Podcasts about embryos

Multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development

  • 853PODCASTS
  • 1,380EPISODES
  • 38mAVG DURATION
  • 1DAILY NEW EPISODE
  • Sep 20, 2022LATEST
embryos

POPULARITY

20152016201720182019202020212022

Categories



Best podcasts about embryos

Show all podcasts related to embryos

Latest podcast episodes about embryos

The Stem Cell Podcast
Ep. 226: “The ‘Egg to Embryo' Transition” Featuring Dr. Edward Grow

The Stem Cell Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 20, 2022 65:31


Dr. Edward Grow is an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas, Southwestern. His lab studies reproductive biology, specifically the development of the egg and subsequently the fertilized embryo. He talks about regulating totipotency in ESCs, retroviral reactivation, and ex vivo culturing of follicles and oocytes.

The Recipe For SEO Success Show
Google Helpful Content Update: What NOT to do with James Welch (NEWBIE)

The Recipe For SEO Success Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 20, 2022 43:20


What Google's latest update really means  Recently Google announced its Helpful Content update. And as per usual, the interwebs got their knickers in a twist. SEO agencies sending emails to copywriters telling them to stop using keywords. Business brands frantically worrying that they were going to get a penalty after stuffing their sites with useless space-filling guff in their blogs.But I tend not to freak out about these things.I like to wait and see. And today we'll be chatting through what Google really wants to see when it talks about Helpful Content.The dos.The do nots.And the do not panics. Tune in to learn:  Google Helpful Content update:  What the purpose of the update is What has changed What hasn't changed 3 things you SHOULDN'T be doing How sites are being impacted by the update What mistakes SEO agencies are making with content James's top content creation tips Useful resources:  Google's guidelines Embryo's word count study   Frase SourceBottle   Head to episode notes   Freebies: Free webinar: Increase your website traffic (and sales) The Ultimate SEO Checklist Free SEO Nibbles Course   Sign up for the Recipe for SEO Success Course

Big Fat Negative: TTC, fertility, infertility and IVF

'Embabies', 'frosties' - we give our embryos many names, but there may come a time when we reach the end of the TTC road and have blastocysts left over. Today we speak to fellow fertility podcaster Natalie Silverman about how she came to the decision to say goodbye to hers, while embryologist Millie Kanani explains how the process works.Meanwhile, Prof T addresses bleeding during the TWW - is it always a bad sign? If you want to skip Emma's bit, stop listening after Prof T - around 53 minutes.Swears throughout. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah's Laughter Infertility Podcast
169 - A Perfect Match of Imperfection (Hannah Smith)

Sarah's Laughter Infertility Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 19, 2022 59:23


Hannah Smith talks about the win-win of embryo adoption, and how unaddressed issues surrounding infertility affected her marriage. “When you don't take the garbage out, it starts to stink.” This is her story. The Baby Steps Infertility Awareness Fun Run is back—with an IVF giveaway and multiple family-building grants! Join us in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on November 12, 2022. Registration is open now at babystepsfunrun.com For more about Sarah's Laughter, please visit our website at sarahs-laughter.com. You can follow us on social media linked here: Sarah's Laughter on Facebook & Instagram, and @sarahs_laughter on Twitter. Sarah's Laughter is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public charity. If you'd like to help support what we do, including this podcast, please visit sarahs-laughter.com/give. Thank you. Want to share your infertility story on this podcast? Email us at podcast@sarahs-laughter.com

Little News Ears
Cherry Bird Cow Marathon - When Amazon Admitted Drivers Had to Pee in Bottles

Little News Ears

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2022 7:11


The Cherry Bird Cow marathon continues. It's April 13, 2021. Cherry, Bird, and Cow teach us about Dyngus Day, Major League Baseball pulling out of Georgia because of their changes in laws for voting, the life and death of Beverly Cleary, astronauts' shrinking hearts, divorces that involve frozen embryos, and Amazon admitting its drivers have to pee in bottles

Little News Ears - Cuddly News
Cherry Bird Cow Marathon - When Amazon Admitted Drivers Had to Pee in Bottles

Little News Ears - Cuddly News

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2022 7:11


The Cherry Bird Cow marathon continues. It's April 13, 2021. Cherry, Bird, and Cow teach us about Dyngus Day, Major League Baseball pulling out of Georgia because of their changes in laws for voting, the life and death of Beverly Cleary, astronauts' shrinking hearts, divorces that involve frozen embryos, and Amazon admitting its drivers have to pee in bottles

Spectrum | Deutsche Welle
Weekly roundup — Let's make a baby

Spectrum | Deutsche Welle

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2022 30:00


If embryos can be made without eggs or sperm... then what are they made of? And also, a really easy thing you can do to improve your health and mood.

Troubled Minds Radio
TM News 112 - Synthetic Embryo, Doomsday Bunkers, Monster Octopus, Haunted Doll, Martian Plague...

Troubled Minds Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2022 65:25


TM News 112 - Synthetic Embryo, Doomsday Bunkers, Monster Octopus, Haunted Doll, Martian Plague...http://www.troubledminds.org Support The Show! https://rokfin.com/creator/troubledminds https://troubledfans.com/ https://patreon.com/troubledminds https://www.twitch.tv/troubledmindsradio #aliens #conspiracy #paranormal-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A synthetic embryo, made without sperm or egg, could lead to infertility treatments | CNNhttps://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/world/synthetic-embryos-stem-cells-scnScientists Puzzled Because James Webb Is Seeing Stuff That Shouldn't Be Therehttps://futurism.com/the-byte/scientists-puzzled-james-webb-stuffMind-reading AI creates images from brainwaves | Popular Photographyhttps://www.popphoto.com/news/mind-reading-ai-images-from-brainwaves/Time: Do the past, present, and future exist all at once?https://bigthink.com/the-well/is-time-an-illusion/Monster Octopus Caught by Hawaii Fisherman Breaks 20-Year Recordhttps://www.newsweek.com/monster-octopus-caught-hawaii-fisherman-breaks-20-year-record-1739954Watch: Doll Filmed Moving on its Own at Notoriously Haunted Texas Hotel? | Coast to Coast AMhttps://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/watch-doll-filmed-moving-on-its-own-at-notoriously-haunted-texas-hotel/A Planet has Been Found That Shifts In and Out of the Habitable Zone - Universe Todayhttps://www.universetoday.com/157396/a-planet-has-been-found-that-shifts-in-and-out-of-the-habitable-zone/DALL-E can now help you imagine what's outside the frame of famous paintings - The Vergehttps://www.theverge.com/2022/9/5/23337580/openai-dall-e-text-to-image-generator-outpainting-native-functionFree Text-to-Image AI Tool ‘Stable Diffusion' is now publicly availablehttps://analyticsindiamag.com/free-text-to-image-ai-tool-stable-diffusion-is-now-publicly-available/Oxford Physicist Unloads on Quantum Computing Industry, Says It's Basically a Hype Bubblehttps://futurism.com/the-byte/oxford-physicist-unloads-quantum-computingThe big idea: why relationships are the key to existence | Philosophy books | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/sep/05/the-big-idea-why-relationships-are-the-key-to-existenceNASA Solves Mystery Glitch on '70s Vintage Voyager 1 Spacecraft - CNEThttps://www.cnet.com/science/space/nasa-solves-mystery-glitch-on-70s-vintage-voyager-1-spacecraft/Here's what Las Vegas is doing to conserve waterhttps://www.fox5vegas.com/2022/09/05/heres-what-las-vegas-is-doing-conserve-water/Celibacy has surprising evolutionary advantages, according to new research | Ars Technicahttps://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/celibacy-its-surprising-evolutionary-advantages-according-to-new-research/https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2022/09/05/prevent-martian-plague-nasa-will/https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2022/09/05/prevent-martian-plague-nasa-will/‘Doomsday glacier,' which could raise sea level by several feet, is holding on ‘by its fingernails,' scientists sayread://https_www.cnn.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2022%2F09%2F05%2Fworld%2Fthwaites-doomsday-glacier-sea-level-climate%2Findex.htmlThe Carrington Event: The largest recorded solar storm in history | Live Sciencehttps://www.livescience.com/carrington-eventBrands Say Everybody's Wrong, Actually the Metaverse Looks Greathttps://futurism.com/the-byte/brand-everybodys-wrong-metaverse-looks-greatSaskatchewan stabbings: Suspects still at large, police say - BBC Newshttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62802030The super-rich ‘preppers' planning to save themselves from the apocalypse | The super-rich | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoffPolice: Las Vegas journalist dies in stabbing outside homehttps://www.fox5vegas.com/2022/09/05/police-las-vegas-journalist-dies-stabbing-outside-home/

Nerd-O-Rama with Mo'Kelly and Tawala!
Synthetic Embryo's & #TechThursday

Nerd-O-Rama with Mo'Kelly and Tawala!

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2022 18:40


On today's nerdtastically newsworthy episode of #NerdORama, Mo'Kelly & Tawala delve into the science of synthetic embryo, made without sperm or egg...PLUS – Marsha Collier is back with Amazon's HIDDEN coupons page, tips on renewing your passport online and Craigslist in 2022 on #TechThursday!!!

Earth Wise
Resurrecting The Tasmanian Tiger | Earth Wise

Earth Wise

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2022 2:00


Tasmanian tigers earned their nickname because of the stripes along their back, but they were not felines.  In fact, they were carnivorous marsupials, the type of Australian mammal that raises its young in a pouch. Tasmanian tigers, also known as thylacines, were once native to the Australian mainland, as well as the islands of Tasmania […]

The Unfolding: Presented by The Loveland Foundation
Art is Language with Shanina Dionna

The Unfolding: Presented by The Loveland Foundation

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2022 54:50


This episode is all about expression and finding your voice through a language that makes sense to you. Now we aren't talking about spoken language, we are talking about ART.The Unfolding: Presented by The Loveland Foundation, host Miriam Starobin is joined by Shanina Dionna – a visual and performing artist, mental health advocate and non-profit youth arts educator based in Greater Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Since 2011, her Embryo art exhibition series has helped raise awareness for mental health; chronicling the life of one millennial's growth journey. Her art for social change practice is rooted in the exposure of her own personal battle and history with mental illnesses, diagnoses, hospitalization and therapy treatments. Life-sized acrylic portraits, improv performances, dance/movement, film, photography, botanical therapy and "safe space” installations all help convey her intent for communal wellness and healing. In 2016, Shanina Dionna helped found the youth art program, @artbudsphilly (on Instagram), currently housed at the Urban Art Gallery in West Philadelphia. In 2018, she became one of twenty artists worldwide to receive the first-ever TDC20 Grant (The Dean Collection 20) presented by Alicia Keys and Swizz Beatz. In a 2020 interview, Philadelphia Magazine recognized her as the “Philly artist creating a positive space for mental health conversations.” Shanina Dionna is a certified PCEAT facilitator (Person Centered Expressive Arts Therapy) and in May 2021 she launched her Expressive Arts Healing independent practice for teenagers and adults.This episode covers many topics but throughout the episode there is discussion of mental health issues specifically suicidal thoughts and ideations. If this topic is triggering please fast forward or turn off the episode in its entirety. Regardless of your choice to fast forward over those particular segments or the episode, we encourage anyone who needs it to utilize the below resources. Please use the list below for resources or call 911 to request crisis intervention,or other appropriate personnel, for immediate support.National Suicide Prevention Lifeline – Call 800-273-TALK (8255)Crisis Text Line – Text NAMI to 741-741The Unfolding: Presented by The Loveland Foundation podcast is an additional resource not only to the public, but to our therapy fund cohort members. The Loveland Foundation therapy fund and resources are only made possible through support from our community. If you enjoy the podcast please go to the link in our bio to donate.Support the show

Spectrum | Deutsche Welle
The future of pregnancy

Spectrum | Deutsche Welle

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 14, 2022 25:49


If two women were left on earth, could they manage to have a baby? Or... could two men? The (very) surprising answer takes us to the cutting edge of embryonic research.

I Want to Put a Baby in You!
Episode 151: National Embryo Donation Center – Mark Mellinger

I Want to Put a Baby in You!

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 14, 2022 44:11


Mark Mellinger handles all marketing and public relations functions for the NEDC and is also in charge of development efforts. His background consists of almost three decades in broadcast journalism. From 2011 to 2018, Mark served as a contributor to The Gospel Coalition, one of the world's largest Christian websites, where he helped start TGC's podcast operations. The National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC) has facilitated more embryo donations, and births from embryo donation (nearly 1250), than any organization in the world. NEDC's mission is to protect the lives and dignity of human embryos by promoting, facilitating, and educating about embryo donation. Listen to Mark as he discusses with Ellen and Jenn: • NEDC's size and history. • The term “Embryo Adoption” instead “Embryo Donation” as NEDC's preferred language. • The NEDC's internal rules requiring of recipients that: o they be a heterosexual couple; o they have a home study by an accredited organization; and o the female recipient be 46 years or younger and able to carry a pregnancy. • If three cycles does not result in a child, recipients must return the embryos to the NEDC. • The consideration of who receives embryos and their proximity across the US. • Allowing selection and use of embryos with certain genetic markers or mosaicism. Want to share your story or ask a question? Call and leave us a message on our hotline: 303-997-1903. Learn more about our podcast: https://iwanttoputababyinyou.com/ Learn more about our surrogacy agencies: https://www.brightfuturesfamilies.com/ Get your IWTPABIY merch here! https://iwanttoputababyinyou.com/merch Learn more about Ellen's law firm: http://trachmanlawcenter.com/ Learn more about the NEDC here: https://www.embryodonation.org

Durchblick Philosophie
53 Schwangerschaftsabbruch 2: SKIP-Argumente vs Peter Singer

Durchblick Philosophie

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 13, 2022 28:22


Der Ethiker Peter Singer hält Abtreibungen in sehr vielen Fällen für unproblematisch, siehe die letzte Episode. Es gibt aber auch Argumente für den Schutz des menschlichen Embryos oder Fötus. Die bekanntesten vier sind die „SKIP-Argumente“, benannt nach den Anfangsbuchstaben: Spezies, Kontinuität, Identität, Potenzialität. Sie versuchen zu zeigen, dass die Lebensrechte erwachsener Menschen aus bestimmten Gründen auch für die ersten Phasen des menschlichen Lebewesens gelten müssen. In dieser Episode stelle ich alle vier Argumente kurz vor (leider in der falschen Reihenfolge, das ist mir erst nachher aufgefallen…). Außerdem konfrontiere ich sie mit einer Replik (Antwort) aus der Sicht Peter Singers. Literatur: Peter Singer, Praktische Ethik (Reclams Universal-Bibliothek)

Grace Community Church
Birth Control, Infertility, Embryo Adoption, and Adoption

Grace Community Church

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 13, 2022 125:00


The BreakPoint Podcast
Creating Organs Cannot Be at the Expense of Human Embryos

The BreakPoint Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 12, 2022 4:52


Recently, an impressive development in embryology was reported by the Israeli Weizmann Institute of Science. Using only stem cells, without the presence of sperm, eggs, or even a womb, researchers successfully created functioning mouse embryos, complete with beating hearts, blood circulation, brain tissue and rudimentary digestive systems. Carolyn Johnson in The Washington Post described the discovery as “a fascinating, potentially fraught realm of science that could one day be used to create replacement organs for humans.”  For the more than 100,000 people currently waiting for a life-saving organ donation, that kind of breakthrough would indeed seem like a miracle. However, since scientists are still years away from creating human organs in a lab for the purpose of transplant, the technology raises serious ethical questions, none of which should be taken lightly.   One of these questions is, in fact, an old one. Do the promises of embryonic stem cell research justify it? While some stem cells can be harvested from a variety of non-embryonic sources such as bone marrow, others are harvested from so-called “unused” embryos that have been donated to science. The lives of these tiny, undeveloped human beings are taken in the process.  For context, the research conducted by the Weizmann Institute uses embryonic stem cells. Though, for the time being, this implies only embryonic stem cells harvested from mice, the move to human research would involve the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos and involve tissue derived from already living human beings.  The Christian stance on when life begins is the same as the science. Human life begins at conception, and every single human life is worthy of protection. If we would not take the life of a born child in our research for a cure for some medical condition, neither the anonymity of an embryo nor the confines of a laboratory justify doing the same thing in the process of embryonic stem cell research.   Science is a process of trial and error, but we should never employ “trial and error” with the lives of thousands of human beings, in particular human beings who cannot consent to our actions. A rule of thumb is this. If you wouldn't try an experiment on an adult or small child, don't do it to human embryos at any stage.   The breakthrough at the Weizmann Institute, however, takes this old debate a step further. On one hand, lead researcher Dr. Jacob Hanna was quick to clarify that the goal is not to make complete, living organisms of mice or any other species. “We are really facing difficulties making organs,” he said, “and in order to make stem cells become organs, we need to learn how the embryo does that.”  Given the history of science, including the last chapter involving breathless promises of what embryonic stem cell research would bring, the grandiose predictions of scientists should be taken with at least a grain of salt. The process of growing organs for mice, for example, involved the creation of entire embryos. Should the technology be perfected in mice, what ethical or legal limits are there to prevent the creation of synthetic human embryos for the purpose of harvesting their organs?  Our first concern should be what these embryos would be created for. The answer is, inevitably, “science,” devoid of any consideration for human purpose, relationships, worth, or dignity as equal members of the human species. All societies that treat people as a means of scientific advancement, instead of infinitely valuable ends in-and-of themselves, have a track record of perpetrating atrocities.   A second concern is what these embryos would be deprived of. Though not all do, every human should enter the world with the love and commitment of their biological mom and dad. The very design of human development suggests this, and societies have long recognized that those born without these relationships have had something priceless taken from them. Creating children from cloning or stem cells intentionally makes them orphans, ripping them from the vital context of parental relationship. It is a grave injustice.  Bringing children into the world as a product of pure science without the possibility of relationship with their biological parents or relatives is enough an ethical consideration to oppose such research, but we should also consider the implications of recklessly creating humans for future experimentation and of dismantling them to see how their components work.   Science is, in many ways, blind to what should be ethical bright lines. Creating organs for transplant in order to save lives is a worthy goal. But such work should only proceed in an ethical manner, one which does not require the death of other distinct, valuable, human beings. Unfortunately, such ideas have not shaped the society we live in today. 

The Egg Whisperer Show
What to do When Your Frozen Embryo Transfer Fails with Dr. Meivys Garcia

The Egg Whisperer Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 11, 2022 34:44 Very Popular


Dr. Meivys Garcia is joining me on the podcast today! She is an amazing Canadian fertility doctor, and she's guiding us through her approach to fertility care when a frozen embryo transfer doesn't work. She will describe every step, one at a time. We will also get personal. Knowing the heartbreak of having failed embryo transfers during her own fertility journey, Dr. Garcia knows all too well what it is like to be a fertility patient. She's going to share her journey and share her wisdom based on her experience as a patient and as a fertility expert. I'm going to be honest and open about this; one of the hardest parts of walking the fertility journey with patients is when we have loss. Whether that be the loss of a pregnancy or the loss of a frozen embryo, it's heart wrenching for me, and for the patient. Today's podcast episode will be about holding space for loss, and how to move on when you've had difficult news. It's about what you can learn from the unfortunate events. It's also about the hope and courage it takes to be a fertility patient, and the admiration that Dr. Garcia and I have for every patient we've worked with. Would you like to learn about IVF?Click here to join Dr. Aimee for The IVF Class. The next live class call is on Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4pm PST, where Dr. Aimee will explain IVF and there will be time to ask her your questions live on Zoom. Subscribe to my YouTube channel for more fertility tips! Join Egg Whisperer School Checkout the podcast Subscribe to the newsletter to get updates Dr. Aimee Eyvazzadeh is one of America's most well known fertility doctors. Her success rate at baby-making is what gives future parents hope when all hope is lost. She pioneered the TUSHY Method and BALLS Method to decrease your time to pregnancy. Learn more about the TUSHY Method and find a wealth of fertility resources at www.draimee.org.

The Mo'Kelly Show
The passing of the Queen, the Emmy's & Synthetic Embryos

The Mo'Kelly Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 11, 2022 30:05


ICYMI: The Mo'Kelly Show Presents – Thoughts on the passing of the Queen Elizabeth II, why in the world are the 74th Primetime Emmy Awards airing on a Monday and the creation of a synthetic embryo, made without sperm or egg on KFI AM 640 – Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app

Bible Prophecy 4 Today’s Podcast
Tensions Rise on the Temple Mount, UK Scientists' Create First Synthetic Embryo and More!

Bible Prophecy 4 Today’s Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 11, 2022 63:45


Tensions rise on the Temple Mount, Scientists' in UK create first synthetic embryo from stem cells, Despite warning from God, churches are corrupting the Book of Revelation. 

Fertility and Sterility On Air
Fertility and Sterility On Air– TOC: September 2022

Fertility and Sterility On Air

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 11, 2022 58:37


Take a sneak peak at this month's Fertility & Sterility! Topics this month include ICSI vs IVF for non-male factor infertility (01:42), geographic variations of semen parameters (10:18), euploid embryos and chance of subsequent live birth (19:38), DOR diagnosis and aneuploidy and live birth rate (31:06), interpregnancy intervals in ART pregnancies (38:15) and uterine transplantation outcomes (45:32). View Fertility and Sterility at https://www.fertstert.org/

Computer America
Space Billiards, Ultrasound Stamps, "Synthetic" Embryo's w/ Ralph Bond

Computer America

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 9, 2022 33:33


For more info, interviews, reviews, news, radio, podcasts, video, and more, check out ComputerAmerica.com!

The A&P Professor
Teaching Human Reproduction | A Chat with Margaret Reece | TAPP 122

The A&P Professor

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 8, 2022 52:25


Veteran A&P educator and reproduction researcher Dr. Margaret Reece joins host Kevin Patton to talk about challenges of teaching human reproduction and development. Reece also briefly discusses her online resources (MedicalScienceNavigator.com) and her experiences in helping overwhelmed A&P students succeed in their studies. 00:00 | Introduction 00:43 | Reproductive Biology 08:13 | Sponsored by AAA 08:58 | Ultrasound & Reproductive Biology 20:25 | Sponsored by HAPI 21:13 | Basic Science 35:27 | Sponsored by HAPS 36:33 | Medical Science Navigator 50:19 | Staying Connected   ★ If you cannot see or activate the audio player, go to: theAPprofessor.org/podcast-episode-122.html

Radio Bostrom
Embryo Selection for Cognitive Enhancement: Curiosity or Game-changer?

Radio Bostrom

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 6, 2022 41:16


By Carl Shulman and Nick Bostrom. Abstract:Human capital is an important determinant of individual and aggregate economic outcomes, and a major input to scientific progress. It has been suggested that advances in genomics may open up new avenues to enhance human intellectual abilities genetically, complementing environmental interventions such as education and nutrition. One way to do this would be via embryo selection in the context of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In this article, we analyze the feasibility, timescale, and possible societal impacts of embryo selection for cognitive enhancement. We find that embryo selection, on its own, may have significant (but likely not drastic) impacts over the next 50 years, though large effects could accumulate over multiple generations. However, there is a complementary technology – stem cell-derived gametes – which has been making rapid progress and which could amplify the impact of embryo selection, enabling very large changes if successfully applied to humans. Read the full paper:https://nickbostrom.com/papers/embryo.pdfMore episodes at:https://radiobostrom.com/

Timberline Church Podcast
Dawn Canny on Snowflakes Embryo Adoption

Timberline Church Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2022


In this episode adoption intake specialist Dawn Canny shares about embryo adoption. There are currently 1.4 million embryos in frozen storage. What unique circumstances show up in this space? What is the process like for adopting and embryo? In this episode we start the conversation about this growing adoptive opportunity. Mentioned in this episode: nightlight.org/snowflakes-embryo-adoption-donation/ Instagram: @snowflakesadoption Facebook: facebook.com/snowflakesembryoadoption

This Week in Science – The Kickass Science Podcast
31 August, 2022 – Episode 890 – How to Make an Embryo

This Week in Science – The Kickass Science Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2022 100:14 Very Popular


What is in the This Week in Science Podcast? This Week: Synthetic Embryos, Zombie Ice, Digital Self-Harm, Rearranging Evolution, Siberia Warming, Slime Time, Beetles with Pockets, Dolphins, Oxygen on Mars, Micro Break, Pattern Finding, Chronic Pain & Cancer, And Much More Science! Become a Patron! Check out the full episode of our science podcast on […] The post 31 August, 2022 – Episode 890 – How to Make an Embryo appeared first on This Week in Science - The Kickass Science Podcast.

The Egg Whisperer Show
What Patients Need To Know About Mosaic Embryos & PGT-A with Katie Herrero

The Egg Whisperer Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2022 29:07 Very Popular


tools for ascension by Wolfgang
Guided Meditations for Expecting Mothers to Bless your Womb, Embryo or Baby

tools for ascension by Wolfgang

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2022 24:47


Whether you are struggling with fertility, want to conceive a child, are an expecting mother or just enjoy a radiant womb: This video is meant for you. To bring in a healthy, well adjusted and enlightened child, the womb should feel as good as an open heart chakra. In this video we will also establish a personal connection with the soul of the child. A loving relationship that is based on the exchange of nourishing chi and blessings. e-mail for appointments: https://www.wolfgangarndt8@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/The-Gaia-Eagle-Wolf-Healing-Circle website: https://www.toolsforascensionbywolfgang.com/

Podcast Notes Playlist: Latest Episodes
#077 Rewriting genomes to eradicate disease and aging | Dr. George Church

Podcast Notes Playlist: Latest Episodes

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 31, 2022 128:20


Found My Fitness - Rhonda Patrick Podcast Notes Key Takeaways CRISPR is a subset of editing; editing is a subset of genome engineering; genome engineering is gene therapy“Shrinking our agricultural use, possibly by 10 or 100 fold is feasible to do with synthetic biology and other new tools.” – Dr. George ChurchAdvances in reading and writing DNA double at least once per year; most of the exponential increase has occurred in the last 10-20 yearsCons of synthetic biology: lack of equity in access to technology and treatments; head in the sand approach to new technologies – FDA does not review; ethical considerationsPreventive medicine in genetics: genetic counseling preconception would be helpful to understand the future of offspring (as opposed to spending millions over a lifetime in gene therapy if disease is present)Aging studies in dogs (as opposed to rodents) are good parallel to outcomes in humans because they're large, live in human environments, have similar emotions, and bonding“What's natural is a moving target – a lot of things that were demonized or villainized in the past are now taken for granted, for example, some of us might remember how cell phones with were demonized as melting your brain or getting radiation to your brain.” – Dr. George ChurchGene editing therapy has the potential to reduce medical load, improve agriculture, alleviate some poverty burden (if there's less disease), eliminate disease animal-human transmission, eliminate or reduce germline diseaseThere is no way to have zero risk – status quo is risky, but we should start small in animal studies and then progress to human studiesRead the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgGeorge Church, Ph.D. is a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and of health sciences and technology at both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Church played an instrumental role in the Human Genome Project and is widely recognized as one of the premier scientists in the fields of gene editing technology and synthetic biology.  In this episode, we discuss: 07:13 - History of the Human Genome Project 15:20 - Manufacturing cell phones (with biology) 17:34 - Genome Project-Write 20:03 - Writing a human Y chromosome (from scratch) 20:48 - What if you could eliminate viral disease? 22:51 - De-extinction and reinstating lost traits and genes 27:06 - The Vertebrate Genomes Project 29:47 - AlphaFold and other AI tools 41:27 - CRISPR vs. Base Editing (emerging tools of genetic engineering) 49:40 - Why multiplex editing will change the world 52:18 - Molecular flight recorder 53:31 - Preventing viral spillover and enhancing livestock 57:40 - PCSK9 gene therapy for cholesterol 01:00:30 - Is aging an evolved program? 01:05:21 - Treating aging with a combination gene treatment 01:09:04 - Does animal research help us understand human aging? 01:11:40 - Human organoids as a model and therapeutic 01:13:34 - Could engineered transplant organs become better than the originals? 01:16:17 - Embryo editing controversy 01:28:41 - Gene editing for space travel 01:30:40 - Can synthetic biology alleviate poverty? 01:34:07 - Is in vitro fertilization and embryo selection practically similar to editing? 01:39:12 - The occasional cost of brilliance 01:45:45 - Eradicating disease with Gene Drive 01:48:55 - Technologies to solve Lyme disease 01:51:57 - Dr. Church's experience with narcolepsy as a bridge to creative insights 02:00:42 - Why George encoded his book in DNA Watch this episode on YouTube Show notes are available by clicking here Join over 300,000 people and get the latest distilled information straight to your inbox weekly: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/newsletter Become a FoundMyFitness premium member to get access to exclusive episodes, emails, live Q+A's with Rhonda and more: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/premium Learn more about the premium podcast The Aliquot: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/aliquot

Signal From The Noise: By Podcast Notes
#077 Rewriting genomes to eradicate disease and aging | Dr. George Church

Signal From The Noise: By Podcast Notes

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 31, 2022


Found My Fitness - Rhonda Patrick: Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- George Church, Ph.D. is a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and of health sciences and technology at both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Church played an instrumental role in the Human Genome Project and is widely recognized as one of the premier scientists in the fields of gene editing technology and synthetic biology.  In this episode, we discuss: 07:13 - History of the Human Genome Project 15:20 - Manufacturing cell phones (with biology) 17:34 - Genome Project-Write 20:03 - Writing a human Y chromosome (from scratch) 20:48 - What if you could eliminate viral disease? 22:51 - De-extinction and reinstating lost traits and genes 27:06 - The Vertebrate Genomes Project 29:47 - AlphaFold and other AI tools 41:27 - CRISPR vs. Base Editing (emerging tools of genetic engineering) 49:40 - Why multiplex editing will change the world 52:18 - Molecular flight recorder 53:31 - Preventing viral spillover and enhancing livestock 57:40 - PCSK9 gene therapy for cholesterol 01:00:30 - Is aging an evolved program? 01:05:21 - Treating aging with a combination gene treatment 01:09:04 - Does animal research help us understand human aging? 01:11:40 - Human organoids as a model and therapeutic 01:13:34 - Could engineered transplant organs become better than the originals? 01:16:17 - Embryo editing controversy 01:28:41 - Gene editing for space travel 01:30:40 - Can synthetic biology alleviate poverty? 01:34:07 - Is in vitro fertilization and embryo selection practically similar to editing? 01:39:12 - The occasional cost of brilliance 01:45:45 - Eradicating disease with Gene Drive 01:48:55 - Technologies to solve Lyme disease 01:51:57 - Dr. Church's experience with narcolepsy as a bridge to creative insights 02:00:42 - Why George encoded his book in DNA Watch this episode on YouTube Show notes are available by clicking here Join over 300,000 people and get the latest distilled information straight to your inbox weekly: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/newsletter Become a FoundMyFitness premium member to get access to exclusive episodes, emails, live Q+A's with Rhonda and more: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/premium Learn more about the premium podcast The Aliquot: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/aliquot

The Infertility Stress Podcast
57. Body Literacy and Fertility/IVF101 With Embryologist Lucy Lines of Two Lines Fertility

The Infertility Stress Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 31, 2022 31:38


Today Michelle is speaking With Lucy Lines of Two Lines Fertility. They talk about: What information is missing in sex ed in highschool Why it is so hard to get pregnant Egg quality, egg reserve and what happens to eggs over a person's lifetime Lifespan on eggs and sperm Ovulation timing with sex Embryo health, quality and rating (and if that actually matters) Advice for people navigating the IVF experience Lucy's Bio As a fully trained and clinically experienced embryologist Lucy has had the good fortune to travel the world practising her craft in IVF labs in Australia, Sweden, Ireland and the UK. Over her first 17 years in the fertility ‘industry' she became increasingly frustrated over the ‘business' aspect that was creeping into the large IVF companies and the huge gaps that was creating for patients accessing those services. After a redundancy at 37 weeks pregnant, (and at 44 years of age) she saw an opportunity to fill those gaps - with education, care, support, guidance and space for women and couples experiencing difficulties with their fertility - totally independent of the big businesses! She now offers her services through Two Lines Fertility - with her signature program; IVF WTF, her website and blog, e-courses and, of course, 1:1 support, she now helps women and couples feel empowered, and more importantly EDUCATED and in control of their fertility, whether they are right at the beginning of considering growing their families, in the depths of IVF treatment, or anywhere in between LUCY'S LINKS Lucy's Website Lucy on Instagram Lucy on Facebook IMPORTANT LINKS Work With Michelle Grab The Infertility Stress Relief Toolkit For FREE Sign Up For Michelle's Email List

Resurrection Church Podcast
Episode 89: Embryo Adoption (feat. Mike & Joanna Mieling)

Resurrection Church Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 31, 2022


Gyncast
Ultraschall – Das gläserne Baby

Gyncast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 31, 2022 49:49


Für viele Schwangere ist es ein emotionaler Moment, wenn sie nach den ersten paar Wochen zum ersten mal ihren Embryo auf dem Monitor des Ultraschallgeräts sehen. Es ist ein Augenblick, wo Freude und Verunsicherung eng beieinanderliegen: Freude, wenn die Gynäkolog*in versichert, dass mit dem Embryo alles in Ordnung ist; Verunsicherung, wenn er noch nicht zeitgerecht entwickelt ist. Dr. Mandy Mangler diskutiert diesmal in ihrer unzensierte Sprechstunde, warum das Recht auf Nichtwissen so essenziell für Schwangere geworden ist.

Moms on the Mic with Mariah
Multiple Rounds of IVF and Embryo Testing with Blair

Moms on the Mic with Mariah

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2022 39:48


This week, Blair is on to talk about her experience doing several rounds of IVF! We talk all about why she and her husband chose IVF in the first place and what you can expect if you're planning on doing the same thing. Blair was extremely honest and open about her feelings and experiences, and I think that this episode will be very interesting for anyone who is thinking of having kids, has gone through IVF, or is currently experiencing trouble conceiving/repeated miscarriages. REMINDER: We aren't medical professionals! Please consult your doctor about your specific situation. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

AP Audio Stories
Scientists use stem cells to create synthetic mouse embryos

AP Audio Stories

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2022 0:44


AP correspondent Julie Walker reports on Synthetic Mouse Embryos

The Joyce Kaufman Show
Joyce's Thought of the Day- 8/29/22-The development of synthetic embryos

The Joyce Kaufman Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2022 3:19


Fertility and Sterility On Air
Fertility and Sterility On Air - Unplugged: August 2022

Fertility and Sterility On Air

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 28, 2022 30:29


In this month's Fertility & Sterility: Unplugged, we take a look at articles from each of F&S's sister journals! Topics this month include: the impact of the pandemic on access to reproductive healthcare with authors Jasmine Aly and Alicia Christy (0:33), the association of the pandemic and phthalate levels in follicular fluid (13:15), and a comparison of clinician learning curves with the ASRM Embryo Transfer simulator (19:32). F&S Reviews: https://www.fertstertreviews.org/article/S2666-5719(22)00005-6/fulltext  F&S Reports: https://www.fertstertreports.org/article/S2666-3341(22)00082-4/fulltext  F&S Science: https://www.fertstertscience.org/article/S2666-335X(22)00042-8/fulltext View the sister journals at: https://www.fertstertreviews.org https://www.fertstertreports.org https://www.fertstertscience.org

The Terry & Jesse Show
25 Aug 22 – Demonic Plan to Create Embryos for Organ Harvesting

The Terry & Jesse Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2022 51:12


Today's Topics: 1) Gospel - MT 25:1-13 - ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.'  Therefore, stay awake, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” Bishop Sheen quote of the day 2, 3, 4) Israeli researchers unveil ghastly plan to create embryos for organ harvesting https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/israeli-researchers-unveil-ghastly-plan-to-create-human-embryos-for-organ-harvesting/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa

#STRask with Greg Koukl
An Egg Is Not a Chicken, so an Embryo Is Not a Human?

#STRask with Greg Koukl

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2022 23:06


Questions about whether it's possible God doesn't create souls for those who won't be born due to miscarriage, abortion, etc. and how to respond to someone who says, “An egg is not a chicken, so an embryo is not a human.”  Are souls individually created by God at conception, and if so, is it possible he doesn't create souls for those who won't be born due to miscarriage, abortion, etc.? How would you respond to someone who says, “An egg is not a chicken, so an embryo is not a human”?

FoundMyFitness
#077 Rewriting genomes to eradicate disease and aging | Dr. George Church

FoundMyFitness

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 24, 2022 128:20 Very Popular


George Church, Ph.D. is a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and of health sciences and technology at both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Church played an instrumental role in the Human Genome Project and is widely recognized as one of the premier scientists in the fields of gene editing technology and synthetic biology.  In this episode, we discuss: 07:13 - History of the Human Genome Project 15:20 - Manufacturing cell phones (with biology) 17:34 - Genome Project-Write 20:03 - Writing a human Y chromosome (from scratch) 20:48 - What if you could eliminate viral disease? 22:51 - De-extinction and reinstating lost traits and genes 27:06 - The Vertebrate Genomes Project 29:47 - AlphaFold and other AI tools 41:27 - CRISPR vs. Base Editing (emerging tools of genetic engineering) 49:40 - Why multiplex editing will change the world 52:18 - Molecular flight recorder 53:31 - Preventing viral spillover and enhancing livestock 57:40 - PCSK9 gene therapy for cholesterol 01:00:30 - Is aging an evolved program? 01:05:21 - Treating aging with a combination gene treatment 01:09:04 - Does animal research help us understand human aging? 01:11:40 - Human organoids as a model and therapeutic 01:13:34 - Could engineered transplant organs become better than the originals? 01:16:17 - Embryo editing controversy 01:28:41 - Gene editing for space travel 01:30:40 - Can synthetic biology alleviate poverty? 01:34:07 - Is in vitro fertilization and embryo selection practically similar to editing? 01:39:12 - The occasional cost of brilliance 01:45:45 - Eradicating disease with Gene Drive 01:48:55 - Technologies to solve Lyme disease 01:51:57 - Dr. Church's experience with narcolepsy as a bridge to creative insights 02:00:42 - Why George encoded his book in DNA Watch this episode on YouTube Show notes are available by clicking here Join over 300,000 people and get the latest distilled information straight to your inbox weekly: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/newsletter Become a FoundMyFitness premium member to get access to exclusive episodes, emails, live Q+A's with Rhonda and more: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/premium Learn more about the premium podcast The Aliquot: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/aliquot

The Revelation Project
Episode 141: SUMMER SERIES: Liz August and Emma: Inconceivable: The Miracle of Embryo Adoption

The Revelation Project

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 24, 2022 125:18


Ok, Listeners. Oh, my heart! This story is going to blow you away. Be prepared to have your mind and heart blown wide open and keep the tissues nearby, just in case. What happens when a couple goes from infertility to the conception of multiple eggs, has their own healthy baby, and then decides to donate the rest of their fertilized eggs so that they can be adopted by another family who is having trouble conceiving? Well, you are about to bear witness to the incredible story of two remarkable women who each gave birth independently to biological siblings. Discover the bonds these two families have built in solidarity for what's possible when you want to conceive something you might not have ever believed you could. In this episode, you'll meet Liz and Emma, both incredible, fun, articulate, and endearing. You'll hear about their incredible individual stories and then how their lives were brought together through the miracle of social media. You'll also hear the powerful love between two mothers who both hold a new vision for what it means to invite the village to raise and even help you conceive your children. Seriously, this story is just too incredible even to try to find the words for. Just listen! In this episode, Emma and Liz will share: What embryo adoption is and isn't. How parenthood doesn't begin just when the baby ends up in your arms - it starts when you make the decision to become a parent. How the infertility journey and the "new mom" journey undo and then reshape us. The bizarre and magical way Liz and Emma (and their families) became connected through embryo adoption If Liz ever questioned her decision to donate her embryos and why she chose to donate vs. discard or donate to science. Why Liz chose an open adoption vs. closed. How family and friends regard Liz's decision to donate. What are Liz's hopes for Blake, Edgar, and the other possible babies that may come in the future. How Emma discovered embryo adoption as an option. What helped move Emma through her infertility journey. How embryo adoption is similar and different than how Liz and Emma initially envisioned them to be. What people need to know about embryo adoption. The current struggles, conflicts, or shadow sides to embryo adoption. Emma shares what it's like to be an embryo adoption mom. Emma shares what it was like seeing Liz and Peter's profile for the first time and knowing they had picked her and her sweetheart as the babies' family. How tarot fits into Emma's journey. How embryo adoption led Emma into creating tarot and oracle card art. Liz August is a Business & Tech Strategist who leads a virtual support team for entrepreneurs who hate figuring out all the technology and strategy it takes to have a successful online business. She does everything from website design to social media scheduling to online course creation. While Liz's business is truly one of my saving graces, today, we are seeing the personal side of Liz as she talks to us about something very near and dear to her heart. Liz lives in Worcester, Massachusetts with her husband Peter, their four-year-old daughter, Blake, and their dog Porter. When she's not being a tech goddess, she's running Netflix marathons while guzzling Diet Cokes. p.s. Liz is also MY Business Manager and helps me produce this podcast. She handles various other tasks in my online business, and she's amazing!!! I've been dying to have her tell this story on the podcast with Emma! Emma is a former social worker who's taking time to live the mom adventure. She's a runner, tarot reader, and budding artist. She's in a fever of adding flowers, gold glitter, and moon imagery to any photo she finds. You can find her artwork and musings @unmadetarot on the Instagrams and the Pinterests. She lives in Pennsylvania with her sweetheart Vince, the adorable baby Edgar, the incorrigible Murphy Beagle, and the cuddly Minerva Cat.

Dirty Talk Podcast
Commemorative Synthetic Embryos From Papal Orgies- Ep 192

Dirty Talk Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 24, 2022 41:16


What development is one step closer to the future Rain dreams of, when during the month is creativity at its zenith, how did a fetish change the course of medical practice, why is there still stigma around BDSM, and where … Continued Join The Dirty Talk Podcast Community On Patreon or Donate On PayPal Get Your Dirty Talk Podcast Merch Here Follow The Dirty Talk Podcast on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, or YouTube The post Commemorative Synthetic Embryos From Papal Orgies- Ep 192 appeared first on dirtytalkpodcast.com

The Lunar Society
37: Steve Hsu - Intelligence, Embryo Selection, & The Future of Humanity

The Lunar Society

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 23, 2022 141:27


Steve Hsu is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Michigan State University and cofounder of the company Genomic Prediction.We go deep into the weeds on how embryo selection can make babies healthier and smarter. Steve also explains the advice Richard Feynman gave him to pick up girls, the genetics of aging and intelligence, & the psychometric differences between shape rotators and wordcels.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform.Subscribe to find out about future episodes!Read the full transcript here.Follow Steve on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Please share if you enjoyed this episode! Helps out a ton!Timestamps(0:00:14) - Feynman’s advice on picking up women(0:11:46) - Embryo selection(0:24:19) - Why hasn't natural selection already optimized humans?(0:34:13) - Aging(0:43:18) - First Mover Advantage(0:53:49) - Genomics in dating(1:00:31) - Ancestral populations(1:07:58) - Is this eugenics?(1:15:59) - Tradeoffs to intelligence(1:25:01) - Consumer preferences(1:30:14) - Gwern(1:34:35) - Will parents matter?(1:45:25) - Word cells and shape rotators(1:57:29) - Bezos and brilliant physicists(2:10:23) - Elite educationTranscriptDwarkesh Patel  0:00  Today I have the pleasure of speaking with Steve Hsu. Steve, thanks for coming on the podcast. I'm excited about this.Steve Hsu  0:04  Hey, it's my pleasure! I'm excited too and I just want to say I've listened to some of your earlier interviews and thought you were very insightful, which is why I was excited to have a conversation with you.Dwarkesh Patel 0:14That means a lot for me to hear you say because I'm a big fan of your podcast.Feynman’s advice on picking up womenDwarkesh Patel  0:17  So my first question is: “What advice did Richard Feynman give you about picking up girls?”Steve Hsu  0:24   Haha, wow! So one day in the spring of my senior year, I was walking across campus and saw Feynman coming toward me. We knew each other from various things—it's a small campus, I was a physics major and he was my hero–– so I'd known him since my first year. He sees me, and he's got this Long Island or New York borough accent and says, "Hey, Hsu!"  I'm like, "Hi, Professor Feynman." We start talking. And he says to me, "Wow, you're a big guy." Of course, I was much bigger back then because I was a linebacker on the Caltech football team. So I was about 200 pounds and slightly over 6 feet tall. I was a gym rat at the time and I was much bigger than him. He said, "Steve, I got to ask you something." Feynman was born in 1918, so he's not from the modern era. He was going through graduate school when the Second World War started. So, he couldn't understand the concept of a health club or a gym. This was the 80s and was when Gold's Gym was becoming a world national franchise. There were gyms all over the place like 24-Hour Fitness. But, Feynman didn't know what it was. He's a fascinating guy. He says to me, "What do you guys do there? Is it just a thing to meet girls? Or is it really for training? Do you guys go there to get buff?" So, I started explaining to him that people are there to get big, but people are also checking out the girls. A lot of stuff is happening at the health club or the weight room. Feynman grills me on this for a long time. And one of the famous things about Feynman is that he has a laser focus. So if there's something he doesn't understand and wants to get to the bottom of it, he will focus on you and start questioning you and get to the bottom of it. That's the way his brain worked. So he did that to me for a while because he didn't understand lifting weights and everything. In the end, he says to me, "Wow, Steve, I appreciate that. Let me give you some good advice."Then, he starts telling me how to pick up girls—which he's an expert on. He says to me, "I don't know how much girls like guys that are as big as you." He thought it might be a turn-off. "But you know what, you have a nice smile." So that was the one compliment he gave me. Then, he starts to tell me that it's a numbers game. You have to be rational about it. You're at an airport lounge, or you're at a bar. It's Saturday night in Pasadena or Westwood, and you're talking to some girl. He says, "You're never going to see her again. This is your five-minute interaction. Do what you have to do. If she doesn't like you, go to the next one." He also shares some colorful details. But, the point is that you should not care what they think of you. You're trying to do your thing. He did have a reputation at Caltech as a womanizer, and I could go into that too but I heard all this from the secretaries.Dwarkesh Patel  4:30  With the students or only the secretaries? Steve Hsu  4:35  Secretaries! Well mostly secretaries. They were almost all female at that time. He had thought about this a lot, and thought of it as a numbers game. The PUA guys (pick-up artists) will say, “Follow the algorithm, and whatever happens, it's not a reflection on your self-esteem. It's just what happened. And you go on to the next one.” That was the advice he was giving me, and he said other things that were pretty standard: Be funny, be confident—just basic stuff. Steve Hu: But the main thing I remember was the operationalization of it as an algorithm. You shouldn’t internalize whatever happens if you get rejected, because that hurts. When we had to go across the bar to talk to that girl (maybe it doesn’t happen in your generation), it was terrifying. We had to go across the bar and talk to some lady! It’s loud and you’ve got a few minutes to make your case. Nothing is scarier than walking up to the girl and her friends. Feynman was telling me to train yourself out of that. You're never going to see them again, the face space of humanity is so big that you'll probably never re-encounter them again. It doesn't matter. So, do your best. Dwarkesh Patel  6:06  Yeah, that's interesting because.. I wonder whether he was doing this in the 40’–– like when he was at that age, was he doing this? I don't know what the cultural conventions were at the time. Were there bars in the 40s where you could just go ahead and hit on girls or? Steve Hsu  6:19  Oh yeah absolutely. If you read literature from that time, or even a little bit earlier like Hemingway or John O'Hara, they talk about how men and women interacted in bars and stuff in New York City. So, that was much more of a thing back than when compared to your generation. That's what I can’t figure out with my kids! What is going on? How do boys and girls meet these days? Back in the day, the guy had to do all the work. It was the most terrifying thing you could do, and you had  to train yourself out of that.Dwarkesh Patel  6:57  By the way, for the context for the audience, when Feynman says you were a big guy, you were a football player at Caltech, right? There's a picture of you on your website, maybe after college or something, but you look pretty ripped. Today, it seems more common because of the gym culture. But I don’t know about back then. I don't know how common that body physique was.Steve Hsu  7:24  It’s amazing that you asked this question. I'll tell you a funny story. One of the reasons Feynman found this so weird was because of the way body-building entered the United States.  They  were regarded as freaks and homosexuals at first. I remember swimming and football in high school (swimming is different because it's international) and in swimming, I picked up a lot of advanced training techniques from the Russians and East Germans. But football was more American and not very international. So our football coach used to tell us not to lift weights when we were in junior high school because it made you slow. “You’re no good if you’re bulky.” “You gotta be fast in football.” Then, something changed around the time I was in high school–the coaches figured it out. I began lifting weights since I was an age group swimmer, like maybe age 12 or 14. Then, the football coaches got into it mainly because the University of Nebraska had a famous strength program that popularized it.At the time, there just weren't a lot of big guys. The people who knew how to train were using what would be considered “advanced knowledge” back in the 80s. For example, they’d know how to do a split routine or squat on one day and do upper body on the next day–– that was considered advanced knowledge at that time. I remember once.. I had an injury, and I was in the trainer's room at the Caltech athletic facility. The lady was looking at my quadriceps. I’d pulled a muscle, and she was looking at the quadriceps right above your kneecap. If you have well-developed quads, you'd have a bulge, a bump right above your cap. And she was looking at it from this angle where she was in front of me, and she was looking at my leg from the front. She's like, “Wow, it's swollen.” And I was like, “That's not the injury. That's my quadricep!” And she was a trainer! So, at that time, I could probably squat 400 pounds. So I was pretty strong and had big legs. The fact that the trainer didn't really understand what well-developed anatomy was supposed to look like blew my mind!So anyway, we've come a long way. This isn't one of these things where you have to be old to have any understanding of how this stuff evolved over the last 30-40 years.Dwarkesh Patel  10:13  But, I wonder if that was a phenomenon of that particular time or if people were not that muscular throughout human history. You hear stories of  Roman soldiers who are carrying 80 pounds for 10 or 20 miles a day. I mean, there's a lot of sculptures in the ancient world, or not that ancient, but the people look like they have a well-developed musculature.Steve Hsu  10:34  So the Greeks were very special because they were the first to think about the word gymnasium. It was a thing called the Palaestra, where they were trained in wrestling and boxing. They were the first people who were seriously into physical culture specific training for athletic competition.Even in the 70s, when I was a little kid, I look back at the guys from old photos and they were skinny. So skinny! The guys who went off and fought World War Two, whether they were on the German side, or the American side, were like 5’8-5’9 weighing around 130 pounds - 140 pounds. They were much different from what modern US Marines would look like. So yeah, physical culture was a new thing. Of course, the Romans and the Greeks had it to some degree, but it was lost for a long time. And, it was just coming back to the US when I was growing up. So if you were reasonably lean (around 200 pounds) and you could bench over 300.. that was pretty rare back in those days.Embryo selectionDwarkesh Patel  11:46  Okay, so let's talk about your company Genomic Prediction. Do you want to talk about this company and give an intro about what it is?Steve Hsu  11:55  Yeah. So there are two ways to introduce it. One is the scientific view. The other is the IVF view. I can do a little of both. So scientifically, the issue is that we have more and more genomic data. If you give me the genomes of a bunch of people and then give me some information about each person, ex. Do they have diabetes? How tall are they? What's their IQ score?  It’s a natural AI machine learning problem to figure out which features in the DNA variation between people are predictive of whatever variable you're trying to predict.This is the ancient scientific question of how you relate the genotype of the organism (the specific DNA pattern), to the phenotype (the expressed characteristics of the organism). If you think about it, this is what biology is! We had the molecular revolution and figured out that it’s people's DNA that stores the information which is passed along. Evolution selects on the basis of the variation in the DNA that’s expressed as phenotype, as that phenotype affects fitness/reproductive success. That's the whole ballgame for biology. As a physicist who's trained in mathematics and computation, I'm lucky that I arrived on the scene at a time when we're going to solve this basic fundamental problem of biology through brute force, AI, and machine learning. So that's how I got into this. Now you ask as an entrepreneur, “Okay, fine Steve, you're doing this in your office with your postdocs and collaborators on your computers. What use is it?” The most direct application of this is in the following setting: Every year around the world, millions of families go through IVF—typically because they're having some fertility issues, and also mainly because the mother is in her 30s or maybe 40s. In the process of IVF, they use hormone stimulation to produce more eggs. Instead of one per cycle, depending on the age of the woman, they might produce anywhere between five to twenty, or even sixty to a hundred eggs for young women who are hormonally stimulated (egg donors).From there, it’s trivial because men produce sperm all the time. You can fertilize eggs pretty easily in a little dish, and get a bunch of embryos that grow. They start growing once they're fertilized. The problem is that if you're a family and produce more embryos than you’re going to use, you have the embryo choice problem. You have to figure out which embryo to choose out of  say, 20 viable embryos. The most direct application of the science that I described is that we can now genotype those embryos from a small biopsy. I can tell you things about the embryos. I could tell you things like your fourth embryo being an outlier. For breast cancer risk, I would think carefully about using number four. Number ten is an outlier for cardiovascular disease risk. You might want to think about not using that one. The other ones are okay. So, that’s what genomic prediction does. We work with 200 or 300 different IVF clinics in six continents.Dwarkesh Patel  15:46  Yeah, so the super fascinating thing about this is that the diseases you talked about—or at least their risk profiles—are polygenic. You can have thousands of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) determining whether you will get a disease. So, I'm curious to learn how you were able to transition to this space and how your knowledge of mathematics and physics was able to help you figure out how to make sense of all this data.Steve Hsu  16:16  Yeah, that's a great question. So again, I was stressing the fundamental scientific importance of all this stuff. If you go into a slightly higher level of detail—which you were getting at with the individual SNPs, or polymorphisms—there are individual locations in the genome, where I might differ from you, and you might differ from another person. Typically, each pair of individuals will differ at a few million places in the genome—and that controls why I look a little different than youA lot of times, theoretical physicists have a little spare energy and they get tired of thinking about quarks or something. They want to maybe dabble in biology, or they want to dabble in computer science, or some other field. As theoretical physicists, we always feel, “Oh, I have a lot of horsepower, I can figure a lot out.” (For example, Feynman helped design the first parallel processors for thinking machines.) I have to figure out which problems I can make an impact on because I can waste a lot of time. Some people spend their whole lives studying one problem, one molecule or something, or one biological system. I don't have time for that, I'm just going to jump in and jump out. I'm a physicist. That's a typical attitude among theoretical physicists. So, I had to confront sequencing costs about ten years ago because I knew the rate at which they were going down. I could anticipate that we’d get to the day (today) when millions of genomes with good phenotype data became available for analysis. A typical training run might involve almost a million genomes, or half a million genomes. The mathematical question then was: What is the most effective algorithm given a set of genomes and phenotype information to build the best predictor?  This can be  boiled down to a very well-defined machine learning problem. It turns out, for some subset of algorithms, there are theorems— performance guarantees that give you a bound on how much data you need to capture almost all of the variation in the features. I spent a fair amount of time, probably a year or two, studying these very famous results, some of which were proved by a guy named Terence Tao, a Fields medalist. These are results on something called compressed sensing: a penalized form of high dimensional regression that tries to build sparse predictors. Machine learning people might notice L1-penalized optimization. The very first paper we wrote on this was to prove that using accurate genomic data and these very abstract theorems in combination could predict how much data you need to “solve” individual human traits. We showed that you would need at least a few hundred thousand individuals and their genomes and their heights to solve for height as a phenotype. We proved that in a paper using all this fancy math in 2012. Then around 2017, when we got a hold of half a million genomes, we were able to implement it in practical terms and show that our mathematical result from some years ago was correct. The transition from the low performance of the predictor to high performance (which is what we call a “phase transition boundary” between those two domains) occurred just where we said it was going to occur. Some of these technical details are not understood even by practitioners in computational genomics who are not quite mathematical. They don't understand these results in our earlier papers and don't know why we can do stuff that other people can't, or why we can predict how much data we'll need to do stuff. It's not well-appreciated, even in the field. But when the big AI in our future in the singularity looks back and says, “Hey, who gets the most credit for this genomics revolution that happened in the early 21st century?”, they're going to find these papers on the archive where we proved this was possible, and how five years later, we actually did it. Right now it's under-appreciated, but the future AI––that Roko's Basilisk AI–will look back and will give me a little credit for it. Dwarkesh Patel  21:03  Yeah, I was a little interested in this a few years ago. At that time, I looked into how these polygenic risk scores were calculated. Basically, you find the correlation between the phenotype and the alleles that correlate with it. You add up how many copies of these alleles you have, what the correlations are, and you do a weighted sum of that. So that seemed very simple, especially in an era where we have all this machine learning, but it seems like they're getting good predictive results out of this concept. So, what is the delta between how good you can go with all this fancy mathematics versus a simple sum of correlations?Steve Hsu  21:43  You're right that the ultimate models that are used when you've done all the training, and when the dust settles, are straightforward. They’re pretty simple and have an additive structure. Basically, I either assign a nonzero weight to this particular region in the genome, or I don't. Then, I need to know what the weighting is, but then the function is a linear function or additive function of the state of your genome at some subset of positions. The ultimate model that you get is straightforward. Now, if you go back ten years, when we were doing this, there were lots of claims that it was going to be super nonlinear—that it wasn't going to be additive the way I just described it. There were going to be lots of interaction terms between regions. Some biologists are still convinced that's true, even though we already know we have predictors that don't have interactions.The other question, which is more technical, is whether in any small region of your genome, the state of the individual variants is highly correlated because you inherit them in chunks. You need to figure out which one you want to use. You don't want to activate all of them because you might be overcounting. So that's where these L-1 penalization sparse methods force the predictor to be sparse. That is a key step. Otherwise, you might overcount. If you do some simple regression math, you might have 10-10 different variants close by that have roughly the same statistical significance.But, you don't know which one of those tends to be used, and you might be overcounting effects or undercounting effects. So, you end up doing a high-dimensional optimization, where you grudgingly activate a SNP when the signal is strong enough. Once you activate that one, the algorithm has to be smart enough to penalize the other ones nearby and not activate them because you're over counting effects if you do that. There's a little bit of subtlety in it. But, the main point you made is that the ultimate predictors, which are very simple and addictive—sum over effect sizes and time states—work well. That’s related to a deep statement about the additive structure of the genetic architecture of individual differences. In other words, it's weird that the ways that I differ from you are merely just because I have more of something or you have less of something. It’s not like these things are interacting in some incredibly understandable way. That's a deep thing—which is not appreciated that much by biologists yet. But over time, they'll figure out something interesting here.Why hasn’t natural selection already optimized humans?Dwarkesh Patel  24:19  Right. I thought that was super fascinating, and I commented on that on Twitter. What is interesting about that is two things. One is that you have this fascinating evolutionary argument about why that would be the case that you might want to explain. The second is that it makes you wonder if becoming more intelligent is just a matter of turning on certain SNPs. It's not a matter of all this incredible optimization being like solving a sudoku puzzle or anything. If that's the case, then why hasn't the human population already been selected to be maxed out on all these traits if it's just a matter of a bit flip?Steve Hsu  25:00  Okay, so the first issue is why is this genetic architecture so surprisingly simple? Again, we didn't know it would be simple ten years ago. So when I was checking to see whether this was a field that I should go into depending on our capabilities to make progress, we had to study the more general problem of the nonlinear possibilities. But eventually, we realized that most of the variance would probably be captured in an additive way. So, we could narrow down the problem quite a bit. There are evolutionary reasons for this. There’s a famous theorem by Fisher, the father of population genetics (aka. frequentist statistics). Fisher proved something called Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, which says that if you impose some selection pressure on a population, the rate at which that population responds to the selection pressure (lets say it’s the bigger rats that out-compete the smaller rats) then at what rate does the rat population start getting bigger? He showed that it's the additive variants that dominate the rate of evolution. It's easy to understand why if it's a nonlinear mechanism, you need to make the rat bigger. When you sexually reproduce, and that gets chopped apart, you might break the mechanism. Whereas, if each short allele has its own independent effect, you can inherit them without worrying about breaking the mechanisms. It was well known among a tiny theoretical population of biologists that adding variants was the dominant way that populations would respond to selection. That was already known. The other thing is that humans have been through a pretty tight bottleneck, and we're not that different from each other. It's very plausible that if I wanted to edit a human embryo, and make it into a frog, then there are all kinds of subtle nonlinear things I’d have to do. But all those identical nonlinear complicated subsystems are fixed in humans. You have the same system as I do. You have the not human, not frog or ape, version of that region of DNA, and so do I. But the small ways we differ are mostly little additive switches. That's this deep scientific discovery from over the last 5-10 years of work in this area. Now, you were asking about why evolution hasn't completely “optimized” all traits in humans already. I don't know if you’ve ever done deep learning or high-dimensional optimization, but in that high-dimensional space, you're often moving on a slightly-tilted surface. So, you're getting gains, but it's also flat. Even though you scale up your compute or data size by order of magnitude, you don't move that much farther. You get some gains, but you're never really at the global max of anything in these high dimensional spaces. I don't know if that makes sense to you. But it's pretty plausible to me that two things are important here. One is that evolution has not had that much time to optimize humans. The environment that humans live in changed radically in the last 10,000 years. For a while, we didn't have agriculture, and now we have agriculture. Now, we have a swipe left if you want to have sex tonight. The environment didn't stay fixed. So, when you say fully optimized for the environment, what do you mean? The ability to diagonalize matrices might not have been very adaptive 10,000 years ago. It might not even be adaptive now. But anyway, it's a complicated question that one can't reason naively about. “If God wanted us to be 10 feet tall, we'd be 10 feet tall.” Or “if it's better to be smart, my brain would be *this* big or something.” You can't reason naively about stuff like that.Dwarkesh Patel  29:04  I see. Yeah.. Okay. So I guess it would make sense then that for example, with certain health risks, the thing that makes you more likely to get diabetes or heart disease today might be… I don't know what the pleiotropic effect of that could be. But maybe that's not that important one year from now.Steve Hsu  29:17  Let me point out that most of the diseases we care about now—not the rare ones, but the common ones—manifest when you're 50-60 years old. So there was never any evolutionary advantage of being super long-lived. There's even a debate about whether the grandparents being around to help raise the kids lifts the fitness of the family unit.But, most of the time in our evolutionary past, humans just died fairly early. So, many of these diseases would never have been optimized against evolution. But, we see them now because we live under such good conditions, we can regulate people over 80 or 90 years.Dwarkesh Patel  29:57  Regarding the linearity and additivity point, I was going to make the analogy that– and I'm curious if this is valid– but when you're programming, one thing that's good practice is to have all the implementation details in separate function calls or separate programs or something, and then have your main loop of operation just be called different functions like, “Do this, do that”, so that you can easily comment stuff away or change arguments. This seemed very similar to that where by turning these names on and off, you can change what the next offering will be. And, you don't have to worry about actually implementing whatever the underlying mechanism is. Steve Hsu  30:41  Well, what you said is related to what Fisher proved in his theorems. Which is that, if suddenly, it becomes advantageous to have X, (like white fur instead of black fur) or something, it would be best if there were little levers that you could move somebody from black fur to white fur continuously by modifying those switches in an additive way. It turns out that for sexually reproducing species where the DNA gets scrambled up in every generation, it's better to have switches of that kind. The other point related to your software analogy is that there seem to be modular, fairly modular things going on in the genome. When we looked at it, we were the first group to have, initially, 20 primary disease conditions we had decent predictors for. We started looking carefully at just something as trivial as the overlap of my sparsely trained predictor. It turns on and uses *these* features for diabetes, but it uses *these* features for schizophrenia. It’s the stupidest metric, it’s literally just how much overlap or variance accounted for overlap is there between pairs of disease conditions. It's very modest. It's the opposite of what naive biologists would say when they talk about pleiotropy.They're just disjoint! Disjoint regions of your genome that govern certain things. And why not? You have 3 billion base pairs—there's a lot you can do in there. There's a lot of information there. If you need 1000 to control diabetes risk, I estimated you could easily have 1000 roughly independent traits that are just disjoint in their genetic dependencies. So, if you think about D&D,  your strength, decks, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma—those are all disjoint. They're all just independent variables. So it's like a seven-dimensional space that your character lives in. Well, there's enough information in the few million differences between you and me. There's enough for 1000-dimensional space of variation.“Oh, how considerable is your spleen?” My spleen is a little bit smaller, yours is a little bit bigger - that can vary independently of your IQ. Oh, it's a big surprise. The size of your spleen can vary independently of the size of your big toe. If you do information theory, there are about 1000 different parameters, and I can vary independently with the number of variants I have between you and me. Because you understand some information theory, it’s trivial to explain, but try explaining to a biologist, you won't get very far.Dwarkesh Patel  33:27  Yeah, yeah, do the log two of the number of.. is that basically how you do it? Yeah.Steve Hsu  33:33  Okay. That's all it is. I mean, it's in our paper. We look at how many variants typically account for most of the variation for any of these major traits, and then imagine that they're mostly disjoint. Then it’s just all about: how many variants you need to independently vary 1000 traits? Well, a few million differences between you and me are enough. It's very trivial math. Once you understand the base and how to reason about information theory, then it's very trivial. But, it ain’t trivial for theoretical biologists, as far as I can tell.AgingDwarkesh Patel  34:13  But the result is so interesting because I remember reading in The Selfish Gene that, as he (Dawkins) hypothesizes that the reason we could be aging is an antagonistic clash. There's something that makes you healthier when you're young and fertile that makes you unhealthy when you're old. Evolution would have selected for such a trade-off because when you're young and fertile, evolution and your genes care about you. But, if there's enough space in the genome —where these trade-offs are not necessarily necessary—then this could be a bad explanation for aging, or do you think I'm straining the analogy?Steve Hsu  34:49  I love your interviews because the point you're making here is really good. So Dawkins, who is an evolutionary theorist from the old school when they had almost no data—you can imagine how much data they had compared to today—he would tell you a story about a particular gene that maybe has a positive effect when you're young, but it makes you age faster. So, there's a trade-off. We know about things like sickle cell anemia. We know stories about that. No doubt, some stories are true about specific variants in your genome. But that's not the general story. The general story you only discovered in the last five years is that thousands of variants control almost every trait and those variants tend to be disjoint from the ones that control the other trait. They weren't wrong, but they didn't have the big picture.Dwarkesh Patel  35:44  Yeah, I see. So, you had this paper, it had polygenic, health index, general health, and disease risk.. You showed that with ten embryos, you could increase disability-adjusted life years by four, which is a massive increase if you think about it. Like what if you could live four years longer and in a healthy state? Steve Hsu  36:05  Yeah, what's the value of that? What would you pay to buy that for your kid?Dwarkesh Patel  36:08  Yeah. But, going back to the earlier question about the trade-offs and why this hasn't already been selected for,  if you're right and there's no trade-off to do this, just living four years older (even if that's beyond your fertility) just being a grandpa or something seems like an unmitigated good. So why hasn’t this kind of assurance hasn't already been selected for? Steve Hsu  36:35  I’m glad you're asking about these questions because these are things that people are very confused about, even in the field. First of all, let me say that when you have a trait that's controlled by  10,000 variants (eg. height is controlled by order 10,000 variants and probably cognitive ability a little bit more), the square root of 10,000 is 100.  So, if I could come to this little embryo, and I want to give it one extra standard deviation of height, I only need to edit 100. I only need to flip 100 minus variance to plus variance. These are very rough numbers. But, one standard deviation is the square root of “n”. If I flip a coin “n” times, I want a better outcome in terms of the number of ratio heads to tails. I want to increase it by one standard deviation. I only need to flip the square root of “n” heads because if you flip a lot, you will get a narrow distribution that peaks around half, and the width of that distribution is the square root of “n”. Once I tell you, “Hey, your height is controlled by 10,000 variants, and I only need to flip 100 genetic variants to make you one standard deviation for a male,” (that would be three inches tall, two and a half or three inches taller), you suddenly realize, “Wait a minute, there are a lot of variants up for grabs there. If I could flip 500 variants in your genome, I would make you five standard deviations taller, you'd be seven feet tall.”  I didn't even have to do that much work, and there's a lot more variation where that came from. I could have flipped even more because I only flipped 500 out of 10,000, right? So, there's this  quasi-infinite well of variation that evolution or genetic engineers could act on. Again, the early population geneticists who bred corn and animals know this. This is something they explicitly know about because they've done calculations. Interestingly, the human geneticists who are mainly concerned with diseases and stuff, are often unfamiliar with the math that the animal breeders already know. You might be interested to know that the milk you drink comes from heavily genetically-optimized cows bred artificially using almost exactly the same technologies that we use at genomic prediction. But, they're doing it to optimize milk production and stuff like this. So there is a big well of variance. It's a consequence of the trait's poly genicity. On the longevity side of things, it does look like people could “be engineered” to live much longer by flipping the variants that make the risk for diseases that shorten your life. The question is then “Why didn't evolution give us life spans of thousands of years?” People in the Bible used to live for thousands of years. Why don't we? I mean, *chuckles* that probably didn’t happen. But the question is, you have this very high dimensional space, and you have a fitness function. How big is the slope in a particular direction of that fitness function? How much more successful reproductively would Joe caveman have been if he lived to be 150 instead of only, 100 or something? There just hasn't been enough time to explore this super high dimensional space. That's the actual answer. But now, we have the technology, and we're going to f*****g explore it fast. That's the point that the big lightbulb should go off. We’re mapping this space out now. Pretty confident in 10 years or so, with the CRISPR gene editing technologies will be ready for massively multiplexed edits. We'll start navigating in this high-dimensional space as much as we like. So that's the more long-term consequence of the scientific insights.Dwarkesh Patel  40:53  Yeah, that's super interesting. What do you think will be the plateau for a trait of how long you’ll live? With the current data and techniques, you think it could be significantly greater than that?Steve Hsu  41:05  We did a simple calculation—which amazingly gives the correct result. This polygenic predictor that we built (which isn't perfect yet but will improve as we gather more data) is used in selecting embryos today. If you asked, out of a billion people, “What's the best person typically, what would their score be on this index and then how long would they be predicted to live?”’ It's about 120 years. So it's spot on. One in a billion types of person lives to be 120 years old. How much better can you do? Probably a lot better. I don't want to speculate, but other nonlinear effects, things that we're not taking into account will start to play a role at some point. So, it's a little bit hard to estimate what the true limiting factors will be. But one super robust statement, and I'll stand by it, debate any Nobel Laureate in biology who wants to discuss it even,  is that there are many variants available to be selected or edited. There's no question about that. That's been established in animal breeding in plant breeding for a long time now. If you want a chicken that grows to be *this* big, instead of *this* big, you can do it. You can do it if you want a cow that produces 10 times or 100 times more milk than a regular cow. The egg you ate for breakfast this morning, those bio-engineered chickens that lay almost an egg a day… A chicken in the wild lays an egg a month. How the hell did we do that? By genetic engineering. That's how we did it. Dwarkesh Patel  42:51  Yeah. That was through brute artificial selection. No fancy machine learning there.Steve Hsu  42:58  Last ten years, it's gotten sophisticated machine learning genotyping of chickens. Artificial insemination, modeling of the traits using ML last ten years. For cow breeding, it's done by ML. First Mover AdvantageDwarkesh Patel  43:18  I had no idea. That's super interesting. So, you mentioned that you're accumulating data and improving your techniques over time, is there a first mover advantage to a genomic prediction company like this? Or is it whoever has the newest best algorithm for going through the biobank data? Steve Hsu  44:16  That's another super question. For the entrepreneurs in your audience, I would say in the short run, if you ask what the valuation of GPB should be? That's how the venture guys would want me to answer the question. There is a huge first mover advantage because they're important in the channel relationships between us and the clinics. Nobody will be able to get in there very easily when they come later because we're developing trust and an extensive track record with clinics worldwide—and we're well-known. So could 23andme or some company with a huge amount of data—if they were to get better AI/ML people working on this—blow us away a little bit and build better predictors because they have much more data than we do? Possibly, yes. Now, we have had core expertise in doing this work for years that we're just good at it. Even though we don't have as much data as 23andme, our predictors might still be better than theirs. I'm out there all the time, working with biobanks all around the world. I don't want to say all the names, but other countries are trying to get my hands on as much data as possible.But, there may not be a lasting advantage beyond the actual business channel connections to that particular market. It may not be a defensible, purely scientific moat around the company. We have patents on specific technologies about how to do the genotyping or error correction on the embryo, DNA, and stuff like this. We do have patents on stuff like that. But this general idea of who will best predict human traits from DNA? It's unclear who's going to be the winner in that race. Maybe it'll be the Chinese government in 50 years? Who knows?Dwarkesh Patel  46:13  Yeah, that's interesting. If you think about a company Google, theoretically, it's possible that you could come up with a better algorithm than PageRank and beat them. But it seems like the engineer at Google is going to come up with whatever edge case or whatever improvement is possible.Steve Hsu  46:28  That's exactly what I would say. PageRank is deprecated by now. But, even if somebody else comes up with a somewhat better algorithm if they have a little bit more data, if you have a team doing this for a long time and you're focused and good, it's still tough to beat you, especially if you have a lead in the market.Dwarkesh Patel  46:50  So, are you guys doing the actual biopsy? Or is it just that they upload the genome, and you're the one processing just giving recommendations? Is it an API call, basically?Steve Hsu  47:03  It's great, I love your question. It is totally standard. Every good IVF clinic in the world regularly takes embryo biopsies. So that's standard. There’s a lab tech doing that. Okay. Then, they take the little sample, put it on ice, and ship it. The DNA as a molecule is exceptionally robust and stable. My other startup solves crimes that are 100 years old from DNA that we get from some semen stain on some rape victim, serial killer victims bra strap, we've done stuff that.Dwarkesh Patel  47:41  Jack the Ripper, when are we going to solve that mystery?Steve Hsu  47:44  If they can give me samples, we can get into that. For example, we just learned that you could recover DNA pretty well if someone licks a stamp and puts on their correspondence. If you can do Neanderthals, you can do a lot to solve crimes. In the IVF workflow, our lab, which is in New Jersey, can service every clinic in the world because they take the biopsy, put it in a standard shipping container, and send it to us. We’re actually genotyping DNA in our lab, but we've trained a few of the bigger  clinics to do the genotyping on their site. At that point, they upload some data into the cloud and then they get back some stuff from our platform. And at that point it's going to be the whole world, every human who wants their kid to be healthy and get the best they can– that data is going to come up to us, and the report is going to come back down to their IVF physician. Dwarkesh Patel  48:46  Which is great if you think that there's a potential that this technology might get regulated in some way, you could go to Mexico or something, have them upload the genome (you don't care what they upload it from), and then get the recommendations there. Steve Hsu  49:05  I think we’re going to evolve to a point where we are going to be out of the wet part of this business, and only in the cloud and bit part of this business. No matter where it is, the clinics are going to have a sequencer, which is *this* big, and their tech is going to quickly upload and retrieve the report for the physician three seconds later. Then, the parents are going to look at it on their phones or whatever. We’re basically there with some clinics. It’s going to be tough to regulate because it’s just this. You have the bits and you’re in some repressive, terrible country that doesn’t allow you to select for some special traits that people are nervous about, but you can upload it to some vendor that’s in Singapore or some free country, and they give you the report back. Doesn’t have to be us, we don’t do the edgy stuff. We only do the health-related stuff right now. But, if you want to know how tall this embryo is going to be…I’ll tell you a mind-blower! When you do face recognition in AI, you're mapping someone's face into a parameter space on the order of hundreds of parameters, each of those parameters is super heritable. In other words, if I take two twins and photograph them, and the algorithm gives me the value of that parameter for twin one and two, they're very close. That's why I can't tell the two twins apart, and face recognition can ultimately tell them apart if it’s really good system. But you can conclude that almost all these parameters are identical for those twins. So it's highly heritable. We're going to get to a point soon where I can do the inverse problem where I have your DNA  and I predict each of those parameters in the face recognition algorithm and then reconstruct the face. If I say that when this embryo will be 16, that is what she will look like. When she's 32, this is what she's going to look like. I'll be able to do that, for sure. It's only an AI/ML problem right now. But basic biology is clearly going to work. So then you're going to be able to say, “Here's a report. Embryo four is so cute.” Before, we didn't know we wouldn't do that, but it will be possible. Dwarkesh Patel  51:37  Before we get married, you'll want to see what their genotype implies about their faces' longevity. It's interesting that you hear stories about these cartel leaders who will get plastic surgery or something to evade the law, you could have a check where you look at a lab and see if it matches the face you would have had five years ago when they caught you on tape.Steve Hsu  52:02  This is a little bit back to old-school Gattaca, but you don't even need the face! You can just take a few molecules of skin cells and phenotype them and know exactly who they are. I've had conversations with these spooky Intel folks. They're very interested in, “Oh, if some Russian diplomat comes in, and we think he's a spy, but he's with the embassy, and he has a coffee with me, and I save the cup and send it to my buddy at Langley, can we figure out who this guy is? And that he has a daughter who's going to Chote? Can do all that now.Dwarkesh Patel  52:49  If that's true, then in the future, world leaders will not want to eat anything or drink. They'll be wearing a hazmat suit to make sure they don't lose a hair follicle.Steve Hsu  53:04  The next time Pelosi goes, she will be in a spacesuit if she cares. Or the other thing is, they're going to give it. They're just going to be, “Yeah, my DNA is everywhere. If I'm a public figure, I can't track my DNA. It's all over.”Dwarkesh Patel  53:17  But the thing is, there's so much speculation that Putin might have cancer or something. If we have his DNA, we can see his probability of having cancer at age 70, or whatever he is, is 85%. So yeah, that’d be a very verified rumor. That would be interesting. Steve Hsu  53:33  I don't think that would be very definitive. I don't think we'll reach that point where you can say that Putin has cancer because of his DNA—which I could have known when he was an embryo. I don't think it's going to reach that level. But, we could say he is at high risk for a type of cancer. Genomics in datingDwarkesh Patel  53:49  In 50 or 100 years, if the majority of the population is doing this, and if the highly heritable diseases get pruned out of the population, does that mean we'll only be left with lifestyle diseases? So, you won't get breast cancer anymore, but you will still get fat or lung cancer from smoking?Steve Hsu  54:18  It's hard to discuss the asymptotic limit of what will happen here. I'm not very confident about making predictions like that. It could get to the point where everybody who's rich or has been through this stuff for a while, (especially if we get the editing working) is super low risk for all the top 20 killer diseases that have the most life expectancy impact. Maybe those people live to be 300 years old naturally. I don't think that's excluded at all. So, that's within the realm of possibility. But it's going to happen for a few lucky people like Elon Musk before it happens for shlubs like you and me. There are going to be very angry inequality protesters about the Trump grandchildren, who, models predict will live to be 200 years old. People are not going to be happy about that.Dwarkesh Patel  55:23  So interesting. So, one way to think about these different embryos is if you're producing multiple embryos, and you get to select from one of them, each of them has a call option, right? Therefore, you probably want to optimize for volatility as much, or if not more than just the expected value of the trait. So, I'm wondering if there are mechanisms where you can  increase the volatility in meiosis or some other process. You just got a higher variance, and you can select from the tail better.Steve Hsu  55:55  Well, I'll tell you something related, which is quite amusing. So I talked with some pretty senior people at the company that owns all the dating apps. So you can look up what company this is, but they own Tinder and Match. They’re kind of interested in perhaps including a special feature where you upload your genome instead of Tinder Gold / Premium.  And when you match- you can talk about how well you match the other person based on your genome. One person told me something shocking. Guys lie about their height on these apps. Dwarkesh Patel  56:41  I’m shocked, truly shocked hahaha. Steve Hsu  56:45  Suppose you could have a DNA-verified height. It would prevent gross distortions if someone claims they're 6’2 and they’re 5’9. The DNA could say that's unlikely. But no, the application to what you were discussing is more like, “Let's suppose that we're selecting on intelligence or something. Let's suppose that the regions where your girlfriend has all the plus stuff are complementary to the regions where you have your plus stuff. So, we could model that and say,  because of the complementarity structure of your genome in the regions that affect intelligence, you're very likely to have some super intelligent kids way above your, the mean of your you and your girlfriend's values. So, you could say things like it being better for you to marry that girl than another. As long as you go through embryo selection, we can throw out the bad outliers. That's all that's technically feasible. It's true that one of the earliest patent applications, they'll deny it now. What's her name? Gosh, the CEO of 23andme…Wojcicki, yeah. She'll deny it now. But, if you look in the patent database, one of the very earliest patents that 23andme filed when they were still a tiny startup was about precisely this: Advising parents about mating and how their kids would turn out and stuff like this. We don't even go that far in GP, we don't even talk about stuff like that, but they were thinking about it when they founded 23andme.Dwarkesh Patel  58:38  That is unbelievably interesting. By the way, this just occurred to me—it's supposed to be highly heritable, especially people in Asian countries, who have the experience of having grandparents that are much shorter than us, and then parents that are shorter than us, which suggests that  the environment has a big part to play in it malnutrition or something. So how do you square that our parents are often shorter than us with the idea that height is supposed to be super heritable.Steve Hsu  59:09  Another great observation. So the correct scientific statement is that we can predict height for people who will be born and raised in a favorable environment. In other words, if you live close to a McDonald's and you're able to afford all the food you want, then the height phenotype becomes super heritable because the environmental variation doesn't matter very much. But, you and I both know that people are much smaller if we return to where our ancestors came from, and also, if you look at how much food, calories, protein, and calcium they eat, it's different from what I ate and what you ate growing up. So we're never saying the environmental effects are zero. We're saying that for people raised in a particularly favorable environment, maybe the genes are capped on what can be achieved, and we can predict that. In fact, we have data from Asia, where you can see much bigger environmental effects. Age affects older people, for fixed polygenic scores on the trait are much shorter than younger people.Ancestral populationsDwarkesh Patel  1:00:31  Oh, okay. Interesting. That raises that next question I was about to ask: how applicable are these scores across different ancestral populations?Steve Hsu  1:00:44  Huge problem is that most of the data is from Europeans. What happens is that if you train a predictor in this ancestry group and go to a more distant ancestry group, there's a fall-off in the prediction quality. Again, this is a frontier question, so we don't know the answer for sure. But many people believe that there's a particular correlational structure in each population, where if I know the state of this SNP, I can predict the state of these neighboring SNPs. That is a product of that group's mating patterns and ancestry. Sometimes, the predictor, which is just using statistical power to figure things out, will grab one of these SNPs as a tag for the truly causal SNP in there. It doesn't know which one is genuinely causal, it is just grabbing a tag, but the tagging quality falls off if you go to another population (eg. This was a very good tag for the truly causal SNP in the British population. But it's not so good a tag in the South Asian population for the truly causal SNP, which we hypothesize is the same). It's the same underlying genetic architecture in these different ancestry groups. We don't know if that's a hypothesis. But even so, the tagging quality falls off. So my group spent a lot of our time looking at the performance of predictor training population A, and on distant population B, and modeling it trying to figure out trying to test hypotheses as to whether it's just the tagging decay that’s responsible for most of the faults. So all of this is an area of active investigation. It'll probably be solved in five years. The first big biobanks that are non-European are coming online. We're going to solve it in a number of years.Dwarkesh Patel  1:02:38  Oh, what does the solution look like?  Unless you can identify the causal mechanism by which each SNP is having an effect, how can you know that something is a tag or whether it's the actual underlying switch?Steve Hsu  1:02:54  The nature of reality will determine how this is going to go. So we don't truly  know if the  innate underlying biology is true. This is an amazing thing. People argue about human biodiversity and all this stuff, and we don't even know whether these specific mechanisms that predispose you to be tall or having heart disease are the same  in these different ancestry groups. We assume that it is, but we don't know that. As we get further away to Neanderthals or Homo Erectus, you might see that they have a slightly different architecture than we do. But let's assume that the causal structure is the same for South Asians and British people. Then it's a matter of improving the tags. How do I know if I don't know which one is causal? What do I mean by improving the tags? This is a machine learning problem. If there's a SNP, which is always coming up as very significant when I use it across multiple ancestry groups, maybe that one's casual. As I vary the tagging correlations in the neighborhood of that SNP, I always find that that one is the intersection of all these different sets, making me think that one's going to be causal. That's a process we're engaged in now—trying to do that. Again, it's just a machine learning problem. But we need data. That's the main issue.Dwarkesh Patel  1:04:32  I was hoping that wouldn't be possible, because one way we might go about this research is that it itself becomes taboo or causes other sorts of bad social consequences if you can definitively show that on certain traits, there are differences between ancestral populations, right? So, I was hoping that maybe there was an evasion button where we can't say because they're just tags and the tags might be different between different ancestral populations. But with machine learning, we’ll know.Steve Hsu  1:04:59  That's the situation we're in now, where you have to do some fancy analysis if you want to claim that Italians have lower height potential than Nordics—which is possible. There's been a ton of research about this because there are signals of selection. The alleles, which are activated in height predictors, look like they've been under some selection between North and South Europe over the last 5000 years for whatever reason. But, this is a thing debated by people who study molecular evolution. But suppose it's true, okay? That would mean that when we finally get to the bottom of it, we find all the causal loci for height, and the average value for the Italians is lower than that for those living in Stockholm. That might be true. People don't get that excited? They get a little bit excited about height. But they would get really excited if this were true for some other traits, right?Suppose the causal variants affecting your level of extraversion are systematic, that the average value of those weighed the weighted average of those states is different in Japan versus Sicily. People might freak out over that. I'm supposed to say that's obviously not true. How could it possibly be true? There hasn't been enough evolutionary time for those differences to arise. After all, it's not possible that despite what looks to be the case for height over the last 5000 years in Europe, no other traits could have been differentially selected for over the last 5000 years. That's the dangerous thing. Few people understand this field well enough to understand what you and I just discussed and are so alarmed by it that they're just trying to suppress everything. Most of them don't follow it at this technical level that you and I are just discussing. So, they're somewhat instinctively negative about it, but they don't understand it very well.Dwarkesh Patel  1:07:19  That's good to hear. You see this pattern that by the time that somebody might want to regulate or in some way interfere with some technology or some information, it already has achieved wide adoption. You could argue that that's the case with crypto today. But if it's true that a bunch of IVF clinics worldwide are using these scores to do selection and other things, by the time people realize the implications of this data for other kinds of social questions, this has already been an existing consumer technology.Is this eugenics?Steve Hsu  1:07:58  That's true, and the main outcry will be if it turns out that there are massive gains to be had, and only the billionaires are getting them. But that might have the consequence of causing countries to make this free part of their national health care system. So Denmark and Israel pay for IVF. For infertile couples, it's part of their national health care system. They're pretty aggressive about genetic testing. In Denmark, one in 10 babies are born through IVF. It's not clear how it will go. But we're in for some fun times. There's no doubt about that.Dwarkesh Patel  1:08:45  Well, one way you could go is that some countries decided to ban it altogether. And another way it could go is if countries decided to give everybody free access to it. If you had to choose between the two,  you would want to go for the second one. Which would be the hope. Maybe only those two are compatible with people's moral intuitions about this stuff. Steve Hsu  1:09:10  It’s very funny because most wokist people today hate this stuff. But, most progressives like Margaret Sanger, or anybody who was the progressive intellectual forebears of today's wokist, in the early 20th century, were all that we would call today in Genesis because they were like, “Thanks to Darwin, we now know how this all works. We should take steps to keep society healthy and (not in a negative way where we kill people we don't like, but we should help society do healthy things when they reproduce, and have healthy kids).” Now, this whole thing has just been flipped over among progressives. Dwarkesh Patel  1:09:52  Even in India, less than 50 years ago, Indira Gandhi, she's on the left side of India's political spectrum. She was infamous for putting on these forced sterilization programs. Somebody made an interesting comment about this where they were asked, “Oh, is it true that history always tilts towards progressives? And if so, isn't everybody else doomed? Aren't their views doomed?”The person made a fascinating point: whatever we consider left at the time tends to be winning. But what is left has changed a lot over time, right? In the early 20th century, prohibition was a left cause. It was a progressive cause, and that changed, and now the opposite is the left cause. But now, legalizing pot is progressive. Exactly. So, if Conquest’s second law is true, and everything tilts leftover time, just change what is left is, right? That's the solution. Steve Hsu  1:10:59  No one can demand that any of these woke guys be intellectually self-consistent, or even say the same things from one year to another? But one could wonder what they think about these literally Communist Chinese. They’re recycling huge parts of their GDP to help the poor and the southern stuff. Medicine is free, education is free, right? They're clearly socialists, and literally communists. But in Chinese, the Chinese characters for eugenics is a positive thing. It means healthy production. But more or less, the whole viewpoint on all this stuff is 180 degrees off in East Asia compared to here, and even among the literal communists—so go figure.Dwarkesh Patel  1:11:55  Yeah, very based. So let's talk about one of the traits that people might be interested in potentially selecting for: intelligence. What is the potential for us to acquire the data to correlate the genotype with intelligence?Steve Hsu  1:12:15  Well, that's the most personally frustrating aspect of all of this stuff. If you asked me ten years ago when I started doing this stuff what were we going to get, everything was gone. On the optimistic side of what I would have predicted, so everything's good. Didn't turn out to be interactively nonlinear, or it didn't turn out to be interactively pleiotropic. All these good things, —which nobody could have known a priori how they would work—turned out to be good for gene engineers of the 21st century. The one frustrating thing is because of crazy wokeism, and fear of crazy wokists, the most interesting phenotype of all is lagging b

god united states america ceo american new york university spotify founders donald trump new york city google english china europe kids bible nfl japan americans mexico british west professor ai tech nature chinese gold european ohio russian german romans mit medicine evolution dna new jersey italian elon musk san diego north greek indian asian harvard humanity mcdonald tinder loved vladimir putin ufc helps match world war ii singapore stanford ucla nebraska jeff bezos taiwan guys denmark intelligence south korea stepping albert einstein olympians long island stockholm consumer simpsons intel fields consistent nancy pelosi ohio state gym artificial ea iq michigan state university selection boeing gp gdp nobel prize api d d ivf mckinsey cs jiu jitsu estonia pasadena aws ml conquest ripper scandinavian south asian goldman crispr ancestral crimson hemingway sicily asana gosh neanderthals goldilocks east asia us marines neumann genomics langley conformity sri lankan big five advising imo embryos caltech dawkins westwood theoretical suitable sats mathematicians nobel laureates gpt ai ml snp natural selection tradeoffs eloy nordics gattaca iit pua l1 ftx richard feynman lsat margaret sanger h 1b east german south asians secretaries feynman manifold olympiads hsu theoretical physics multiplex roko hour fitness piketty indira gandhi snps applied physics conceptually wonderlic francis crick pagerank communist chinese selfish gene morlocks homo erectus ashkenazi jews uk biobank youa wojcicki gpb hahahah tay sachs fundamental theorem scott aaronson chote gregory clark palaestra gwern
Fertility Docs Uncensored
Ep 131: Eggs and Embryos in IVF – Busting Myths and Sharing Facts

Fertility Docs Uncensored

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 23, 2022 38:02


From ovarian stimulation to fertilization in the lab, a lot happens during an IVF cycle. As a result, you're not alone if you have questions about what happens to eggs and embryos during in vitro fertilization. The Fertility Docs are here to shed some light on this topic. Join Dr. Carrie Bedient from The Fertility Center of Las Vegas, Dr. Abby Eblen from Nashville Fertility Center and Dr. Susan Hudson from Texas Fertility Center as they talk about eggs and embryos in the world of IVF. Have questions about infertility? Visit FertilityDocsUncensored.com to ask our docs. Selected questions will be answered anonymously in future episodes.

Fertility and Sterility On Air
Fertility and Sterility On Air–Live from ESHRE: Part 2

Fertility and Sterility On Air

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 21, 2022 64:46


This month's Fertility & Sterility is live from ESHRE 2022 in Milan, Italy! Listen to interviews from a few of the presenters. Topics in Part 2 include a conversation with Rick LeGrow (1:01), Route of Progesterone administration (6:26), Thyroid hormone replacement (16:12), A discussion about ICMART (21:12), Endometriosis testing in blood (28:26), Ovarian stimulation and subsequent breast cancer (35:34), Semen analysis tests comparison (39:48) and Evacuating embryos from Ukraine (43:30). View Fertility and Sterility at https://www.fertstert.org/

Fertility and Sterility On Air
Fertility and Sterility On Air–Live from ESHRE: Part 1

Fertility and Sterility On Air

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 21, 2022 66:43


This month's Fertility & Sterility is live from ESHRE 2022 in Milan, Italy! Listen to interviews from a few of the presenters. Topics in Part 1 include Apps for TIC (3:14), AI for cycle optimization (11:26), Time-lapse imaging (11:35), Poor quality embryo transfer (26:16), Embryo morphokenetics & ploidy status (33:36), 3rd party origin children's book (39:54), 3D Embyro Construction (43:54), Pregnancy after breast cancer (53:03), and Evaluation of the Duostim protocol (57:44). View Fertility and Sterility at https://www.fertstert.org/

The Adoption Connection | a podcast by and for adoptive parents
#189: An Embryo Adoption Story with Rachel Bell

The Adoption Connection | a podcast by and for adoptive parents

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2022 34:49


Most of know about adoption through foster care or private, infant adoption. But what do you know about embryo adoption? Rachel and her husband, Evan, have four children who all joined their family through adoption. Their youngest son joined their family through embryo adoption. Rachel has worked in adoption support, directing family camps, retreats for foster and adoptive moms, and other support and training events for the last 10 years but she has recently opened a travel agency, Bell Travel Co., that specializes in travel for families and also individuals with food allergies and special needs. Rachel and her family live in Conway, Arkansas. During this episode, we talk about the embryo adoption process as well as what it's like to have an open adoption with their son's genetic family. Click here to download a transcript for this episode. Relevant Links Bell Travel Co.  

The Adoption Connection | a podcast by and for adoptive parents
#189: An Embryo Adoption Story with Rachel Bell

The Adoption Connection | a podcast by and for adoptive parents

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2022 2089:00


Most of know about adoption through foster care or private, infant adoption. But what do you know about embryo adoption? Rachel and her husband, Evan, have four children who all joined their family through adoption. Their youngest son joined their family through embryo adoption. Rachel has worked in adoption support, directing family camps, retreats for foster and adoptive moms, and other support and training events for the last 10 years but she has recently opened a travel agency, Bell Travel Co., that specializes in travel for families and also individuals with food allergies and special needs. Rachel and her family live in Conway, Arkansas. During this episode, we talk about the embryo adoption process as well as what it's like to have an open adoption with their son's genetic family. Click here to download a transcript for this episode. Relevant Links Bell Travel Co.  

All Around Science
Artificial Embryos and Organs

All Around Science

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 15, 2022 70:42


On today's episode: We know that some spiders sleep… but do they dream? The secret to the heart's strength is in its physical shape. Scientists are making strides in creating synthetic embryos. All that and more today on All Around Science. LINKS: [ARTICLE] Jumping spiders may experience something like REM sleep [ARTICLE] A major step forward for organ biofabrication [ARTICLE] Synthetic Embryos THEME MUSIC by Andrew Allen https://twitter.com/KEYSwithSOUL http://andrewallenmusic.com

Unshaken Saints
Psalms 49-100: ”Make a Joyful Noise”

Unshaken Saints

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 12, 2022 263:17 Very Popular


An in-depth study of Psalms 49-100. This lesson focuses on worldly wealth, covenant renewal, godly sorrow, disloyalty, innocent suffering, rocks & wings, finding family, messianic psalms, envying the wicked, the bitter cup, dealing with depression, gods in embryo, redemptive turbulence, mercy & truth's kiss, wayward children, sanctuaries in time and space, and more. 0:00 Introduction 5:09 Worldly Wealth (49) 12:41 Covenant Renewal (50) 26:12 A Plea for Forgiveness (51) 48:58 Wickedness, Doubt, & Disloyalty (52-55) 1:05:41 Pleas for Help, Mercy, & Vengeance (56-58) 1:14:16 Innocent Suffering, and a Call to Arms (59-60) 1:22:33 Rocks, Wings, Walls, Water, & Weapons (61-64) 1:37:20 Thanksgiving, Finding Family, & the House of the Lord (65-68) 2:01:25 Messianic Psalms & Deep Waters (69-72) 2:18:29 Envying the Wicked, Apostasy, & the Bitter Cup (73-76) 2:29:34 Dealing with Depression (77) 2:40:19 Learning from the Past (78) 2:52:16 Planting & Renewing (79-81) 2:59:58 Gods in Embryo (82) 3:07:15 Redemptive Turbulence & the Temple (83-84) 3:15:31 Mercy & Truth's Kiss (85-87) 3:25:51 Work for the Dead & Wayward Children (88-89) 3:40:11 Long Life, Safety, & Sanctuaries in Time & Space (90-94) 3:56:56 Enthronement Hymns & Psalms of Celebration (95-99) 4:10:42 The Thanksgiving Psalm (100) 4:16:07 Conclusion

The Egg Whisperer Show
Becoming a Parent Through Embryo Donation with guests EM•POWER with Moxi

The Egg Whisperer Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 11, 2022 29:16