuinely damaging the company, or whether the recommendation mainly closes the case and relieves the advisor's discomfort with uncertainty. What makes an independent director genuinely independent in a family company?The ability to exercise business judgment and fiduciary duty free from undue family influence or loyalty to a particular branch. A director who is the founder's golfing buddy or tied to one family faction will struggle to deliver the value independence is supposed to provide. Why isn't agreement good enough?Because agreement in name is not ownership. A family branch can be outvoted, formally accept the outcome, and still feel no responsibility for it. Ownership comes from working through the trade-offs — what each option makes better and worse — so participants can say they helped weigh the considerations even if the result was not their first choice. Full Transcript [00:00] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like, for example, the most general concern that people will say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. [00:36] Announcer: Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. [01:05] Frazer Rice: Welcome aboard, Paul. [01:07] Paul Edelman: Thanks, Frazer. Looking forward to our conversation. [01:09] Frazer Rice: Well, it's important because I deal with a bunch of founders and a bunch of other business owners, families, et cetera, that are trying to make sense out of the concept of passing along the business either to the next generation or deciding to sell it, and all sorts of parts of that tough crossroads that everybody has to go through at some point. And that's really the crux of your practice — to help people with those conversations. [01:34] Paul Edelman: Yes. [01:35] Frazer Rice: So when we're thinking about that and kind of unbundling the decision to pass the business along, when a family wants to talk about that, what are the separate parts of that decision that need to be contemplated? [01:48] Paul Edelman: Well, I see at least six different questions that need to be separated. One is who receives the economic benefit of ownership in the company. Another is who gets to vote the shares. And a third is who appoints and removes the directors. Then there's who runs the company from an operational standpoint, and who receives what information. And then, who continues to have influence even though they may no longer have formal authority. [02:23] Frazer Rice: So once you get into the… it always seems to me to be tough to sort of say, okay, here are six things that have to happen, and that's a lot for somebody to digest in the course of one or two meetings and get the buy-in from all the different constituencies that are interested in what the business is up to. How do you run a diagnostic to understand where a founder is — or generation one — in their own head space, and understanding what control being passed on looks like in summary form on those six different aspects that you brought up? [03:00] Paul Edelman: I think the key thing is to watch behavior more than titles. People often pay a lot of attention to when the titles have shifted or compensation shifts, things like that. But they pay less attention to how decisions are being made and whether those decisions get reversed. So when the title has moved but the authority hasn't moved, you tend to see three different things. First of all, you can see something going on at the next level down in management — not with the founder and successor per se, but with the other executives. You can ask yourself, who do they go to for the real decisions? If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story. [04:00] Paul Edelman: Employees are excellent at reading where the actual power lives, because they can't afford to be wrong about that sort of thing. So that's one clue. Another is to look at decision reversals, or what is more commonly called second-guessing. You want to look for whether the successor has made a call that the founder disagreed with. And if so, did it stand, or did it get reversed? If the company is two years into succession and that's never happened, it's possible that the successor is pre-clearing everything with the former CEO and only making decisions that they know will be approved. So in that case, it's not real authority. And a third situation is what you could call a crisis test. [05:00] Paul Edelman: So when something genuinely bad happens — there's a breach of a covenant, or a key employee departs, or a lawsuit — the question is, who do people go to? Who walks into the boardroom and into the decision-making situation, and who ends up getting briefed afterwards? To have authority when things are going well is fine, but the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership, in a sense. [05:36] Frazer Rice: So one of the avenues that I think is interesting, that I read in your materials ahead of time, was the idea that a quick succession oftentimes — and maybe not often, but can be — a better avenue in terms of moving the succession forward, as opposed to having a staged succession where a long period of ruminating and decision-making often perpetuates ambiguity, or even confusion, amongst different constituencies both managerially and ownership-wise. [06:10] Paul Edelman: Speed itself is not the test. You could have a five-year transition that represents disciplined development of the successor, and you could also have a six-month transition that essentially is a denial of what needs to happen, followed by some kind of a deadline. But you certainly don't want to allow things to drift. If the transition is proceeding gradually, you can tell it's working if responsibility and authority are moving according to observable milestones. So the successor is making increasingly consequential decisions. They're learning from the outcomes rather than being rescued by the founder or the prior leader from their mistakes. [07:01] Paul Edelman: They're developing important relationships and they're becoming someone that others rely on. The criteria for readiness also should become clearer over time, and the founder's involvement should change in ways that are recognizable. So that's the ideal. But sometimes a gradual transition represents avoidance, and in those cases you see criteria — sometimes people refer to them as the goalposts — that keep moving. And decisions are repeatedly returned to the founder. Also, each step that the successor takes toward greater authority may be followed by a new reason why the founder feels that they're not ready. So the question that can be asked is: what are the capabilities that the successor is developing, and what specific evidence would demonstrate that? [08:00] Frazer Rice: When you're diagnosing what those capabilities are, as part of that diagnosis, if the successor is inside the family versus outside the family, how do you diagnose whether that is a positive or a negative, in addition to maybe the harder skill sets that are being dealt with? [08:29] Paul Edelman: If the successor is from inside or outside the family, I would say that many of the capabilities needed for leadership are the same. [08:40] Frazer Rice: Yeah, I was going to say — if you run into situations where a family member is capable skill-wise, but there are dynamics issues that have prevented their succession to the throne, essentially. [08:54] Paul Edelman: Sometimes there may be a situation in which you have more than one potential successor and they're in competition with one another, and the family is reluctant to declare a winner. And so one move that can be made in that situation is to essentially bypass the decision by going to the outside to bring in someone. It could be a kind of conflict avoidance mechanism. On the other hand, if no successor is really ready, then sometimes going to the outside can be an interim move. So some companies will hire an external candidate for CEO with the expectation that part of the responsibility will be to develop one of the family members who ultimately may take over. [09:47] Frazer Rice: And so part of your methodology is to read resistance in the room and understand where those pain points are. How does a founder, or generation one, or the successive generations understand what the resistance is? And how do you help them overcome that? [10:02] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like — for example, the most general concern that people say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. If you try to do that and you're unable to, that's an indication that the concern is less about something specific and addressable, and more about some unpleasant feelings that the founder is experiencing — and that implies a different path for how to address those, or what needs to be done. [11:10] Frazer Rice: For those of us in, let's call it the advisory ecosystem — that can be the wealth manager, or the lawyer, or the accountant, the people who help guide the technical succession issues, whether it's tax planning or trusts and estates or even just the corporate handoff — oftentimes we're presented with situations that just get muddled, and we look at lack of progress with frustration. How does an advisor deal with that, when the instinct and in a sense the business model is to try to push, to get resolution and to get progress on these types of issues? [12:16] Paul Edelman: The signal that I watch for is what that impatience feels like to the advisor. Sometimes it feels like clarity. The advisor says to himself, oh, I see exactly what they need to do — why can't they just do this? And in my experience, that's often the moment when it's helpful for the advisor to slow down. Not because the family should be allowed to delay indefinitely, but because the advisor's own need for resolution may begin to shape what they say and do, and the advice that they give. [13:00] Paul Edelman: One useful check that advisors can use for themselves is to ask whose timeline is being served. There may be a genuine business reason to act — it may be, for example, that the continued ambiguity is hurting the company, or weakening the successor, or leaving employees unsure about who's in charge. But I would also ask myself, and other advisors can ask themselves, whether their recommendation is mainly to help them close the case, or to demonstrate progress, or to relieve their own discomfort with uncertainty. [13:31] Frazer Rice: The concept of — this is really, I guess, the mix of art and science of advising — between push versus pause versus a total restructure or a reframing of the conversation. There's an intersection of, you have to have the technicals down, but then experience in dealing with personalities, experience with dealing with the specific family and situation, and guiding that. [14:15] Frazer Rice: I imagine occasionally you run into situations where, at the intersection between the advisors and the family, they feel stuck. And so then the concept of getting them unstuck — yet there is resistance to maybe bringing in a facilitator to help grease the skids and get the conversation moving again. How do you help that reframing discussion? [14:40] Paul Edelman: I guess the question I would ask is, where do things stand? Has a decision actually been made, or is the obstacle substantive, or is it the process? So when a decision has been reached through a legitimate process and what you see is some sort of executional drag or discomfort, those are the situations where I think it's helpful to hold the boundary. You can acknowledge whatever feelings may be slowing things down, but there's not a need to reopen the decision. [14:55] Paul Edelman: On the other hand, if the discomfort that people are feeling suggests that there's some sort of important concern that hasn't yet been understood, then that's where I would pause. And that pause can involve useful work. You can ask people, what is it you're trying to protect? What are the consequences that you fear? What would need to be true for proceeding to feel responsible rather than reckless? And then there are times when it makes sense to restructure or to add structure. So for example, the choices are pretty clear, but the same conversation keeps recurring and producing the same result. In that case, you want to think in terms of either changing the forum, or clarifying the decision rights, or maybe dividing the issue into smaller decisions, or even bringing someone in to help structure the conversation, like a third-party facilitator. [15:36] Frazer Rice: The handoff ultimately — when the founder, or generation one, has gotten to the point where they're ready to move things along to the next set of operators, the next set of owners — and at the same time, in order to feel safe, they've created some safeguards, or let's call it some trap doors or back doors, to be able to help influence decisions if they feel like things are going in a different direction. How do you think about it so that they don't turn into pain points — maybe regret that turns into a veto power that stymies the succession, even if it's already been decided and put in motion? [16:21] Paul Edelman: Well, I think you put your finger on it. There's a key distinction to be made here between a safeguard and a veto. A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk, whereas a veto is kind of an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision. So when it comes to safeguards, a family might reserve certain kinds of decisions — like selling the company, or taking on debt above a certain level, or issuing new equity, or changing the basic business strategy, or entering into a transaction with a family member. [16:59] Paul Edelman: Those kinds of things can be specified, and the scope, the threshold, the decision process and the duration of the safeguard should be clear — as well as who can invoke that protection, what evidence is required, and who decides whether the trigger has occurred, and so on. So the problems arise when the arrangement is essentially one in which the successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable. If the founder is allowed to intervene anytime they feel uncomfortable, as opposed to for these specific kinds of reasons, then you're dealing with more of an undefined operational veto. [17:37] Frazer Rice: To that end — boards of directors related to these companies, whether they're private or public, but we're really talking about private in most cases. The constitution of those boards: how involved do you get in that? And what is the importance of independence versus familiarity versus family member input, to act as a go-between in many ways between founder, the operational executives, and then ultimately the owners? [18:07] Paul Edelman: Well, in order to really add value — the kind of value that independent directors can potentially offer to a company — they need to be adequately independent. That is to say, they need to be able to exercise their sound business judgment and carry out their fiduciary responsibilities in a way that is free from undue influence by other kinds of family considerations, and potentially loyalty to particular family members. So I think in those cases where a so-called independent board member is actually a golfing buddy of the CEO or the founder, or has a tie to one particular family member or branch of the family, it may be harder for them to bring the full value that an independent director can bring. [18:55] Paul Edelman: Then of course, another reason why companies bring in independent directors is because they have some additional expertise that the current board members or family members lack. So for example, a colleague and I are working with a company right now where the core business has been subject to commoditization, and they've made a strategic decision to diversify. But in order to diversify, they need to bring in people with new expertise, particularly in the line of business that they want to move into. In order to do that, they need to create some space in their board or boards of directors — they have several different kinds of boards. And as part of this, we were brought in to take a look at those existing boards and help them think about how to restructure in a way that could create some open seats while minimizing the displacement of people who are currently board members, including family members who are board members, who may not feel too positively about losing their board seat. [20:54] Frazer Rice: Related to board seats, but more specifically to family ownership — the concept of family members who rely on the family business for income, versus maybe other parts of the family that are looking at the business and thinking of growing the valuation or innovating with the business, that type of thing. With the tension between those two different components, how do you solve for that and have that conversation stay productive, when I imagine it can get emotional very quickly? [21:34] Paul Edelman: This is where a third-party facilitator can be helpful to slow things down. When things begin to get heated, it's often helpful to have a neutral or impartial person present who can help to reduce the heat in the conversations. There are a number of things in particular that can be done under those circumstances. First of all, anytime there are these kinds of tough decisions, there's never a single right answer. There's always trade-offs involved. And some boards work their way through these things by voting. I'm dealing with a situation right now where some members of the family were outvoted. At the end of that vote, they say, okay, we now have an agreement, we're going to move forward with this. But just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision. [22:34] Paul Edelman: So in order to create ownership, I think it is helpful to have the difficult conversations and to consider the implications of going one way versus another. If we were to distribute all this money in the form of dividends, what would be the benefits of that, and what would be the costs associated with that? And on the other hand, if we were to plow it all back into growth of the business, what's the upside and downside of that? Only by considering different options and the implications of each can the family ultimately arrive at a decision where people feel like, well, I may not have agreed to this, but I was part of the discussion, I was part of the process of weighing the different considerations, and I'm willing to buy into this. In other words, I feel some ownership for this decision. [23:31] Frazer Rice: As we start to wind down here, an interesting concept is what should all the constituencies come away with from the decision-making process. And as a follow-up to that is simplicity versus complexity of the solution. How do you manage that so that you take care of the needs of the business and the needs for structuring, with the need for simplicity, so that everyone who comes away from the discussion and the decision-making understands what's been put in place? [24:06] Paul Edelman: As far as the solution itself goes, the level of complexity should match what's required to accomplish the desired outcomes. So complexity for its own sake is not useful. But when you're trying to accomplish more than one thing at a time, it may require a more complex approach to the solution. So that's on the solution side. Now the other side of it has to do with communication. How do you share what's been decided with other people, especially people who haven't been in the room? And I think that the best way to do that is to try to explain clearly what was the context of the situation in which the need to make this decision arose; what were the desired outcomes that the decision makers were trying to produce, what were they trying to accomplish; and the flip side of that is what were they trying to avoid, or what were they trying to protect. [25:00] Paul Edelman: When you share all of that, the rationale for the decision becomes more understandable, and also you have a better case for justifying any complexity that's part of the decision. As far as complexity goes, of course, you want to use the simplest, most straightforward language to describe what you've come up with. But I think the key thing to getting buy-in is to make sure that the rationale is clear, and people understand that there was a thoughtful and systematic process behind it. [25:26] Frazer Rice: Really good stuff. Paul, how do people find you to hear more about what you're up to? [25:32] Paul Edelman: My website is edelmancoaching.com. So people can go to edelmancoaching.com, read more about the work that I do, and there's a contact form there. Or people can simply email paul@edelmancoaching.com. [25:46] Frazer Rice: Just to — because you're being very humble — you have a couple of articles coming out with Marty Shenkman, where the intersection of probably the trust and estate planning and the actual, let's say, getting the business ready for the next generation, whatever form that takes, is probably front and center there. How would people find that? [26:06] Paul Edelman: So we've written three articles recently, kind of a trilogy, and they're each going to be carried in different places. Two have already come out, and one is due to come out. These are aimed primarily at estate planning attorneys. But the first one is on when the client asks for a simple estate plan. And this relates a little bit to what you were describing, in a different domain — the domain of trusts and estate plans and so on. But the point that we make is that the client's request for simplicity is understandable, and ideally the attorney will validate that. But at the same time, along with the request for simplicity goes potentially some compromises, because when you have multiple desired outcomes, it may take more of a complex structure to achieve those outcomes. So the role of the planner is not to introduce complexity for its own sake, but to make clear to the client [27:06] Paul Edelman: what trade-offs they'd be making if they went with a simpler plan, and what additional protections they can get by considering a more complicated one. Then the second piece is on the use of language in these estate planning conversations. And again, it relates to this concept we were talking about a minute ago, of the difference between agreement and ownership. Some clients are willing to agree to whatever the attorney says. If you say to them, “Well, I think this is the best plan for you,” they say, “Fine, where do I sign?” But the goal, ideally, is more than just agreement. It's ownership. Because in the absence of ownership — and by ownership, I mean that the client understands the trade-offs that are being made, they feel that they had agency in the process of making those trade-offs — [28:06] Paul Edelman: and ultimately, if something doesn't work out as well as hoped, people will not go back and point a finger at the planner and say, “You did this, how could you do this?” or something like that, but rather, “This was a collaborative effort. You made clear what the choices were, and we made them together.” So that piece talks about language, and how, for example, there's a difference between saying to a client “you should do this,” and speaking to them in terms of what they can do. [28:42] Frazer Rice: And then the third piece — when's that coming out? [28:46] Paul Edelman: The third piece is on beneficiary education, and that one will come out in October. And so the first piece came out in a publication called Wealth Management. The second piece came out in a newsletter that's published by, I think it's LISI. And the piece that's coming out in October is, I think, being published in a magazine or a journal, something like Estate Planning. [29:19] Frazer Rice: They're everywhere. So, terrific. Well, Paul, thanks for being on. I'll put all that in the show notes, and look forward to staying in touch. [29:26] Paul Edelman: Thanks very much, Frazer. [29:28] Announcer: This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice, and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. Additional Links Mark Tepsich of Family Governance https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

Ben Edelman, independent consultant and longtime ad fraud investigator, joins Ari Paparo and Eric Franchi to discuss the Phia affiliate controversy, the evolution of ad fraud, AppLovin's install practices, and what marketers should know about trust and attribution. They also cover Meta and Microsoft earnings, Google's Buyer Direct, creator marketing trends, FreeWheel's latest CTV update, and more. Takeaways: - Ben Edelman explains how affiliate fraud has evolved and why it remains a major issue. - A deep dive into the Phia browser extension controversy and affiliate attribution. - Lessons from the Blinkx adware scandal and AppLovin's forced install investigation. - Ari and Eric discuss Meta and Microsoft earnings, Google's Buyer Direct, and the future of creator marketing. - The latest updates from FreeWheel, Amazon, X, and the broader ad tech industry. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction 01:12 Podcast updates and industry news preview 02:19 Meet Ben Edelman 03:20 The Blinkx adware investigation 10:04 How Ben investigates ad fraud 13:28 The Phia affiliate controversy explained 19:02 Can affiliate marketing be trusted? 23:50 AppLovin's install practices 27:37 Where to follow Ben Edelman 27:51 Meta and Microsoft earnings 33:37 Amazon becomes the largest Fortune 500 company 36:06 Google's Buyer Direct and antitrust concerns 40:14 The rise of micro and nano creators 42:44 AI-generated content in programmatic advertising 43:59 FreeWheel's new CTV reporting capabilities 45:08 X and the WFA legal settlement 46:25 Final thoughts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many women move through major life transitions without getting clear information about what's happening in their own bodies. Whether it's conversations about painful periods or menopause, fertility or contraceptives, these topics affect millions of people everyday, but they are difficult to talk about openly. In this episode, Shoshana sharesthree TED Ed lessons centered around women's health help you understand your body better.Talks featuredWhat is vaginal discharge, and what does it say about your health? | Elizabeth Micks3 things that can cause painful periods | Chen X. ChenHow does the morning-after pill prevent pregnancy? | Alison Edelman Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

People who post on LinkedIn just once a week grow 5.6 times faster than people who don't, and it has nothing to do with talent or free time. In this episode, we break down the exact LinkedIn content system that keeps you visible even on your busiest, most chaotic week.If you're a coach, consultant, or service provider who's brilliant at what you do but keeps going quiet on LinkedIn the second work picks up, this one is for you. We're giving away the whole system for free, no fluff and no willpower required.Here's what we get into:Why the usual advice to "just post more" always fails busy experts, and what to do instead. The real data on why consistency quietly beats talent on LinkedIn, including the numbers from Buffer's study of over two million posts and the 2025 Edelman and LinkedIn trust report. The five parts of a content system that runs itself... your pillars, your batching ritual, your prompt library, your scheduling home, and the repurposing loop. And the fifth part is the one almost nobody does, which is exactly why most people's content dies the moment they get busy. Then we walk you through building the entire thing in about 90 minutes on a single calm afternoon.By the end, you'll see that going quiet on LinkedIn was never a discipline problem. It's a system gap, and system gaps are fixable fast.Knowing the system is one thing. Actually running it week after week, especially when you're slammed, is where most people get stuck doing it alone. That's exactly what we built Expert Content Society for. Inside, you get the AI-powered prompts, templates, and community that turn everything in this episode into content you actually publish, consistently. Come build it with us at Expert Content SocietyIf this episode made LinkedIn feel a little more doable, follow the show so you never miss one, and share it with a friend who's always "too busy to post."

To listen to this and other bonus episodes, buy a paid subscription to my newsletter at https://www.usermag.co or support my work on Patreon: http://patreon.com/taylorlorenz.Affiliate marketing is one of the biggest industries on the internet, and according to researcher Ben Edelman, one of Silicon Valley's hottest AI startups may have been abusing it.In this bonus episode of Power User I sat down with Edelman to break down what's happening with Phia, the shopping startup co-founded by Phoebe Gates that has raised over $43 million from famed Silicon Valley investors like Kleiner Perkins Sheryl Sandberg, along with a slew of celebrities including Sydney Sweeney, Khloe Kardashian and Hailey Bieber. We break down allegations that Phia's browser extension secretly inserted affiliate tracking codes, how this compares to the Honey controversy, why retailers could have lost millions, and what this means for the future of AI-powered shopping.

Mona Charen and Eric Edelman examine how Trump stumbled into the Iran war without a clear plan, alienated allies, strengthened Tehran's position, and left the United States looking weaker.Get 15% off OneSkin with the code MONACHAREN at https://www.oneskin.co/MONACHAREN#oneskinpodLinks mentioned in this episode:Inside Israel's Secret Operation to Cultivate Ahmadinejadhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/13/us/politics/israel-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-iran.htmlUS lacks scores of ambassadors in Africahttps://www.semafor.com/article/07/10/2026/us-lacks-scores-of-ambassadors-in-africa

A few months ago, I came across an incredible video. It's the early 70s, and a local Chicago talk show is interviewing a doctor who wrote a sex education book that millions of people across the country were reading … unaware that it was full of wildly incorrect and frankly homophobic claims about homosexuals. The interview is going smoothly until suddenly a man jumps up from the studio audience and does what nobody else had dared — he confronts the doctor about his misinformation and demands he explain himself. That man in the audience was Murray Edelman, and I'm very excited to say that he's my guest this week on The Sewers of Paris.Here's the video — jump to 9:25 to see Murray's interruption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PChFM8kAjhw A quick reminder that I have a new video up on YouTube about the long, messy fight for marriage equality, check that out at https://YouTube.com/mattbaume. Join me for weekly livestreams every Sunday on Twitch. Check out my book Hi Honey, I'm Homo! at GaySitcoms.com; subscribe to my email newsletter at MattBaume.com, and if you're enjoying The Sewers of Paris, support the show on Patreon at Patreon.com/mattbaume.

Matt Edelman serves as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President, with responsibility for the company's strategy, capital allocation, operations, and long-term growth. Appointed CEO in April 2025 after serving as President and Chief Commercial Officer, Matt architected a comprehensive corporate restructuring, strengthening the company's balance sheet and raising more than $26 million in six months, culminating in a $20 million private placement in October 2025. Prior to his appointment as CEO, Matt drove more than 20x revenue growth, led multiple M&A transactions, oversaw hundreds of brand partnerships, supported the company's successful NASDAQ IPO, and helped establish Super League as a defining force in the emerging category of playable media.   To know more about Matt visit his LinkedIn: @mattedelman   Episode Summary:   Matt Edelman has spent over 30 years at the intersection of media, gaming, and emerging tech — starting at Marvel in the 1990s, helping launch Marvel.com, moving through WME/IMG's global live-events business, and now leading Super League as its Chairman, CEO, and President. In this conversation, Matt walks through his "meandering" career path, what it took to raise $26 million while restructuring Super League from an esports company into a platform that helps brands reach the "gamified consumer," and the leadership lessons he's picked up along the way — from building trust with his team to spotting emerging categories before they have a name.   Key Takeaways:   - Follow where you can have impact, not just what's exciting - More people play video games than watch sports - Reframe the audience to shift perception - Trust is a leader's most important asset - Curiosity drives good leadership, but it needs a check - Younger generations are wired for gamified experiences - Build a personal board of advisors - The human side of your story matters as much as your business story   Episode Chapters:   00:00 – Episode teaser: the stats on gamers vs. sports fans 00:40 – Welcome & guest introduction 01:42 – Welcome, Matt 01:58 – Matt's origin story: from investment banking to Los Angeles 03:36 – The Marvel years: launching Marvel.com and riding the dot-com wave 11:20 – What Super League is and why it matters 16:34 – Matt's evolution as CEO and the importance of trust 19:15 – Listener support shoutout (top 2% of podcasts globally) 19:55 – What inspires Matt: solving business puzzles 22:08 – What legacy Matt wants to leave 23:35 – What's next for Super League and the gamified consumer trend 26:18 – Where to find Matt (LinkedIn) and why the "human side" matters online 29:08 – Final takeaway for listeners: build your personal board of advisors 31:47 – Outro

Affiliate fraud investigator Ben Edelman joins Tye for an emergency episode breaking down the "Phia fiasco" that's rattling the affiliate marketing industry. Edelman, who's spent over 20 years catching affiliate fraud and has collaborated with Tye on forensic cases throughout his career, walks through what makes this case different from the usual stand-down violations that have hit shopping plugins like Honey and Microsoft Edge in the past.

In this episode of the TCOYD Podcast, Dr. Steve Edelman is joined by Raquel Baron, founder of Type One Together, to discuss the challenges, triumphs, and everyday realities of raising a child with type 1 diabetes. Diagnosed herself at age five, Raquel combines her lived experience with years of supporting families through Type One Together, an organization that provides trusted resources, educational programs, and a nationwide network of trained babysitters for children with type 1 diabetes. Together, Dr. Edelman and Raquel explore the emotional side of diabetes that often goes beyond blood sugars. They discuss helping children navigate school, sports, friendships, burnout, and growing independence, while giving parents practical strategies to reduce fear, build confidence, and create a healthier relationship with diabetes. The conversation also covers diabetes technology, social media, Afrezza for children, community support, and why perfection should never be the goal.Whether you're the parent of a newly diagnosed child or have been managing type 1 diabetes for years, this episode offers practical advice, reassurance, and reminders that children with diabetes can live full, active lives.✨ Subscribe for practical diabetes management tips, technology updates, and treatment breakthroughs that help people with diabetes live healthier, more flexible lives.More diabetes resources:Website: tcoyd.orgBlog: tcoyd.org/blogPodcast: tcoydthepodcast.transistor.fmInstagram:   / tcoydFacebook:   / tcoydStay connected! Sign up for our monthly newsletter here!Support TCOYD's educational programs: tcoyd.org/donate ★ Support this podcast ★

In this episode of Shift AI, Patrick Hillmann, Chief Strategy Officer at Logical Intelligence, joins host Boaz Ashkenazy for a conversation about why the next era of AI cannot be built on probability alone.Patrick shares his unconventional path into AI, from crisis communications and cybersecurity work at Edelman and General Electric, to steering Binance through its most turbulent years and a major DOJ settlement. At Logical Intelligence, Patrick now works alongside Yann LeCun, a Fields Medalist, and engineers from Meta, Google, and Cruise to build deterministic, energy-based reasoning models.Patrick explains why LLMs behave like a confident intern, fast and articulate, but wrong in ways you only catch if you already know the answer, and why critical systems like power grids, hospitals, and self-driving cars need a layer of certainty that probabilistic systems cannot provide. He and Boaz dig into Logical Intelligence's benchmark results, including a 98% score on the notoriously difficult Putnam math competition, and a public Sudoku test where their energy-based model, Kona, beat every major LLM combined while running on a fraction of the compute cost. This episode is essential listening for CTOs, technical leaders, and anyone trying to understand what comes after the current generation of large language models.Chapters[00:00] Patrick's Improbable Path: From Grad School to the Front Lines of a Geopolitical Crisis[02:43] From Binance to Chief Strategy Officer at Logical Intelligence[02:54] The First Paid Job: Unloading UPS Trucks in 100 Degree Heat[04:31] The UPS Lesson That Still Shapes How He Thinks About Work[04:47] Why LLMs Are Confident Guessing Machines, Not Truth Machines[07:14] The Team Behind Logical Intelligence: A Fields Medalist, Yann LeCun, and Math Olympiad Engineers[08:55] Is Logical Intelligence Betting Against LLMs?[10:32] The AI Sandwich: Where LLMs, Reasoning Layers, and World Models Fit[12:36] The Putnam Benchmark and Why Formal Proofs Don't Get Partial Credit[15:44] What Is an Energy-Based Model, Really?[19:54] Eve Badia's 15-Year Path to the Energy-Based Reasoning Model[22:04] Formal Verification and the Future of Secure Code Generation[23:33] When Unverified Code Fails: The Molson Coors Ransomware Story[25:39] Why AI Coding Tools Create Rat's Nests Engineers Can't Debug[28:53] The Sudoku Test: 98% Accuracy for $4 vs $14,000 for the Leading LLMs[31:13] ByteDance, China, and the Race for Formal Methods[33:42] Two Words for the Future of AI: Chaotic Determinism[37:12] Where to Follow Logical Intelligence and Founder Eve BadiaConnect with Patrick HillmannLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/crisiscommunicationsConnect with Boaz AshkenazyLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/boazashkenazy/Email: info@shiftai.fm

In this episode of the TCOYD Podcast, Dr. Steve Edelman is joined by pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Anna Cymbaluk, along with Philip and his father Jim, to discuss the recent FDA approval of Afrezza inhaled insulin for children and adolescents living with type 1 diabetes. Dr. Cymbaluk served as an investigator on the INHALE-1 trial, while Philip participated in the study himself, providing a unique real-world perspective on what it is like to transition from injections to inhaled insulin, and Philip's dad, Jim provided the parent perspective as well as addressed parental concerns that might have arisen.The conversation focuses on the INHALE-1 study and the unmet challenges that continue to exist around mealtime insulin dosing in pediatric diabetes care. Dr. Cymbaluk reviews the trial design, glucose outcomes, safety data, patient satisfaction findings, and the practical realities of introducing inhaled insulin into everyday diabetes management. Philip and Jim share how Afrezza impacted school, sports, social situations, and the day-to-day burden of diabetes, particularly around pre-bolusing, corrections, and avoiding multiple injections throughout the day.Dr. Edelman and Dr. Cymbaluk also explore how Afrezza is dosed, how inhaled insulin differs from injected insulin, who may be a good candidate, and where it may fit alongside pumps and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. For families looking for more flexibility, fewer mealtime barriers, and another option in the diabetes toolbox, this episode provides an honest look at the benefits, limitations, and real-world experience of inhaled insulin in children and teens.Key Topics• The FDA approval of Afrezza for children and adolescents living with type 1 diabetes• The design and results of the INHALE-1 pediatric clinical trial• Patient satisfaction and quality-of-life outcomes from the study• The challenges of pre-bolusing and mealtime insulin management in children and teens• How inhaled insulin compares to traditional mealtime injections• Dosing strategies, cartridge sizes, and insulin conversion considerations• Using Afrezza for corrections, meals, and post-meal dosing• The role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) when using inhaled insulin• Safety findings, lung-function monitoring, and cough management• Who may be a good candidate for Afrezza—and who may not be• Benefits for active children, athletes, and those participating in sports• Social situations, injection avoidance, and reducing the burden of diabetes management• Using Afrezza alongside insulin pumps and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems• The importance of having more treatment options to individualize diabetes careSupported by an unrestricted educational grant from MannKind CorporationSubscribe for practical diabetes management tips, technology updates, and treatment breakthroughs that help people with diabetes live healthier, more flexible lives.More diabetes resources:Website: tcoyd.orgBlog: tcoyd.org/blogPodcast: tcoydthepodcast.transistor.fmInstagram: / tcoydFacebook: / tcoydStay connected! Sign up for our monthly newsletter here!Support TCOYD's educational programs: tcoyd.org/donate ★ Support this podcast ★

2026 Chico Attendees SeriesHannah Edelman is a photographer from South Florida and the 2026 Charcoal Publishing Prize recipient. We talk about using photography as part of processing traumatic experiences.Hannah Edelman (b. 1996) is a South Florida–born visual artist whose work in analog photography and printmaking bridges the technical and the poetic. Formally trained as a gelatin silver printer, she uses the camera to create works that explore cultural memory, myth, and the psychological weight of place. Rooted in process and materiality, Edelman's practice reflects on how landscape and identity shape one another.https://hannah-edelman.format.com/https://www.instagram.com/hannah__edelman/This podcast is sponsored by the Charcoal Book ClubBegin Building your dream photobook library today athttps://charcoalbookclub.comThe Chico Review is the country's premier Photobook Retreat. Organized by Charcoal Book Club, The Chico Review takes place over six nights at Chico Hot Springs Resort, near Livingston Montana. Applicants will spend the week with over twenty of the most influential and creative photographers, book makers, gallerists, museum curators, and photobook publishers in the industry.https://chicoreview.comhttps://www.charcoalworkshops.com

On this episode of CoinDesk's Public Keys at the New York Stock Exchange, host Jennifer Sanasie sits down with Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals founder Ric Edelman to discuss the disconnect between declining crypto sentiment and Wall Street's rapid investment in digital asset infrastructure. Their conversation covers the CLARITY Act, the fight over crypto in 401(k) plans, tokenization, and Edelman's long-term outlook for Bitcoin. In this week's 10X Trade, Maelstrom CIO Arthur Hayes shares his highest-conviction trade. Strive Chief Risk Officer Jeff Walton examines the future of digital credit following the sharp declines of STRC and SATA, arguing that digital credit could represent the next $300 trillion opportunity for Bitcoin. Also on the show, BlackRock Global Head of Digital Assets Robbie Mitchnick discusses BITA, the iShares Bitcoin Premium Income ETF, while 21Shares Co-Founder Ophelia Snyder explains why today's financial infrastructure may be fundamentally incompatible with the tokenized future Wall Street is working to build. - This episode of Public Keys is brought to you by Kraken Pro. For more: https://pro.kraken.com/ - Learn more at https://www.bullish.com/. - To get marketing moving news delivered daily, download CoinDesk's mobile app: https://linktr.ee/coindeskapp. - Timecodes: 00:00 Welcome to Public Keys 00:37 Strategy's STRC Crashes to a Record Low 01:04 Schwab and Cboe Enter Prediction Markets 01:45 Franklin Templeton Files For Bitcoin Dividend ETFs 02:30 Ric Edelman on Crypto's Great Disconnect 05:05 Will the CLARITY Act Pass? 06:08 Crypto Lobby vs. Banking Lobby Into the Midterms 08:48 Edelman's Bitcoin and Ethereum Outlook 12:34 10X: Arthur Hayes' Highest-Conviction Trade 14:07 Strive's Jeff Walton on Digital Credit's Worst Day 15:46 Inside the STRC and SATA Leverage Liquidation 20:43 The $300 Trillion Credit Market Opportunity 23:46 Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF Flows 24:48 BlackRock's Robbie Mitchnick on the BITA Launch 28:37 Ophelia Snyder on Tokenization's Reality Check 30:15 The Scale Problem in Tokenizing Capital Markets

Jillian Feberwee, Nick Tait, William Edelman, and Michael Youngling sailed with Tapio Lehtinen aboard Galiana, his 1972 Swan 55 yawl from Antigua to Nassau, The Bahamas.   We talk about what everyone hoped to get out of the passage, Galiana and other sailboats, sailing with and learning from Tapio, highlights of the passage, fishing, hand steering, seasickness and getting over it, sailing downwind at 9 knots, preparing for the trip in Antigua, cooking in the galley, difficult situations, comparing Galiana to other boats, sails, the Swan's companionway, sail trim, swimming in deep water, reefing, working with and getting along with a crew, a Spanish ghost, not having cell service, goals, singlehanding, dream boat, wildlife, and more. Photos and links are on the podcast shownotes page Support the show through Patreon If you are interested in sailing on Galiana in her upcoming passages, email paulwtrammell at hotmail.com and put sailing in the subject line

In this episode of the TCOYD Podcast, Dr. Edelman and Dr. Pettus are joined by pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Jamie Wood, medical director of pediatric diabetes at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital and an investigator on the INHALE-1 trial, to talk through inhaled insulin in kids and where it fits in real-world pediatric care.The conversation focuses on the recent approval of Afrezza for children as young as six, and what the INHALE-1 trial actually showed. Dr. Wood walks through the study design, A1C results, lung-function and safety data, and the practical aspects of dosing inhaled insulin in a pediatric population. Rather than positioning it as a replacement for injections or pumps, the discussion centers on finding the right fit for each child's needs, from the newly diagnosed kid with a needle phobia to the teen trying to dose discreetly during a 20-minute school lunch.Dr. E, Dr. P, and Dr. Wood also discuss the everyday realities that shape how this option is used, including the set-dose cartridge sizes, a titration approach refined in clinic, and how families are mixing and matching tools alongside automated insulin delivery. The takeaway is encouraging: there are more options than ever for managing mealtime insulin in kids, and this one may help fill some of the gaps left by injections and pumps.Key Topics • The recent approval of inhaled insulin for children as young as six • How the INHALE-1 pediatric trial was designed • A1C results and what the primary endpoint analysis showed • Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) metrics across the two groups • Lung-function (FEV1) monitoring and pediatric safety • Weight and body mass index (BMI) findings • Why mealtime dosing is a leading unmet need in pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) • The set-dose cartridge approach and how it reframes meal sizes • A real-world titration method for inhaled insulin • Managing cough and other practical considerations • Needle phobia and the kids who struggle most with injections • Using inhaled insulin alongside automated insulin delivery (AID) systems • What's coming next, including a smaller cartridge dose and a new-onset trial Subscribe for practical diabetes management tips, technology updates, and treatment breakthroughs that help people with diabetes live healthier, more flexible lives.More diabetes resources:Website: tcoyd.orgBlog: tcoyd.org/blogPodcast: tcoydthepodcast.transistor.fmInstagram: / tcoydFacebook: / tcoydStay connected! Sign up for our monthly newsletter here!Support TCOYD's educational programs: tcoyd.org/donate ★ Support this podcast ★

What happens after first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)? Patient advocate Jill Feldman sits down with Dr. Martin Edelman, Chair of Hematology-Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, to discuss maintenance therapy—also known as continuation therapy—and how it may help keep small cell lung cancer under control after initial treatment. Dr. Edelman explains why small cell lung cancer is so difficult to treat, how immunotherapy has changed the treatment landscape, and why clinical trials remain critical to improving outcomes. He also shares practical advice for patients navigating treatment decisions, managing side effects, and balancing quality of life with ongoing care. You'll learn: What maintenance therapy (continuation therapy) means in small cell lung cancer Why small cell lung cancer often returns after an initial response How immunotherapy is used after first-line treatment Which patients may benefit most from continuation therapy Why clinical trials should be discussed early in treatment Important questions to ask your oncologist The role of supportive and palliative care in improving quality of life What gives experts hope for the future of small cell lung cancer treatment Whether you're newly diagnosed, currently in treatment, or supporting a loved one, this conversation offers practical guidance and hope from one of the leading experts in thoracic oncology. Learn more about lung cancer research, treatment options, and patient resources at lcfamerica.org. Guests Dr. Martin Edelman, MD – Fox Chase Cancer Center Dr. Martin Edelman is Chair of Hematology-Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center and a nationally recognized thoracic oncologist. Throughout his career, he has helped advance treatment options for lung cancer patients through clinical research, immunotherapy development, and patient-centered care. Jill Feldman – Lung Cancer Patient Advocate and Host Jill Feldman is a lung cancer survivor, advocate, and nationally recognized voice in the lung cancer community. Through education and advocacy, she helps patients and families navigate diagnosis, treatment decisions, and survivorship. Show Notes: https://lcfamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/LCFA-HWA-Maintenance-Therapy-Show-Notes.pdf Transcript: https://lcfamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/LCFA-HWA-Maintenance-Therapy-Transcript.pdf YouTube: https://youtu.be/IRf6uF18tTQ  Subscribe to Hope With Answers: Living With Lung Cancer podcast for future episodes on your favorite listening platform.