Podcasts about Genomics

Vasanta Pundarika built her career inside healthcare investment banking before launching Lotuspring, an advisory firm focused on women's health and behavioral health. She spent nearly 20 years advising healthcare systems, treatment providers, and growth stage companies on mergers, financing, and operational strategy while watching the industry repeatedly misunderstand the people it claimed to serve.The conversation starts unexpectedly with anthropology, bread, and language. Vasanta explains how she spent years changing the pronunciation of her own name to make other people comfortable before eventually reclaiming it. That thread opens into a much larger discussion about adaptation, identity, and what institutions quietly train people to tolerate.From there, the discussion moves into behavioral health, women delaying care, and the invisible labor that healthcare business models routinely ignore. During COVID, Vasanta noticed men's behavioral health units refilled faster than women's units. The reason had nothing to do with demand. Women were still home managing caregiving responsibilities, children, aging parents, and households while their own mental health collapsed in the background.The episode examines what happens when healthcare companies become “snazzy big brands” before building real clinical substance underneath. Vasanta describes the tension between mission and margin inside healthcare startups, private equity backed care models, and behavioral health expansion. The conversation pushes on who benefits when healthcare scales aggressively, who absorbs the operational pressure, and how patient trust erodes long before executives notice it on a dashboard.They also discuss patient advocacy culture, anthropology as systems analysis, healthcare capitalism, prior authorization, investor language, and why some clinically excellent companies never survive long enough to scale.RELATED LINKSVasanta PundarikaLotuspringWomen's Health HorizonsSakhi for South Asian SurvivorsNACDPrinceton University Anthropology DepartmentFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How do you actually pick which heifers to keep? For many, selecting the top ones is easy, but it's those middle ones that are hard to choose between. For this week's guest, Geoff Hayes, the answer is genomics. Geoff and his wife Belinda started their Angus stud just 5 years ago, but began their genomic journey early, not wanting to pick bulls on looks alone from the very beginning. "I was hesitant just to go and pick them visually," Geoff explains. "We need to put some science into it."They began with a base genomic test across a random selection of purchased cattle, which showed them that they were fine for IMF, but needed to increase ribeye area, and that became the main basis of their early selection focus.Over time, that focus shifted. Rather than just chasing carcass traits, they started looking for sires out of cow families with longevity in the background. This introduced more of a focus on the maternal and stayability traits. Geoff still tests his own weaners before deciding which ones to keep and that same mindset is now extending to heifers, with Geoff part of MLA's heifer PDS project. The project involves genotyping heifers, alongside visual measurements to help guide replacement decisions. This project is ongoing, and we will have results to share in the coming years. Mark and Geoff finish by talking about where the beef industry is headed with record property and beef values, as well as the possibilities of new technology just around the corner.Optimised Heifer Selection is a Producer Demonstration Site (PDS) project funded by Meat & Livestock Australia and facilitated by neXtgen Agri. Geoff Hayes is a core producer demonstration site for this project. If you would like to learn more about this PDS project, you can visit the Heifer Selection Hub page or contact: Georgia Pugh, neXtgen Agri M: +61 408 947 488 E: georgia@nextgenagri.comHead Shepherd is brought to you by neXtgen Agri International Limited. We help livestock farmers get the most out of the genetics they farm with. Get in touch with us if you would like to hear more about how we can help you do what you do best: info@nextgenagri.com.Thanks to our sponsors at MSD Animal Health and Allflex, Heiniger Australia and New Zealand, and ProWay Livestock Equipment. Please consider them when making product choices, as they are instrumental in enabling us to bring you this podcast each week.Check out the MSD range HERECheck out Allflex products HERECheck out Heiniger's product range HERECheck out ProWay's product range HERE

Julia is a Senior Research Scientist at Bigelow Laboratory, where she has been working on ocean science research since 2016. Her current research aims to characterize the diversity and roles of marine viruses and microbes in order to better understand their activity within climate relevant ecosystems, such as the rapidly warming Gulf of Maine and large marine oxygen minimum zones. Julia was one of this year's 5 Minute Genius speakers at the 2026 Maine Science Festival. The New York Times featured Julia's work in 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/science/virus-eaters-protists.html. This conversation was recorded in May 2026.   ~~~~~The Maine Science Podcast is a production of the Maine Discovery Museum. It is recorded at Discovery Studios, at the Maine Discovery Museum, in Bangor, ME. The Maine Science Podcast is hosted and executive produced by Kate Dickerson; edited and produced by Scott Loiselle. The Discover Maine theme was composed and performed by Nick Parker. To support our work: https://www.mainediscoverymuseum.org/donate. Find us online:Maine Discovery MuseumMaine Discovery Museum on social media: Facebook Instagram LinkedIn Bluesky YouTubeMaine Science Podcast on social media: Facebook Instagram YouTubeMaine Science Festival on social media: Facebook Instagram LinkedIn YouTube© 2026 Maine Discovery Museum

Hormone optimization goes beyond testosterone and estrogen. In this episode of the Optimization Academy Podcast, Dr. Greg Jones talks with Ashley Madsen, PA-C, about why symptoms like fatigue, brain fog, low libido, weight changes, poor recovery, and perimenopause concerns often need a deeper, more personalized approach.They discuss why testosterone levels are dropping in younger men, why many women's hormone symptoms are dismissed or misunderstood, and how stress, sleep, toxins, lifestyle, body composition, and metabolic health can affect hormone balance. Ashley also breaks down common misconceptions around testosterone therapy, estrogen, progesterone, peptide therapy, genomics, and longevity medicine.If you've been searching for answers around low testosterone, perimenopause, fatigue, brain fog, weight resistance, hormone therapy, or recovery, this episode offers a practical look at what may actually be driving those changes, and why symptoms, labs, lifestyle, and personalized care all matter.

In this explainer episode, we've asked Ella Davyson, Genomics Data Scientist, to explain the meaning of the term genomics. You can also find a series of short videos explaining some of the common terms you might encounter about genomics on our YouTube channel. If you've got any questions, or have any other topics you'd like us to explain, let us know on podcast@genomicsengland.co.uk. You can download the transcript or read it below. [00:00:00] Florence: What is genomics? My name is Florence Cornish, and today I'm joined by Ella Davyson, who is a genomics data scientist here at Genomics England, and she is here to explain the topic in much more detail So, Ella, we obviously both work at Genomics England. This podcast is called Genomics 101, so I guess it's fitting that we have an episode dedicated to explaining the term 'genomics'. [00:00:26] But before we get into that, I think it would be good if you could first explain what we mean by the term 'genome'. [00:00:32] Ella: Thanks, Florence. The genome is, essentially you can think of it like a manual booklet, or instructions that the body uses in how to grow, survive, and function, and this is a manual that's in every single cell within our body, and it tells our cells exactly how to divide, how to survive. [00:00:54] For example, the genome in the pancreas, in pancreatic cells will tell those cells how to produce proteins such as insulin that we need to control our blood sugar. And also, the genome within our eye cells will tell the cells how to generate photoreceptors to enable us to see. So the genome is essentially like the ultimate guide that our body uses to tell it how to create everything that we need to survive going forwards. [00:01:25] Florence: So then, what do we mean by the term 'genomics'? [00:01:30] Ella: So, genomics is essentially the study of the entire human genome. So we study its structure and also how it functions, in terms of how is this instruction manual being read by the body, and how does that result in healthy human beings that we see today. [00:01:48] Florence: So when we're talking about studying DNA, lots of our listeners might have heard the term 'genetics', which kind of also refers to the study of DNA and genes, so it might be a little bit confusing. [00:01:58] So what's the difference between the two? What's the difference between genetics and genomics? [00:02:04] Ella: So genetics is specifically the study of genes in the genome, and genes are part of the instruction manual, that specifically tell the body to produce a certain thing. So, in our insulin example, there is an INS gene, so, which is the gene in the genome or the instruction manual that specifically tells the cells to make insulin and to produce this product. [00:02:30] There are many different genes in our genome, and genetics is the study of all of these. In contrast, genomics is the study of the entire instruction manual altogether, so that includes all of the genes in genetics and also everything else in the manual. So, genetics is limited to the study of these parts of the manual that clearly encode certain proteins or products such as insulin. Genomics is the study of everything all at once, everything under the bathroom sink. So yeah, the confusion I think can arise a lot because historically when we first started looking at DNA and researching genetics, we didn't have the technology to look at the whole genome all at once, and with older sequencing technologies we would focus on particular genes that we knew important for certain diseases. [00:03:19] So in diabetes, for example, they would instead specifically look at the insulin gene and see how does this influence diabetes, rather than looking at the entire instruction manual at once. Nowadays, we do have that technology, and that is what we do here at Genomics England, just use that to look at the entire genome rather than specific subsets of the genome, so specific genes. [00:03:45] We can look at everything in its entirety. So, you can kind of think of genomics as a much broader, more complete study of genetics. [00:03:56] Florence: So speaking of genomic testing, I don't know if you saw, but in the government's 10-year Health Plan that they published last year, they predicted that genomics could play a role in up to 50% of healthcare interactions. [00:04:08] Could you tell me a bit about why genomics is important in healthcare? [00:04:12] Ella: So that's a really exciting point, and I think one that we should be all striving towards. So, genomics can play a role in healthcare in so many different ways. I think before going into each of them, it's kind of maybe important just to illustrate that our genomes between two, two people are 99.9% the same. [00:04:38] So we're both humans. We are both the same species. There is 0.1% difference between two people's genomes, and those differences underlie all the uniqueness that makes a person a unique individual. [00:04:54] So personality, appearance and also risk to different health and disease outcomes. So that is where the role of genomics can come in, is to understand how the differences between people and their genetic makeup can influence maybe their risk for being more predisposed to developing a condition. Conditions such as Cystic Fibrosis or Huntington's disease that are specifically caused by genetic variants or mutations in genes that directly cause the condition. So it's a bit more maybe obvious, if you like, about how studying genetics in those, in those conditions can directly inform on how they arise, potential ways that we can better treat them. [00:05:52] So another way that genomics can be used in healthcare is through screening. So this is being piloted at the moment in the Generation Study by Genomics England which is applying whole genome sequencing to newborn babies to look for a range of conditions which are caused by genetic changes, all of which are treatable. [00:06:13] But importantly, screening will enable clinicians and families to know about these conditions much earlier and start life-changing treatment much, much sooner. So this is kind of already beginning to be, I think it will be showcased with this study in the next couple of years and the power of this in healthcare, I think can't really be overestimated. [00:06:40] Florence: And finally, just to finish off, is there anything coming up in the field of genomics that you're especially excited about? [00:06:48] Ella: There are loads of different things that I'm excited about in the field of genomics. I think probably maybe one that's most kind of relevant to clinical care is the possibility of doing more personalised medicine with treatments. [00:07:05] Often, at the moment, we majority have kind of one treatment for all when treating certain conditions, and sometimes these treatments aren't tolerated well by some people, and also some of these treatments just don't work well in some people as well. Sometimes there's a clear reason for these things, but more often than not, it's not entirely clear why some people might benefit more for some treatments or some people don't respond or don't react well to some treatments as well. [00:07:35] And understanding more, so there's a whole field about how genomics interacts with drugs and medicines, which is called pharmacogenomics, and its aim is to understand which medicine might be most effective or well-tolerated in certain people based on their genetics. And I think that will be kind of life-changing as well for some people, who are suffering from diseases where the medication is either not effective enough or is also affecting their quality of life. [00:08:10] Florence: Mm-hmm. [00:08:10] Ella: Because that is a whole other part of it as well is that sometimes these treatments for certain conditions are really hard to tolerate. [00:08:19] Other things that I'm excited about are just the technologies that are coming out at the moment mean that we can measure and understand a whole lot more about genomics than we used to be. So now we can say this gene is influencing this disease, but sometimes, you know, it's more complicated, and we now have the technology to measure all sorts of different things, so how our environment can influence our genes and how our genes react with each other. [00:08:57] So we're just getting, we're getting able to look at more and more, and I think we'll expand our understanding in a lot of conditions that unfortunately aren't very simple. [00:09:12] Florence: Well, I think we'll finish there. Thank you so much, Ella, for coming on and for taking the time to explain genomics to us. [00:09:18] Ella: Thank you, Florence. Thanks so much for inviting me, and it was a pleasure to be on the podcast today. [00:09:23] Florence: If you want to hear more explainer episodes like this, you can find them on our website at www.genomicsengland.co.uk or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening.

Brad Power spent years advising major corporations on systems design, process engineering, and decision making before lymphoma shoved him into the patient side of American healthcare. Instead of accepting the experience at face value, he started reverse engineering the machinery around cancer itself. Brad is the founder of Cancer Patient Lab and Open Cancer AI, two projects built around a blunt reality most patients discover too late: the healthcare system rewards people who know how to navigate it. Everyone else risks getting steamrolled by information asymmetry, insurance barriers, administrative friction, and institutional incentives designed around efficiency instead of human survival.The conversation starts with Harvard Business Review and Tumblr blogs before moving directly into the darker architecture underneath modern cancer care. Power explains how hospitals optimize for throughput, how insurance companies reward operational consistency over personalized medicine, and why many patients quietly end up needing a crash course in oncology, reimbursement policy, and behavioral psychology while fighting for their lives.The discussion digs into CAR-T therapy, functional testing, AI assisted decision support, and the growing collision between personalized medicine and standardized care pathways. Power argues that engaged patients often get better outcomes because they learn how to push for off guideline treatments, contest denials, and ask smarter questions. The counterpoint lands hard: patients should never have needed to become experts in the first place.The episode also explores the cultural consequences of AI entering cancer care. OpenAI advertising, data privacy, trust erosion, pharmaceutical influence, and “agentic AI” all collide inside a healthcare economy already drowning in distrust. Power sees artificial intelligence as a force multiplier for patient literacy and access. The larger system still decides who gets approved, who gets delayed, and who gets left behind.By the end, the conversation lands exactly where modern healthcare keeps forcing people to land: survival increasingly depends on learning how the machine works before the machine works on you.RELATED LINKSBrad PowerCancer Patient LabOpen Cancer AIHarvard Business ReviewResearch to the PeopleCAR T Cell TherapyFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Pete Fennessy has spent more than fifty years involved in science, genetics and livestock production, helping shape many of the ideas that transformed New Zealand's sheep and deer industries. Pete spent two decades at Invermay before becoming General Manager of AgResearch's Sheep, Deer and Equine Division, later founding AbacusBio alongside a group of colleagues and helping build it into an internationally recognised consultancy. More recently, his focus has turned to new challenges facing NZ agriculture, including methane, meat and the future direction of livestock production.In this episode, Pete chats with Mark about the people, ideas and turning points that drove decades of productivity gains. Head Shepherd is brought to you by neXtgen Agri International Limited. We help livestock farmers get the most out of the genetics they farm with. Get in touch with us if you would like to hear more about how we can help you do what you do best: info@nextgenagri.com.Thanks to our sponsors at MSD Animal Health and Allflex, Heiniger Australia and New Zealand, and ProWay Livestock Equipment. Please consider them when making product choices, as they are instrumental in enabling us to bring you this podcast each week.Check out the MSD range HERECheck out Allflex products HERECheck out Heiniger's product range HERECheck out ProWay's product range HERE

By the time the paper hit version 71, Dr. Nirosha Murugan had already done the hard part. The data were real. The experiment had worked. A team of researchers had used a wearable bioreactor to trigger limb regeneration in frogs, a result with obvious implications for regenerative medicine. But the science still wasn't getting over the line. The problem wasn't the work. It was the translation.On this episode of Standard Deviation, host Oliver Bogler talks with Dr. Nirosha Murugan, a biophysicist and Tier II Canada Research Chair in Tissue Biophysics at Wilfrid Laurier University, about what happens when a scientist working at the edges of quantum biology, bioelectricity, and tissue regeneration runs headfirst into the unwritten rules of academic publishing. Murugan's research asks biologists to think beyond molecules and chemistry alone, and to consider the physical signals, electromagnetic fields, and invisible forces that shape development and healing. It is ambitious science. It is also exactly the kind of work that can make gatekeepers nervous.Bogler follows Murugan through the less glamorous part of discovery: the hidden curriculum of getting a paper published, securing scientific credibility, and learning that data do not simply “speak for themselves.” Murugan describes how jargon buried the pitch of her own work, how a lack of editorial support left her at a disadvantage, and how the JEDI program at the Life Science Editors Foundation paired her with a former journal editor who taught her how to structure a manuscript, write a cover letter, and survive peer review.The result was publication in Science Advances, but the larger story is about power. Who gets taught the rules of biomedical research. Who has access to grant writers, editors, and institutional polish. Who is left to brute-force their way through the maze. And how one scientist, having finally found the map, now makes sure her own trainees do not have to learn it the hard way.RELATED LINKSDr. Nirosha Murugan⁠Wilfrid Laurier University⁠Life Science Editors Foundation⁠JEDI Program⁠Science Advances paper on limb regeneration⁠FEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Molecular biology is more than a set of techniques. It is a toolkit for asking better questions. In this special crossover episode of Speaking of Mol Bio, Steve Lewis welcomes Jordan Ruggieri, Senior Marketing Manager at Thermo Fisher Scientific and co-host of the Absolute Gene-ius podcast. Jordan shares how Absolute Gene-ius began with a focus on digital PCR and evolved into a broader celebration of molecular genetics, genomics, and the scientists using diverse tools across multiple research areas. From endpoint PCR and qPCR to digital PCR, sequencing, sample prep, and downstream analysis, the conversation highlights how different technologies work together to help researchers move from sample to answer. Jordan also reflects on memorable podcast stories, including Antarctic microbial research, transplant science, lab mishaps, and the ways PCR-enabled discoveries can have real-world human impact. The episode also explores themes that run through many scientific careers: curiosity, grit, mentorship, failure, and openness to unexpected opportunities. Jordan shares his own path from aspiring dentist to R&D scientist, marketer, and podcast host, while offering early-career scientists practical advice: stay open, keep learning, and make time for hobbies and life outside the lab. Subscribe to get future episodes as they drop and if you like what you're hearing we hope you'll share a review or recommend the series to a colleague.  Visit the Invitrogen School of Molecular Biology to access helpful molecular biology resources and educational content, and please share this resource with anyone you know working in molecular biology. For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.

Dr. Jess Peatross trained in conventional medicine and worked as a hospitalist before she started questioning why so many chronically ill patients kept getting worse inside the healthcare system she trusted. Her perspective carries weight because she spent years following every protocol exactly as taught before walking away from hospital medicine entirely.Raised in Huntington, West Virginia during the opioid crisis, she entered medicine believing the system existed to heal people. Instead, she found hospitals driven by billing codes, liability management, and pharmaceutical dependence while patients with chronic illness, autoimmune disease, mold exposure, and chronic pain cycled endlessly through appointments and prescriptions.Dr. Peatross explains what pushed her toward functional medicine, cannabis therapy, and prevention focused care after watching patients improve only after leaving conventional treatment pipelines behind. The conversation tackles physician burnout, chronic illness stigma, healthcare incentives, and the growing collapse of trust between patients and institutions.The discussion also moves into supplements, environmental toxins, ultra processed food, and the uncomfortable economics behind keeping people permanently sick but continuously billable. Dr. Peatross describes the professional backlash that comes with challenging medical orthodoxy while Matthew connects her experience to the broader erosion of public trust across American healthcare.Together they unpack what happens when patients stop believing the system can help them and start searching elsewhere for answers.RELATED LINKSDr. Jess PeatrossInstagramMarshall UniversityBrave New WeedFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, Joanne Armstrong, MD, Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, Women's Health and Genomics, CVS Health, discusses how CVS Health is improving access, affordability, and personalized care for women through innovative care delivery models, data-driven strategies, and benefits designed to meet women's evolving health needs.

"Your doctor doesn't live inside your body. AI doesn't live in your body. Influencers don't live in your body. Only you live there."What if the future of medicine isn't about treating disease, but empowering people to take ownership of their health long before illness appears?In this compelling conversation, Dr. Lara Varden sits down with renowned physician, author, and longevity expert Dr. Erika Schwartz to discuss a lifetime spent challenging conventional medicine and advocating for personalized, preventive healthcare.Dr. Schwartz is a board-certified internist, entrepreneur, best-selling author, and nationally recognized leader in hormone health and longevity medicine. For more than three decades, she has championed personalized, preventive care — long before it became mainstream. She is the founder of Evolved Science and ESHealth, where she has been a pioneer in the use of bioidentical hormone therapy, focusing on restoring vitality, optimizing healthspan, and redefining how we approach aging. Dr. Schwartz has authored eight best-selling books, including The Hormone Solution and The Intimacy Solution, helping bring conversations about hormone balance and quality of life into the medical mainstream. Her work has appeared in major publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Vogue, Town & Country, and The New York Post, and she is a frequent media contributor across television and international podcasts. She is also a distinguished faculty member of A4M — the world's leading longevity and functional medicine organization — where she hosts the widely followed Redefining Medicine podcast. Drawing from more than 40 years of clinical experience, Dr. Schwartz shares her journey from emergency medicine physician to one of the earliest pioneers of hormone optimization, functional medicine, and healthy aging. She explores why modern healthcare often focuses on disease instead of wellness, the truth about hormone replacement therapy, the importance of patient empowerment, and how genetics can help personalize health decisions.Tune in and realize how longevity isn't just about living longer, it's about living better.If you wish to learn more from Dr. Erika Schwartz, you can do so through the following links:Visit her website for Evolved Science at https://www.eshealth.com/Instagram: @eshealth and @drerikaschwartzFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/evolvedscience/______________________________________________________Keep yourself up to date on The DNA Talks Podcast! Follow our socials below:The DNA Talks Podcast Instagram: @dnatalkspodcastThe DNA Company Instagram: @thednacoThe DNA Company's Official Tiktok Account: @thednaco3Medical Disclaimer:  The information provided in this communication is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read here. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or 911 immediately.

Misha Glenny and guests discuss the earliest evidence we have of the existence of trees and how even plants we might have on windowsills or as vegetables in gardens can and do, in the right conditions, evolve into trees. Since their emergence around 400 million years ago after low lying plants started to develop stronger stems and grow taller and more upright, trees have transformed our planet, so creating ecosystems, altering the atmosphere and setting the stage for the world as we know it today. With Jenny McElwain 1711 Chair of Botany at Trinity College Dublin and Director of Trinity Botanic GardensChristopher Berry Senior Lecturer in Earth and Environmental Sciences at Cardiff UniversityAndBill Baker Senior Researcher at the Royal Botanic Gardens, KewProduced by Conor GarrettReading list:David Beerling: The Emerald Planet: How Plants Changed Earth's History (Oxford University Press, 2008)C.M. Berry, ‘Palaeobotany: The Rise of the Earth's Early Forests' (Current Biology 29, 2019)Christopher M. Berry and John E.A. Marshall, ‘Lycopsid forests in the early Late Devonian paleoequatorial zone of Svalbard' (Geology 43:12, 2015)N.S. Davies, W.J. McMahon and C.M. Berry, ‘Earth's earliest forest: fossilized trees and vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from the Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Hangman Sandstone Formation, Somerset and Devon, SW England' (J. Geol. Soc. 181, 2024)P. Geisen and C.M. Berry, ‘Reconstruction and Growth of the Early Tree Calamophyton (Pseudosporochnales, Cladoxylopsida) Based on Exceptionally Complete Specimens from Lindlar, Germany (Mid-Devonian): Organic Connection of Calamophyton Branches and Duisbergia Trunks' (International Journal of Plant Sciences 174 (4), 2013) A. Groover and Q. Cronk (eds), Comparative and Evolutionary Genomics of Angiosperm Trees: Plant Genetics and Genomics (Crops and Models, vol 21. Springer, 2017), especially ‘The Evolution of Angiosperm Trees: From Palaeobotany to Genomics' by Q.C.B. Cronk and F. ForestJennifer McElwain, Marlene Hill Donnelly, and Ian Glasspool, Tropical Arctic: Lost Plants, Future Climates, and the Discovery of Ancient Greenland (University of Chicago Press, 2021)Harriet Rix, The Genius of Trees: How Trees Mastered the Elements and Shaped the World (Vintage, 2026)W.E. Stein et al., ‘Mid-Devonian Archaeopteris roots signal revolutionary change in earliest fossil forests' (Current biology, 30:3, 2020) pp.421-431William E. Stein, Christopher Mark Berry, Linda VanAller Hernick and Frank Mannolini ‘Surprisingly complex community discovered in the mid-Devonian fossil forest at Gilboa' (Nature 483, 7387, 2012) Max Telford, The Tree of Life: Solving Science's Greatest Puzzle (John Murray, 2026)K.J. Willis, J.C. McElwain, The Evolution of Plants (Oxford University Press, 2014)James Woodford, The Wollemi Pine: The Incredible Discovery of a Living Fossil from the Age of the Dinosaurs (The Text Publishing Company, 2005)Alexandre R. Zuntini et al, ‘Phylogenomics and the rise of the angiosperms' (Nature vol. 629, April 2024) Spanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Misha Glenny and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.

Jeremy Lipkowitz has degrees in Genetics and Genomics. After overcoming addiction and depression through meditation in his early twenties, he left academia and his PhD Program at Duke University to help others find similar breakthroughs.   Jeremy's journey led him to spend time as a Buddhist monk in Asia, deepening his understanding of mindfulness and inner freedom. His work focuses on helping high-achieving men break free from destructive patterns like porn and sex addiction to build lives of purpose, discipline, and fulfillment.   0.00:    Introduction 3.00:    How Buddhist Philosophy changed Jeremy's life 13.00:  Why it's a fools errand to think that a singular outcome will lead to true happiness 17.00:  The philosophy of Buddhism 21.00:  The difficulty and benefits of a 10 day silent retreat 27.00:  The Bliss of Blamelessness 32.00:  The misconceptions of Buddhism 39.00:  How to enjoy your life according to the seasons 45.00:  Why a disciplined mind brings happiness 49.00:  Overcoming Porn Addiction and the erosion of dopamine 57.00:  The difficulties of dating in the West 1.03.00:  How to get through tough periods through having positive habits 1.07.00:  Importance of communities and connection through recovery   1.12.00:  The amazing quality of life in Thailand 1.22.00:  Contact Jeremy on his podcast   Follow Jeremy on IG: @jeremylipkowitz Podcast: Unhooked (on all major platforms)   Until next time, love and good vibes.  Podcast Website: https://enterthelionheart.com/ Check out the latest episode here: Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/enter-the-lionheart/id1554904704 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4tD7VvMUvnOgChoNYShbcI

Farla Efros is a senior retail executive and former CEO who built and sold companies before facing her own breast cancer diagnosis. She brings that same operational mindset into a healthcare system that expects patients to manage complexity while they are at their most vulnerable.She was on a client call in Spain when the diagnosis came through. A clear mammogram had missed it. An MRI caught it. Within hours, she was ordering binders, building a plan, and structuring her treatment like a turnaround strategy. Every appointment became a meeting. Every doctor faced an agenda with dozens of questions. She paid out of pocket for PET scans that were denied and hired a third party firm to validate her treatment path when her own doctors resisted outside input. The conversation tracks what happens when a high-functioning executive enters a system built on delay, denial, and fragmentation. Efros describes negotiating for tests, managing physician relationships, and assembling an “executive board” of advisors across conventional and alternative care. She calls the experience “the worst client I ever had,” exposing how administrative burden shifts onto patients and families.The tension sits between what worked for her and what is inaccessible to most. Her approach requires confidence, time, and fluency in navigating power. The system rewards that behavior while quietly failing patients who cannot replicate it. Insurance coverage still left her paying out of pocket. Doctors pushed standard protocols over precision medicine. Survivorship offered little support once treatment ended.This episode examines how cancer care operates as a series of incentives rather than a coordinated system, and why patients are forced to become operators just to get through it.RELATED LINKSFarla EfrosFarla Efros on LinkedInF*ck CancerF*ck Cancer on AmazonAccentureCTOAMPULL QUOTES“I treated cancer like the worst client I ever had.”“They wouldn't approve the test, so I paid for it myself.”“Every appointment was a negotiation.”FEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sure, you can ask it for a recipe or ideas for a themed birthday party. But in lieu of a healthcare provider, maybe that's when we should draw the line with turning to AI. A recent survey from the Canadian Medical Association found that 97% of doctors had to either step in or address consequences after patients followed healthcare advice from an online forum or AI. Host Maria Kestane speaks to Ma'n H. Zawati, an associate professor at McGill University and the Research Director of the Centre of Genomics and Policy to discuss just how far we should let artificial intelligence run through our healthcare system, and how Canadians can stay informed while searching for timely medical advice. We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:Through email at hello@thebigstorypodcast.ca Or @thebigstory.bsky.social on Bluesky

In this episode, Michel Mommejat, President of A.D.A.M. Innovations, shares how genomics and AI are transforming healthcare from reactive treatment to preventative wellcare. Recorded in Tokyo, this conversation explores what your DNA can reveal as a biological blueprint, why Japan serves as the world's laboratory for healthy aging, and how combining genetic data with biomarkers and lifestyle information creates a dynamic, personalized health ecosystem. Michel also discusses the ethical frameworks needed to protect the most sensitive data that exists, the concept of Artificial General Gene Intelligence, and practical applications like pharmacogenomics that are already changing how we think about medication. Tune in for a visionary conversation on the future of health and longevity.

A daily low dose of aspirin could significantly reduce the risk of bowel cancer in people with Lynch syndrome, an inherited condition that increases the likelihood of developing certain cancers.   In this episode, we explore the findings from the landmark CaPP3 trial, hear from a participant living with Lynch syndrome, and discuss how genomics could help shift healthcare from treatment to prevention.  Our host, Sharon Jones is joined by:  Dr Katie Snape, Principal Clinician for Population Health at Genomics England  Professor Sir John Burn, Professor of Clinical Genetics at Newcastle University  Drew Hyde, participant in the Cancer Prevention Programme (CaPP3)  Links:  Listen to: How can genomics help us understand cancer?  "I think knowing is always a good thing. And obviously, I wish I'd known earlier, and then, I could have taken more measures earlier on. So I think knowledge is definitely a good thing. And it would be great if more people could be tested or could find out if they were carriers at an early age, I think."  You can download the transcript or read it below. [00:00:00] Sharon: Welcome to Behind the Genes. In today's episode, we'll explore the research which shows how a low dose of aspirin can halve the risk of bowel cancer in people with Lynch syndrome. We'll hear about the real-life impact of living with the condition, and look at how genomics can help shape a more preventative approach to care in the future. [00:00:20] I'm Sharon Jones, and to help us unpack all of that, I'm joined by our guests, Dr. Katie Snape, principal clinician for population health at Genomics England; Sir John Burn, professor of clinical genetics at Newcastle University; and Drew Hyde, a participant in the Cancer Prevention Programme, which is also known as the CaPP3 trial. [00:00:42] So to start with the basics, Katie, can you walk us through what cancer is in simple terms? [00:00:50] Katie: Sure, Sharon. So, our body is made up of cells. Those are the building blocks that, that make us as humans and other creatures and plants. And our cells need to keep dividing throughout our lifetime as our bodies are growing and working normally. [00:01:06] And so we need to have processes in place in our body where our cells can divide, but then also stop dividing when we don't need them to carry on dividing. What happens in a cancer cell is basically that cell becomes abnormal, and it doesn't follow the normal checks and balances and rules of cell division. [00:01:23] So it starts to divide and grow uncontrollably, and it can start to invade other tissues and obviously, that can cause serious consequences. [00:01:33] Sharon: We'll hear a lot more from Dr. Katie Snape in this episode. But before we move on, I just wanted to flag that there was an episode of our Genomics 101 explainer series with Katie dedicated to helping us get to grips with how genomics can help us understand and diagnose cancer. [00:01:47] Do go and check that out. We'll put a link to that in the episode description. [00:01:54] So the World Health Organization estimates between 30 to 50% of all cancers are preventable. So, Katie, when we talk about cancer being preventable, what does that actually mean? And what's an example of cancer prevention that people might already know? [00:02:11] Katie: Yeah. So some cancers are due to chance or just mistakes happening as our cells copy. [00:02:19] Other cancers are because there has been damage to the genetic information within the cell that can be caused by certain things that can cause damage to DNA. So for example, a sort of obvious answer would be skin cancer. Skin cancers can be caused by sunlight, the, the UV light in the sun, and particularly if we burn our skin or, or get sun damage to our skin, increases the chance of us developing a skin cancer. [00:02:44] So you can think of lots of other examples such as cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and so we know that there are a number of different risk factors that increase the chance of our cells developing damage and becoming abnormal cells and growing uncontrollably. So when we talk about prevention, we might think, well, could we reduce some of those risk factors and therefore reduce the chance of those cells getting damaged and becoming cancer cells? [00:03:10] So I gave the example of skin cancer. We might put sun cream on if we're going out in the midday sun, for example. That reduces the damage of the UV light onto our skin cells. Or we might help people to go into a smoking prevention programme or, you know, other risk factors, such as we know that being very overweight can increase the chance of cancer. [00:03:31] We might help people get into more exercise regimes or improve people's diets. So those are the sorts of things that we might do sort of for environmental risk factors. But we also know, particularly in this context, that sometimes people are born, they carry genetic changes within their cells that they're born with, that are inherited, that run through families, and those can also increase the chance of some cancers developing. [00:03:56] And for those people at higher genetic risk, then we might look to other ways that we might reduce that risk. We can't change the genetic changes in their cells, but we might be able to put things in place to reduce the risk for those individuals, and that might be medication, it might be surgery, or there could be other things that we might be able to offer. [00:04:15] Sharon: Yeah, and with that in mind, is there anything more, you know, that you can share about some of those risk factors that someone is more likely to develop cancer? [00:04:25] Katie: Yeah. So actually, the, the biggest risk factor for developing cancer is age. The older we get, the more times our cells have divided, the more chance there is of a copying mistake that, that, that can cause that cell to become abnormal and start growing uncontrollably. [00:04:41] And that's why cancer becomes more common the older we get. We obviously can't change our aging process. Then, as I've said, sometimes we're born with certain specific inherited factors that increase the risk. That might be one big high-risk genetic factor, such as having a cancer gene that's important for, for that process of cell division that isn't working properly. [00:05:04] Or it could be that we have multiple lower genetic risk factors that can kind of add up together to increase the risk. And those often interplay with some of those environmental factors that we've talked about, like smoking, for example, or weight, or alcohol or other things like that. So most cancers are due to aging, and then there's a sort of interplay of genetic factors, but environmental factors as well. [00:05:30] Sharon: That's really interesting to understand. And the focus of this podcast is sort of looking at kind of Lynch syndrome and what findings have come out around aspirin and having a low dose of aspirin. So I want to kind of explore what Lynch syndrome is and, and then bring in Drew to talk about his experience of having Lynch syndrome and how he got involved in the trials themselves. [00:05:49] So from what I understand, Lynch syndrome is a genetic condition that can make some people more likely to have the chances of developing into bowel cancer. And Drew, this is your opportunity to sort of talk about what that's been like living with Lynch syndrome. And, you know, I'd like to understand more about your story and how it came about that you discovered that you had Lynch syndrome, and to share with our listeners your journey. [00:06:13] Drew: Yep. So in my case, I discovered I had the colon cancer before I discovered I was a Lynch syndrome carrier Basically, at the age of 50, I noticed some change in my health. You know, I was becoming a little bit more tired. My bowel movements had changed or whatever. So, I went to the GP and the GP basically said, "Well, you're probably too young for cancer, so let's look at other alternatives." [00:06:37] And I had blood tests and I had low iron, so I was on iron tablets for three months and whatever. Then eventually I went back and finally the GP said, "Well, let's try a colonoscopy." And the colonoscopy revealed that I did actually have colon cancer. And then very quickly I had surgery and, uh, then following that, I kind of asked the question, "Well, why me?" [00:06:59] You know, I'm only 50, 51. Yeah. You know, why me? [00:07:02] Drew: And basically, I was told, "Well, it's probably genetics." And then I was referred to, you know, St George's and Katie and I had the test and discovered that I was actually a Lynch syndrome carrier, and that's why, you know, I'd got the colon cancer at the age of 50, so. [00:07:17] Sharon: I mean, that's quite a journey. I mean, how did you feel when you're already on one pathway and then having to kind of find out more, you know, what was your experiences? What was the impact on your life? How did you, how did you feel? [00:07:27] Drew: I think I was lucky in that I had a very good surgeon. I had surgery very quickly, so that was the first hurdle. [00:07:32] Then I had to go on to chemotherapy, and the chemotherapy obviously is far worse than any surgery or anything else that comes before or after. But having got through that, then I went through the St George's onto the Lynch syndrome system. So, the most important thing then really was to basically identify what that meant for me, but also because it was an inherited characteristic, what it meant for my family. [00:07:57] One thing that was interesting, and I say, you know, the, the GP was saying, "Well, you're too young to have cancer," is that there wasn't any history of cancer in my family, you know, looking at older relatives. So, you know, to be fair to the GP, that wasn't an obvious marker. So basically, yeah, it was let's, you know, find out what it means now going forward. [00:08:21] Sharon: So, can you just take us back to when you were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome? What sort of guidance were you given at the time about managing your cancer risk? [00:08:30] Drew: Well, following the surgery, I was given various statistics which were fairly grim on what your percentage survival rate were in three years, five years, 10 years based on the surgery, whatever. [00:08:39] And that was kind of a bit harrowing. But, you know, assuming I'd get through five years, I felt it was, my chances were quite good. As for myself living with, living with Lynch syndrome, that, you know, I was aware that having had the colon cancer, I then had increased risk of other cancers. So since then, I've been on a screening programme, and I have colonoscopies or gastroscopies every year or two years. [00:09:04] So that's been very good. So, I believe now that if any other cancers were to appear, I would probably know very early on because they would be detected through a screening process before they got to a point where they would be, you know, maybe too difficult to resolve, so. So that's-- I think the screening programme, has been very, very good. [00:09:23] The main issue for me was what it meant for my family, being a genetic thing. So very quickly, my children, who were teenagers at the time, were both tested, and they went through some counselling with Katie beforehand, you know, about what it would mean for them to get a positive or negative result. [00:09:42] Unfortunately, my daughter was tested as negative, but my son was tested as positive, so he's now on the same cancer screening programme, and has colonoscopies every two years. So yeah. The mystery really, though, is where I inherited it from because my father died when I was very young. My mother was in a care home at the time, and I wanted to get her tested. [00:10:07] And at the time, her GP wouldn't test her on the basis that she was unable to give consent. But fortunately, I had power of attorney, and we could persuade him to do the test. But she tested negative. So I'm assuming I inherited it from my father's side. But most of my grandparents on that side of the family lived into their nineties without any apparent cancers. [00:10:32] So it's still a bit of a mystery how I inherited it, but what was important for me was to know which side of the family I'd inherited it from because obviously with cousins and whatever on different sides of the family, I wanted to be able to tell them what the situation was. My brother also tested negative, which was a positive. [00:10:54] So at the moment, it's just my son and I that have the defective gene. [00:10:59] Sharon: I'm sorry to hear that about your son, but does it- [00:11:01] Drew: Well, well, I mean, he, you know, he has to go through a colonoscopy every couple of years, which, you know, obviously is not a pleasant experience. But at least he knows that, you know, the first sign of any problem, the medics will be aware of it, and he'll be able to react. [00:11:16] Sharon: Has it changed your outlook on life, having this window in possibly knowing stuff or not knowing stuff? How has that affected you and, and your son as well? [00:11:25] Drew: I think knowing is always a good thing. And obviously, I wish I'd known earlier, and then, I could have taken more measures earlier on. So, I think knowledge is definitely a good thing. And it would be great if more people could be tested or could find out if they were carriers at an early age, I think. [00:11:42] Sharon: Yeah. That is really important. And moving into about the trial more broadly, scientists have known that there's been a link between cancer and aspirin for some time, with fewer cancers observed in people who take aspirin. So coming to you, John, could you share a bit more about the history of inherited cancer research and how the focus of Lynch Syndrome came about? [00:12:02] Because this isn't new, is it? [00:12:06] John: No, absolutely, Sharon. And in fact, this story, my story in this space begins 40 years ago when I was one of the geneticists who set out to try and find the genes that we've just been talking about. At that time, the group of patients who were the most obvious to begin with were young people with a condition called familial adenomatous polyposis, or FAP for short. [00:12:26] And they'd get thousands of polyps in their bowel, and the only way to treat that was to actually remove the whole bowel when they reached adulthood, which is a fairly extreme intervention. And I was running, I was setting up a registry. We were trying to find the gene at that time, and we'd just found it, in fact, but we also were trying to find all the families. [00:12:44] And I'd taken over responsibility for all the genetic services in the north of England, in the North East and Cumbria. And we'd, I'd started identifying families with FAP, and we went to visit one of those families, and this was the kind of light bulb moment for me because I walked into the room and mum had had her colon removed, and her son, Jonathan, had just had his first colonoscopy at the age of 12, and it was clear. [00:13:07] And I was about to give them the good news, but as I walked in, I noticed that he had little bumps on his forehead called osteomas, little bony bumps. His mother had them just the same, and it was one of the features of this condition. So I knew he had the gene even though he hadn't yet got the polyps. [00:13:21] Sharon: Wow. [00:13:22] John: And it made me think, wouldn't it be nice if we could do something to prevent these things happening rather than just waiting for an operation? And as it happened at the time, I was leading the English end of a big study, which you'll probably be aware of, which we're, we're, we were doing the vitamin study on women with spina bifida babies, and we were just about to identify folic acid as a way of preventing spina bifida in pregnant women. [00:13:45] So I had these two thoughts in my head. Maybe we could set up a trial like this folic acid trial, and then one of my friends in Edinburgh said, 'Have you seen this paper from Melbourne?' Gabriel Kuhn had just done a big study looking at people with colon cancer. It seemed that people who took a lot of aspirin didn't seem to get as much bowel cancer in Melbourne as those who didn't. So that was the design set up. [00:14:08] We were applying to Europe for a concerted action, so we had to think of an acronym that began with CA. So I, I came up with Concerted Action Polyp Prevention. But then in 1993, just as we started that trial, we were involved in finding the first of the genes for Lynch syndrome. We had a big family in Northumberland where there were lots of people like Drew's family, and there were three generations of cancer in the family. [00:14:31] So CaPP2 was immediately born in my head. In 1999, we had our first recruit, and we recruited until 2005. We found, in total, 1,000 people in 16 countries to join in, and we gave them two aspirins a day or two dummy tablets. Two aspirins is quite a big dose, but back in my day when I was a junior doctor, we used to give many more tablets of aspirin to people with arthritis. [00:14:57] So two tablets wasn't such a big deal. Nowadays, it's seen as a very high dose. And it worked. Basically, to cut to the chase, when we looked in 2010, the people who were getting the aspirin were getting less bowel cancers. In fact, it was a 50% reduction. So the people who took two aspirins had half as many bowel cancers and fewer cancers of other types as well. [00:15:19] We realised, although, at this point, immediately we saw that it was working, we knew we'd need to do another trial to see whether a smaller dose of aspirin would be just as effective. So CaPP3 began, and the great news is that what we'll be reporting in the journals in the next few days when it gets published, is that the people who were taking  CaPP3 aspirin in any dose were tracking exactly the same as the 600-milligram group in CaPP2. [00:15:46] So we're pretty sure that it works. We're pretty sure that the small dose is just as good. And the great news was that we had fewer side effects in that group. And so in fact, no one had to go to hospital for a transfusion or anything, you know, like that. Whereas in the 600-milligram group, we had a few people who needed treatment because, as you know, and everyone knows, if you take aspirin, there's a higher chance of having an ulcer that causes a bleed. [00:16:10] And that was always the anxiety. But people like Drew were courageous enough to take the chance because they knew we needed to know the answer to this. And of course, when you compare it to the risk of getting cancer, taking an aspirin is a relatively small risk. [00:16:26] Sharon: So, what were your kind of considerations when you were designing the trial, having that knowledge? [00:16:32] John: Well, the first thing is it has to be fully informed consent, which means that you have to explain to people what that risk is. The important thing about aspirin is that doctors have a much worse opinion of it than it deserves because if you work in a hospital, you'll often see people coming in who've had a bleed. [00:16:48] It's not always caused by the aspirin. The thing is, if you're coming with a bleed and you're on aspirin, everyone blames the aspirin. Right. About half of them would've happened anyway. In fact, the, the irritation of the stomach is much more of a problem in older people So in fact, the average age of the people in CaPP2 and CaPP3 was about 45, 46 when they started. [00:17:08] Drew was a little bit older, but, but people in that sort of middle age group are much, much less likely to get into trouble than people in their 70s and 80s. And it's people also who've had a history of ulcers that have a bigger problem. We also knew that if you had a stomach infection called H. Pylori, which is itself a risk factor for cancer, and about one in six people carry that bug, and we knew that if we fixed that with antibiotics, that would significantly reduce the risk of bleeding as well. [00:17:37] So it was a manageable risk. It was something we could share with people. They knew they were taking a bit of a chance. But actually a good way of putting it in terms of the risk, for people in middle age, the risk of a low dose of aspirin is about the same as the risk of having a colonoscopy, which is very small, but it isn't completely without risk. [00:17:56] Sharon: Yeah, and Drew, kind of like hearing this sort of incredible, like, backstory about how we've got to these trials and where we are today What was your experience like as a kind of participant of this trial? [00:18:08] Drew: I understood I was going to be on 100, 300, or 600, but wouldn't know for at least three years, or was it five years? I can't remember. [00:18:15] And then sometime later in the post we got these packs, and it was ... I remember at the time thinking it was like a rather dull advent calendar - ... in that you'd have the days of the week- ... with the little, with the little windows, and you'd, you'd pop the tablets out three times a day and take them. [00:18:31] So I did that. I think, you know, I, I don't think I ever missed a day or whatever. Initially, I thought I must be on a really low dose, because I didn't actually notice any side effects. You know, I remember saying to my wife, I said, "Oh, I think I must be on the lowest dose, because I don't see any side effects." [00:18:46] It was a surprise years later when I was told actually I'd been taking 600, so. [00:18:51] Sharon: Wow. [00:18:52] Drew: It was quite an easy experience really. [00:18:54] John: We had a lot of problems. We had to pack the aspirin in six-month packs, because it was very expensive to pack this stuff up. It cost... We got the aspirin free from the Bayer company, but it cost us more than a million pounds to actually put it in, in the packs to satisfy the regulations. [00:19:10] Uh, and a lot of people complained that the packs were a bit big and awkward, but that was just, you know, a constraint. But it was not that big a deal once people got into it. But we did get a lot of complaints about the size of the packets, which we couldn't do anything about that. [00:19:24] Drew: They came regularly through the post, and, you know, so every three months or whatever I got another supply, and I just carried on taking them. [00:19:30] Yeah, so. [00:19:31] Sharon: What was going through your mind when you were kind of waiting for this potential outcome, Drew? Because you, like you say, it was, you know, it was a long time taking part. What was... Especially as you were opening your, you know, your package a day, knowing exactly what you were going to get. [00:19:44] Drew: Well, I, I kind of knew it would be a long-term thing. [00:19:47] I think I was committed for five years initially. But I carried on taking the aspirin for another probably five years after that. So yeah, I was just sort of happy to take the aspirin and then sort of wait to see what the results would be. As I say, that I didn't really notice any side effects, so I wasn't really worried that it was having any detrimental effect on me. [00:20:09] So I was curious to see what the, what the results would be. [00:20:12] Sharon: Yeah. John, the trial has provided like the evidence that, you know, low-dose aspirin can prevent bowel cancer. But are there any challenges that still exist with translating this research into clinic and ultimately patient care? [00:20:26] John: Well, yes, and I'm going to hand back to Katie, who's actually leading the charge on, on getting it into practice as well. [00:20:32] But just to say that I, I'm actually now literally on my other computer finalising my bid to go back to Cancer Research UK because we want to go for three more years. Wow. We said that we would follow people for 10 years after they'd finished their ... or after they'd started, so, you know, for at least 10 years. [00:20:50] So the last person to join didn't finish until 2024, so we won't get to that person. It's Robin and one of my patients. We won't get to Robin's 10-year anniversary until 2029. Oh, yeah. By which time, obviously, Drew will be even further on. But that will give us at least 10 years of follow-up because we know that there is this delayed effect, and that was seen right back at the beginning when people looked, for example, the nurses study in America, where they followed 86,000 nurses and just asked them if they took aspirin. [00:21:18] And nothing happened for 10 years, but those who were taking aspirin for more than 10 years saw a benefit. So in the general population, it probably takes that long to kick in. And so we need to keep going for just a while longer. It's not as expensive now because we're not giving people aspirin anymore. [00:21:33] Sharon: Yeah. [00:21:34] John: But one of the reasons we g- we made Drew's dose blind was because we wanted to know what the side effects would be when you didn't know how much you were getting There's a danger if you're getting a higher dose, you're more likely to complain. And actually, it did work out that the people on the lowest dose had the fewest side effects, even slight side effects. [00:21:51] The only thing we can't escape from is if you're taking aspirin, you get bruising more easily because it blocks the platelets, which are the little tiny blood cells which plug up little holes in your blood vessels when they leak. The good news is we now know that platelets turn out to be right, a major factor in triggering cancer. [00:22:09] And so the aspirin, by blocking the platelets, is actually reducing the risk of cancer, but also reducing the risk of cancer spreading in the body. So this is new research, and we've got another big research project in collaboration with a team in Cambridge who are, uh, pursuing this. Also, the other exciting news is that my other partner, Ruth Langley, is running a big trial of people with cancer, and those who are given aspirin as part of their treatment have less likelihood of getting spreading cancer later on. [00:22:39] So the aspirin is clearly doing something good at many levels in the system. Surprisingly, and we think it might be partly, partly because we used to have a lot of salicylate in our diet, which is what aspirin's made from. And we think that maybe we're putting back something that the body actually was used to having. [00:22:57] Yeah. But modern diets don't contain any, any salicylate because of the way we prepare our food. So it may well be that a little bit of aspirin's a good thing for everybody, but obviously, that's a choice that each person will have to make. [00:23:09] Sharon: Yeah. I mean, it's a real powerhouse of a, of a drug essentially, which you're finding out more about its benefits as, uh, as research goes on. [00:23:18] So Katie, can you just give us a bit of a broad overview of Genomics England's new adults program, which is kind of looking at this sort of area of work and, and what, how can it benefit people? [00:23:29] Katie: Yeah. Thank you, Sharon. So, the adults programme at Genomics England is being funded by government, and the government wrote about it in the 10-year NHS Health Plan, the Life Science Sector Plan to run a large-scale genomics population study. [00:23:44] So looking at how we can obtain genetic information from people in the population and look at more proactive and preventative healthcare, and can we generate evidence on where, how, and why the NHS should start applying genomics into kind of more population health measures. So, there's sort of two sides to this. [00:24:05] So the first is thinking about pharmacogenomics, which is basically about how genetic factors influence how we respond to drugs. So lots of people have had experiences of having side effects from drugs, we've just been talking about that with aspirin, or for drugs not working so well for them. And we know that there are certain drugs that genetic factors can influence whether you should take the drug at all, or if you do, what dose you should take, whether it's going to work for you or not, whether you might be more likely to get side effects or adverse reactions. [00:24:34] So part of the programme's looking at that. And then the other half of the programme will be looking at sort of is, are the genetic factors relevant for sort of serious and high-risk conditions in the adult population? So we could take bowel cancer as an example of that, a common condition, breast cancer, you know, common cancers or cardiovascular disease. [00:24:58] We know there are certain genetic factors for some people that have significantly increased their chance of developing those serious adult onset conditions. Can we find those people in the population and then put measures in place to prevent that? So, you know, even just thinking about Drew's story, he didn't have a family history of cancer. [00:25:16] The first time that he knew he had Lynch syndrome, he'd already developed bowel cancer. And we know that many people that have Lynch syndrome or other high-risk cancer genes are unaware of their status in the population, and so, um, the idea of this program is to really look at, well, if we were to, to look for some of these very high-risk genes in the general population, could we then put measures in place to reduce the chance of them developing the serious condition as a consequence? [00:25:44] So instead of Drew presenting with his bowel cancer, we'd actually already picked it up, despite the fact he doesn't have a family history, and we'd offered him, let's say, aspirin if we'd known the information at the time, and we could maybe have prevented him from developing bowel cancer. [00:25:58] So it's really exploring looking at that a little bit more. [00:26:02] Where can we get genetic information in the population? Where might there be a really well-evidenced, like all the work John's done over 40 years, is really well-evidenced now. Yeah. Yeah. Where are there these opportunities for us to turn the dial on some of these common adult onset conditions? [00:26:20] Sharon: What other challenges do you think with getting this out there do you see? [00:26:25] Katie: Uh, I think there's, there's lots of challenges. I think it's a really com- ... complex programme of work. The first thing is that the risks might be different for people in a population than have a family history. So where I've worked for, for years, and John as well in, in clinical genetics, we've seen the highest risk people, the people with lots and lots of cancer in their family because they're the people that are presented to healthcare services. So we've worked out the risks based on that population. It will be really different when we move to the population setting. We'll find fewer people, and the risks might be lower because there might be other factors that are giving them a lower risk. But that's not to say the risk is zero. [00:27:05] It's probably still raised. So then what we need to do is we need to consider, okay, well, what can we do to intervene, taking into account this change of context from people that we found through clinical services to people that we see in the population. And aspirin is a great example of this. [00:27:22] So, you know, if we find that someone has a Lynch syndrome gene, then taking aspirin, unless there's a really good reason for them not to take aspirin, is almost certainly going to be low cost to the NHS and really significantly reduce the chance of them developing bowel cancer with a low risk profile. So where are those opportunities? [00:27:41] And that isn't clear cut, and that's why we need a large scale research programme that can try to help the NHS answer some of those questions, so it can decide how best to spend its money in, in the people that are most likely to benefit from it with the least amount of risk or harm to them. [00:27:58] Sharon: That makes sense. And, and so, you know, going to you, Drew, what are your kind of thoughts on some of the challenges that Katie's highlighted? And is there anything else that you think needs to be improved in better supporting people living with inherited risk of cancer in the future? [00:28:14] Drew: In the brief sort of 10, 15 years or whatever since I've been s- suffering, awareness has increased greatly. [00:28:21] I mean, for example, my GP now knows about Lynch syndrome, whereas I don't think she did when I was first diagnosed, and I think there is a little bit more awareness out there, but I still think it's a lot less than there would be for, say, for breast cancer. So for example, when a high-profile personality reveals they've got breast cancer, you often get information about inherited risks. [00:28:44] You don't seem to get that with colon cancer. You know, when it's announced that so-and-so has died or is whatever, you don't get that same, you know, it, it might be a genetic thing. I mean, when I was first told people that I had bowel cancer, the response I got usually was, "Oh, poor diet, was it?" [00:29:04] And I always felt a bit upset, that, you know, actually my diet was fairly healthy. And that was the assumption that people had. So I think anything that gets the message out there that there is a risk, an inherited risk, I'm not sure what the statistics are now, Katie, is it one in 400 people might be a Lynch syndrome carrier or something like that? [00:29:24] You know, it's relatively high for something that is, if you know in advance you're at risk, you can do something about it. But like me, you know, I waited until it was too late, because I didn't know, and then had to have the surgery, so anything that promotes the message that there is a risk. I know some people don't want to know about their genetic makeup. Obviously, that's a choice. But I think to give people, as many people as possible, the choice must be a good thing. [00:29:54] Sharon: Yeah, absolutely. And I think one thing I've noticed through this thread is the sort of theme of funding and what gets funding and the amount of time it takes to, to kind of get that funding. [00:30:05] Is there anything you wanted to add around the kind of funding model, around why some things get funded, you know, uh, more prominent, like Drew's point, obviously, talks about if someone high profile kind of comes forward and says XYZ, that gets the spotlight shone on it, and there might be research going that direction compared to s- to, to other cancers. [00:30:23] John: So maybe I could speak at that. So partly because of my experience, I've now been made chairman of the grant committee at Cancer Research UK for prevention and population research. And there is a real drive to push more resource into prevention for the obvious reasons. [00:30:39] Katie: Yeah. [00:30:39] John: And also, it's got to be remembered, it's very difficult for the drug companies to fund this because it takes such a long time that the drug's- Mm [00:30:46] out of its patent before they actually get to use it. So, it's very difficult from a business point of view to fund research into prevention. But they are keen to help us, uh, but we really need sort of central government and the charities to focus on prevention if it's going to make a difference. [00:31:02] And just on Drew's point on diet, I mean, diet is still important even if you have Lynch syndrome. In our CaPP2 trial, the people who were overweight were more than double the risk of cancer. So it's not like an either/or. If you've got a higher genetic risk and you have a bad diet, then that's, you know, is going to contribute. [00:31:21] But the other exciting thing is, of course, we now have medical ways of treating obesity in, in people. So, one of the interesting areas is whether we should be, in the same way as we are for other high-risk populations with overweight, we should be giving overweight people with Lynch syndrome, help to lose weight because that will also reduce their risk. [00:31:41] It's also worth just dropping in at the last moment here is that this is also a good news story in terms of treatment and further prevention. We now have a new class of drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors, which specifically target the types of cancer that Drew had and are much more effective in curing them And also, we've just been given funding to do a project called LynchVax, which I'll be helping with, but it's led by David Church in Oxford. [00:32:05] And this is developing a vaccine against cancers in people with Lynch syndrome. The great news is it'll probably work alongside aspirin because we know the aspirin is enhancing the immune response. So the two together may make this a curable condition. [00:32:18] Sharon: That's actually incredible. I mean, that, it gives so much hope for people. [00:32:23] And I just wanted to find out if you had any more kind of reflections as we close, because we're going to come to the end of our podcast today. If there's anything more that you wanted to share, anything that has been missed, or anything that you want our listeners to know, and I think I'm gonna come to you, Drew, first, because you're the person who's had to sort of live through this and, and go through this journey along the way. [00:32:41] Drew: I think just basically, if you're not sure, get tested. Obviously, there are financial constraints. I'm sure that running a DNA test is quite an expensive business. But I think if you've got any history of bowel cancer in the family, you've got any concerns about your health, speak to a GP and see if you can get tested as quickly as possible. [00:33:00] And then, to get a better message out there that there are risks of inherited colon and other similar cancers, so. [00:33:11] Sharon: Yeah, so it's getting that, messaging out, um, for people to understand more and make those informed choices. And Katie? [00:33:18] Katie: I mean, I would say that the power of, of our, you know, NHS and our academia and, and our healthcare system has been collaboration. [00:33:26] Sharon: Yeah. [00:33:27] Katie: There's so many moving parts. There's commissioners, there's funding, there's the evidence, there's research, there's healthcare implementation. The UK's a really amazing place to work in genomic medicine, and I think that's partly because of the amazing collaborations that we have, and the way that we can translate research into healthcare as John's team have done with this amazing study. [00:33:48] So let's all keep working together, please. [00:33:52] Sharon: Absolutely. And John, it feels like this is your lifetime's work. [00:33:58] John: Well, I've become aspirin man, it wasn't intended. But Katie's done fantastic work in her role as chair of the Cancer Genetics Group in the UK, so we've now implemented a, [00:34:06] we're the first in the world to really make this an absolute directive to the GPs and all, to all doctors to say, "People with Lynch syndrome need to be offered aspirin." And so that's a great step forward. But we also need to get it into the British National Formulary, and I'm working with their team so that the GPs are empowered to do this. [00:34:24] It's actually part of their care package. But I would just say we've still got a long way to go. We've now got a national list of all the people with Lynch syndrome, like Drew, to make sure we offer them all a colonoscopy, but there are only 14,000 people after several years of really pushing. [00:34:40] Sharon: Right. [00:34:40] John: We think in the national population in all ages, it's about 1 in 300. That's a lot of people. That means there's about 150,000 people like Drew in the country, and we've only found 10% of them. So we can't just rely on family history for all the reasons Drew explained. You know, I mean, Drew's dad probably died of Lynch syndrome, but we don't know because we've lost that record. [00:35:02] So now we're checking every bowel cancer to see if it might be caused by Lynch, and that programme is now kicking in, and we're picking up a lot more gene carriers as a result of that. But there's still a long way to go to get co- get people aware of Lynch syndrome, to think of it when someone presents with a cancer, not just of the bowel, but in the womb, in the kidney, in other parts of the body. [00:35:23] It's not just the bowel, but that's the most important group. [00:35:26] Sharon: Yeah. [00:35:26] John: So there's still a long way to go. [00:35:28] Sharon: Where you've come to now is still an incredible achievement, even though we've still got a long way to go, and I don't think we should ever lose sight of that. So we're going to wrap it up there. Thank you to our guests, Katie Snape, Professor Sir John Burn, and Drew Hyde, for joining me today as we discuss cancer prevention. [00:35:48] If you'd like to hear more like this, please subscribe to Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app, and thank you for listening. I've been your host, Sharon Jones, and Behind the Genes is produced by Deanna Barac, Florence Cornish, Sophie McLachlan, and Dave Howard at Bespoken Media.  

In this JCO PO Article Insights episode, host Carolyn Lineen summarizes the article, "Genomics of MTAP Loss in >500,000 Solid Tumor Specimens Profiled Using Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Platforms" by Dean C. Pavlick and colleagues. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Some genetic variants may help explain why different psychiatric disorders share overlapping biology. In this episode of Speaking of Mol Bio, host Steve Lewis speaks with Jess McAfee, PhD, and Alejandro Gomez from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill about their work studying pleiotropic variants associated with psychiatric disorders. Jess explains how genome-wide association studies can identify regions of the genome linked to disease risk, but often cannot pinpoint which specific variants are functionally important. Her work used massively parallel reporter assays, or MPRAs, to test whether different alleles in non-coding regulatory regions alter gene expression. Alejandro then describes how CRISPRi can help take the next step by targeting those variants in the genome and asking which nearby genes respond. Together, these approaches provide a clearer path from statistical genetic association to functional biological insight. The episode also highlights two early-career scientists whose paths into molecular biology were anything but linear. Jess moved from plant genetics to human genomics, while Alejandro shifted from chemistry and industry into CRISPR-based neuroscience research. Along the way, they reflect on mentorship, lab culture, persistence, AI, and the excitement of working with technologies that are still rapidly evolving. NOTE: This episode may contain general information relating to various medical conditions or their treatment.  This information is provided for informational purposes only and is not meant to be a substitute for advice provided by a doctor or other qualified health care professional.  Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment. Subscribe to get future episodes as they drop and if you like what you're hearing we hope you'll share a review or recommend the series to a colleague.  Visit the Invitrogen School of Molecular Biology to access helpful molecular biology resources and educational content, and please share this resource with anyone you know working in molecular biology. For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.

In 2020, Emily Mendenhall drove from Washington, DC to Okoboji, Iowa, a town of 800 that swells to 200,000 every summer, and walked into a pandemic that looked nothing like the one dominating national headlines. Inside gas stations and bars, masks marked you as an outsider. In one stop, a man told her family they would not be served if they kept theirs on. Her 6 year old daughter cried, confused. Mendenhall, a medical anthropologist at Georgetown University, did what she always does. She started asking questions. Over months, she interviewed neighbors, former classmates, and local officials, including her own brother in law who helped lead the local COVID response. The result became Unmasked, a case study in how community identity, economics, and politics shaped public health decisions in real time. That work led directly into her latest book, Invisible Illness: A History, from Hysteria to Long COVID, where she tracks a much older problem. Patients with chronic illness, especially women, often fail to meet medicine's demand for proof. Without a clear diagnosis, they lose access to care, insurance coverage, and legitimacy. Mendenhall argues that long COVID did not create this failure. It exposed it.This conversation centers on how healthcare systems reward certainty and punish complexity. Long COVID clinics send patients to 17 specialists without resolution. Insurance structures require diagnoses that many conditions cannot provide. Medical training still struggles to integrate trauma, mental health, and chronic disease into a coherent model of care.Mendenhall brings lived experience into the conversation. After COVID, she dealt with months of fatigue and escalating anxiety that altered her baseline health. She does not claim the label of long COVID, but she understands how quickly the system becomes harder to navigate once symptoms stop fitting clean categories. The stakes are not theoretical. In the United States, access to healthcare, disability benefits, and treatment still depends on whether a condition can be measured, coded, and reimbursed. For millions living with invisible illness, the burden of proof becomes the illness itself.RELATED LINKSEmily MendenhallInvisible Illness: A History, from Hysteria to Long COVIDScience PoliticsGeorgetown UniversityFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to MENO — your go-to for perimenopause, menopause, and everything in between. Stop guessing and start sequencing. 30% of women have Bacterial Vaginosis (BV) at any given time, yet standard medical tests only look for a handful of microbes. Priyanka Jain, founder of Evvy, is using whole-genome metagenomic sequencing to close the gender data gap and help women reclaim their vaginal health. From recurrent infections to the hidden link between your microbiome and IVF success, we're decoding the 700+ microbes that dictate your reproductive well-being. IN THIS EPISODE, WE COVER: - The Standard Culture Failure: Why your "negative" test result still feels like an infection. - Microbiome & Fertility: The shocking impact of vaginal health on IVF and preterm birth. - Whole Genome Sequencing: How Evvy identifies pathogens, antibiotic resistance, and biofilms. - The "Lactobacilli" Defense: How beneficial bacteria create a protective barrier against STIs. - The Gender Research Gap: Why women have been historically ignored in clinical data. Welcome to MENO™ with Jacqueline Buckingham, the definitive destination for perimenopause, menopause, and everything on The Pause Spectrum™. RESOURCES: Get Tested with Evvy: https://www.evvy.com/ Follow Priyanka Jain: @priyankajain ABOUT MENO MENO is the definitive platform for menopause and perimenopause care — connecting women to trusted experts, solutions, and support https://joinmeno.com/ https://www.instagram.com/join.meno https://www.tiktok.com/@join.meno Follow our Founder/CEO on Instagram @jacquelinebuckingham Disclaimer: MENO is for general information and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine in any way. MENO does not constitute professional health care services or medical advice. No doctor/patient relationship is formed as a result of this podcast. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from this podcast is at the user's own risk. The content of MENO is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard getting medical advice for any such medical condition they may have and should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any conditions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At 25, Jace Yawnick was building a career in health and wellness sales, chasing growth, status, and the usual young adult fantasy of getting somewhere fast. Then his body stopped cooperating. Fatigue turned into chemotherapy. The diagnosis was primary mediastinal B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma, and the rest of his life split into before and after. Now in remission, he talks about cancer the way people actually live it, not the way nonprofits package it. He gets into survivorship, mental health, young adult isolation, and the deadening absurdity of prior authorization. One of the sharpest parts of the conversation lands on a simple American insult disguised as policy: treatment innovation means very little when insurance can still deny the scan, the drug, or the next step. Jace has seen that firsthand, including during routine monitoring after active treatment. This episode tracks what happens when a young cancer patient becomes a public voice and refuses to play mascot. It covers oncology, insurance, remission, advocacy, and the long mental hangover that follows survival. It also names the part too many institutions dodge: the system works great right up until it doesn't, and when it fails, patients get handed the bill, the panic, and a camera if they want anyone to care. RELATED LINKSJace Beats CancerJace Yawnick on LinkedImConquer Cancer ArticleCURE Today ArticlePyure BrandsFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

If you're listening to this, you probably want a career in something that looks impossibly advanced from the outside — biotechnology, genomics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, fintech, pharmaceuticals, maybe even quantum computing or nanotechnology. All of these areas feel like there's this strong barrier around them.And it's true… but the real barrier is psychological.Most people never learn the language of these fields long before anyone cares about them. Most people never get comfortable being the “nerdy misfit” who studies earthquake science or virology or DNA sequencing when everyone else thinks it's irrelevant.That's the puzzle.These careers are long-term plays. Decades. And they're filled with people who were ignored for a very long time. But the trick — the real trick — is learning to go deep when nobody is paying attention, learning the weird lingo, and being okay with not fitting in.And once you do that, you realize all the fundamentals borrow from the same basic tools… and it stops being scary.

What does a cow actually cost to run?At Kerin Ag, every kilogram of utilisable feed has a value attached to it. That allows Joe Kerin and the team to measure whether an animal is genuinely paying its way.In this episode, Joe joins Mark to discuss how putting a dollar value on each kilogram of grass they grow led them to choose Wagyu over Angus. As any Kerin would, Joe has done the numbers and compared Wagyu cows with larger recipient cows, based on the weaning weight of their calves relative to the kg of dry matter consumed by the cows. And, as predicted, the moderate-sized cow is far more efficient than the larger Angus X recipients. Joe also discusses the role of genomics in Wagyu breeding. As they are a breed with a very narrow gene pool and are bred for carcass-related attributes, genomics is incredibly important, and Joe utilises it to its fullest.Tune in to learn how to turn grass into money - this time with cattle.Head Shepherd is brought to you by neXtgen Agri International Limited. We help livestock farmers get the most out of the genetics they farm with. Get in touch with us if you would like to hear more about how we can help you do what you do best: info@nextgenagri.com.Thanks to our sponsors at MSD Animal Health and Allflex, Heiniger Australia and New Zealand, and ProWay Livestock Equipment. Please consider them when making product choices, as they are instrumental in enabling us to bring you this podcast each week.Check out the MSD range HERECheck out Allflex products HERECheck out Heiniger's product range HERECheck out ProWay's product range HERE

At 20 years old, newly arrived from Puerto Rico and trying to build a future in science, Benjamin Suarez Jimenez found himself sitting in front of two senior faculty members accused of plagiarism. He knew the material. He had done the work. His mistake came from failing to cite class notes during an exam because nobody had told him that was expected. In a matter of minutes, he watched what felt like his entire career flash before him.On this episode of Standard Deviation, host Oliver Bogler examines the hidden architecture of academic science through the experiences of Dr. Benjamin Suarez Jimenez, Assistant Professor at the University of Rochester and a neuroscientist studying PTSD, anxiety, trauma, and spatial cognition through virtual reality and video game environments.Benjamin traces his path from Puerto Rico to the mainland United States, through the NIH, Columbia University, and eventually to leading his own laboratory. Along the way, he encountered a series of barriers that had little to do with scientific ability and everything to do with access to unwritten rules. From academic gatekeeping to grant writing expectations, he learned that success in biomedical research often depends on knowledge that never appears in a textbook.Oliver explores how those invisible obstacles shape careers, influence research funding, and determine who gains access to opportunity. The conversation also examines the Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Program at the Life Science Editors Foundation, which pairs scientists from underrepresented backgrounds with experienced scientific editors. Through that mentorship, Benjamin transformed a critical grant proposal into a successful pilot award that helped launch an NIH R01 application.The discussion extends beyond one scientist's experience. Benjamin describes helping a former mentee navigate dissertation roadblocks that threatened her graduation, illustrating how institutional bureaucracy can delay careers and discourage talented researchers. Together, they explore the hidden administrative burden, cultural barriers, and bias that many scientists carry alongside their research, and what happens when someone who receives support turns around and opens the door for others.RELATED LINKSLife Science Editors FoundationBenjamin Suarez Jimenez LabDr. Benjamin Suarez JimenezBenjamin Suarez JimenezFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this explainer episode, we've asked Jamie Ellingford, Lead Genomic Data Scientist for Rare Disease, to explain how genomics is helping us better understand rare conditions. You can also find a series of short videos explaining some of the common terms you might encounter about genomics on our YouTube channel. If you've got any questions, or have any other topics you'd like us to explain, let us know on podcast@genomicsengland.co.uk. You can download the transcript or read it below. [00:00:00] Florence: How can genomics help us better understand rare conditions? My name is Florence Cornish, and today I am joined by our Lead Genomic Data Scientist for Rare Disease, Jamie Ellingford, and he is going to be sharing lots more insights about the topic with us.   So, I guess before we begin, Jamie, it might be useful if you could explain what we actually mean by the term 'rare condition'?  [00:00:25] Jamie: Sure. Hi, Florence. So, a rare condition we define as something that impacts one in less than two thousand people, and so that's something that occurs really infrequently in the population. But we know that collectively there's lots of different rare diseases. And so, the estimates are that it's about one in seventeen people in the population that are impacted by some sort of rare disease, of which we think there's over seven thousand.   But research that uses data that we have here at Genomics England as well as other sources is starting to uncover more and more of these individual rare disorders. So collectively, as I just said, one in seventeen individuals, we think, is impacted by a rare disease, and that equates to almost three and a half million people here in the UK.  [00:01:15] Most of these rare conditions, we think, have a genetic basis, and perhaps we'll explain a little bit more about what that means.   [00:01:22] Florence: Yeah, no, it would be great to talk a little bit more about that actually. So as you said, most rare conditions we think have a genetic cause, but I think it might be helpful if you could explain what we mean when we say that something 'has a genetic cause'.  [00:01:35] Jamie: Of course. So maybe we go back to kind of the basics and kind of how a person is first formed. So, at that point of fertilisation, where the sex cells from mum and dad join, we inherit one copy of our genome from mum and one copy from dad, and it's the order and the composition of these letters in our genome which makes it unique to us.  Most of that genome is absolutely identical to anyone else in the human population. And a small fraction of it is unique to us and is a combination of things that we've inherited from our mothers and our fathers. And when we think about genetic causes, largely, we look at those differences. And so, what is it that's different in individuals compared to the wider population that could be driving these rare conditions?  [00:02:23] Florence: So could you maybe explain a little bit more about how people's genetic material, how people's genomes differ from one another?  [00:02:30] Jamie: So there's lots of different ways that we can observe these genetic differences. So some of them impact individual letters, and we, we may swap a single letter for another.   [00:02:41] We can also remove small sections, so it may be that a run of three or four of these letters is deleted from someone's genome. But on the opposite end of the scale, we can also see huge changes in how that genetic material looks.   So perhaps a good way to think about this is as a story. And so if our, if our genome is like any kind of good fiction story that you would read, then we can have spelling mistakes that impact single words,  [00:03:09] that impact whole paragraphs, or some which impact whole chapters. Lots of these different types of genetic causes can give rise to genetic conditions. And so even the smallest changes, the smallest spelling mistakes in words, can still give rise to rare genetic conditions.  [00:03:26] Florence: We actually have a previous podcast episode that explores that topic in a lot more detail. So if listeners want to check that out, it's called "Are genetic conditions always inherited from parents?"   So obviously, Jamie, we spoke quite a lot about DNA and genetic changes there, and this episode is all about how genomics specifically can help us better understand rare conditions.  [00:03:47] Um, but what actually is genomics as a field of study?   [00:03:53] Jamie: So simply put, genomics is the study of the whole genome, or at least as complete a picture of the genome as we can possibly represent. And so in the case of rare disorders, we use genomics to try and understand what the genome looks like from an affected child.  [00:04:12] And, um, in some cases, we're also able to look at the whole genomes of their relatives, so perhaps their mother and their father. And we use this information to best detect and best prioritise variants that we think are giving rise to their genetic condition. But how we've done that has evolved and advanced a lot over time, has gone hand in hand with these remarkable developments in technology.  [00:04:37] And so a decade ago, maybe 15 years ago, the state-of-the-art technologies were to look for single spelling mistakes or to be able to survey complete genes. Nowadays, we can generate data for the whole genome, and we can do that fairly cheaply, we can do it quickly. And we rely on computational algorithms and the development of bioinformatic resources to be able to properly make sense of that data. And so there's, there's three key aspects of bioinformatics, this discipline of integrating informatics, computational technology, with biology.  [00:05:17] And so the first is, having generated some data, can we appropriately find where in the human genome that data should map to? Having done that, can we detect these differences, these small or large changes in the human genome, for that individual? And finally, can we start to make sense of those changes? Can we understand whether they exist frequently in a population or they're unique to this family and predict what potential consequence they have on a gene's function?   [00:05:47] Florence: Mm. So there's obviously lots of different components of genomics, but how can all of them help us better understand rare conditions specifically?  [00:05:59] Jamie: So as we've already touched upon, most rare diseases have a genetic basis, and we think that that estimate could be something like 80% of rare diseases have a genetic component to them. And what we've seen over the past decade and further, is that genomics has really transformed the discovery of new genomic conditions.  [00:06:20] And so being able to look at data from the whole genome has allowed us to understand new genetic, types of genetic changes, changes in new genes, which could cause these rare conditions. And what we've seen recently is that move and that transformation from genomics as a discovery tool to a tool that we use routinely and so essentially, we've moved this technology from research laboratories into the NHS and the UK healthcare system. We've really come a long way, and so, whilst we see that the amount of genetic diagnoses that we can find is really dependent on the specific disorders, broadly, we find genetic diagnoses for somewhere between a quarter and half of the individuals that are referred.  [00:07:10] What that does mean is that there's still 50% of individuals out there that get referred to these services with a rare condition where we don't find an obvious genetic answer through the implementation of genomics within healthcare.   [00:07:24] Florence: Do you have, um, a specific example you could share of where genomics has had a real impact in our understanding of rare conditions?  [00:07:33] Jamie: So I think all of us that have worked in this space for, for a long time have our own individual examples. We're recording this in 2026, and over the past two years, there's been a flurry of discoveries of genes which don't directly encode proteins, that cause a certain type of rare conditions, and so we call these non-coding genes.  [00:07:54] These genes have recently been described as a cause of kind of wide neurodevelopmental disorders, as a cause of genetic blindness, and there's ten at the time of recording, distinct rare conditions another example that I wanted to elaborate on is something that was really personal to me because it happened really early during my development as a, as a researcher and as a, somebody who looks at genomic data very early in my career, and really kind of had a profound impact on how I think about genomics and how it can be applied.  [00:08:28] And so this was an individual who was referred with a certain type of rare condition. And through the analysis of their genomic data, we identified a genetic variant in a certain gene. At the time of testing, they were in their early teenage years, and when we looked at the scientific literature, what this suggested is that other symptoms were going to develop before the age of 20.  [00:08:52] And so at this point, genomic testing had been done in a really critical window for that individual and allowed them to be referred to specialist centres, and to be managed appropriately, and that's really ended up in a good outcome.  And what's becoming more and more frequent is the opportunity for genomics to inform enrolment to clinical trials, the development of targeted treatments, and we hope that in the next decade or so we'll see an increased flurry of those activities.   [00:09:22] Florence: Yeah. So I guess, would the headline be that genomics allows us to see changes in the genome that maybe more traditional genetic tests wouldn't have allowed us to see, and then that in turn helps us with our approaches to rare conditions?  [00:09:37] Would you say that that's accurate?   [00:09:40] Jamie: So it certainly gives us that opportunity.   [00:09:42] Florence: So I think we'll finish there, Jamie. Thank you so much for coming on, for taking the time to speak with us. It's been very insightful.   [00:09:50] Thank you very much. A pleasure to chat.   [00:09:52] Florence: If listeners want to hear more explainer episodes like this, you can find them on our website at www.genomicsengland.co.uk or wherever you get your podcasts.  [00:10:03]

Dr. Sarah Matt trained as a burn surgeon, working in a field where patients arrive with catastrophic injuries and survival depends on speed, skill, and resources. She left the bedside after confronting a limit that medicine does not like to admit. One physician can only see so many people in a day. The system surrounding those patients decides the rest. She moved into health technology, held leadership roles in startups, and built global infrastructure at Oracle to scale care across populations. Then she watched billions of dollars in digital health and AI initiatives stall out when they hit real clinical environments.This episode follows that pivot from surgeon to strategist and back into direct patient care in rural New York, where she now treats uninsured patients, migrant workers, and communities pushed to the margins. The conversation centers on a persistent failure across healthcare systems. Products get built for regulators, executives, and investors instead of the people who use them. The result shows up in failed adoption, broken workflows, prior authorization delays, and rising physician burnout.The discussion cuts through health policy language and lands on lived consequence. The system rewards speed over usability, scale over trust, and compliance over care. Patients absorb the fallout. Physicians carry the liability. The incentives remain intact.RELATED LINKSDr. Sarah MattThe Borderless Healthcare RevolutionThe Clinical RealistJessica FedererSovatoFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

10x Genomics, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc.

The current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and neighboring Uganda is caused by the Bundibugyo virus. There's no specific treatment or vaccine for this strain, unlike the more common Zaire strain that caused the 2014 outbreak.  Molecular biologist Christian Happi has dedicated his career to improving genomic sequencing capabilities and virus monitoring across the continent of Africa. He joins Flora to discuss the challenges of the current outbreak and his vision for better disease surveillance.  Guest: Dr. Christian Happi is a distinguished professor at Redeemer's University and runs the Institute of Genomics and Global Health in Nigeria. Other episodes you may enjoy: Inside the Nebraska quarantine facility responding to hantavirus Can ‘Suggestion-Box Science' Make Public Health More Useful? Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Follow our show on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Bluesky @scifri and sign up for our newsletters. Got a science question that's keeping you up at night? Call us: 877-472-4374 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dr. Julie Chen, Chief Medical Officer at Radence, outlines the use of genomic precision medicine and advanced biomarkers and imaging technology for early detection and diagnosis of disease, with a focus on extending the health span, not just the lifespan, of their clients.  This comprehensive membership-based model aggregates members' health data to create a 360° view of their health risks. AI is a critical tool for identifying trends in longitudinal data, enabling more accurate and personalized health monitoring for both those who are healthy and those recovering from an existing condition. Julie explains, "Our model is a membership-based model primarily because a lot of the leading-edge technology is not insurance-covered. And so we're able to then utilize what is necessary for the diagnosis and the management, and actionable steps for the members, without having to worry about what insurance will or will not cover." "Our members come through, and we actually aggregate all of their outside medical records and data because we want to see what their baseline health has been up to the point that they join us as a member. And then at that point, we actually get from the cellular level all the way up to the organ level and functionality level, we start to aggregate information about their genomics, so the blueprint of who they are health-wise."   "The key focus here is really looking at the concept that longevity is a larger picture phrase that has been in this industry, used across the board for a lot of different things. That could encompass biohacking, to true evidence-based genomic precision medicine, to just trends of what people are using. So I think it's really important for your listeners to understand that longevity is theoretically in the category of what we're doing in that space, but the very important point is to really look at the space, as there are a lot of things on the market now."   #Radence #GenomicMedicine #PrecisionMedicine #EarlyDetection #HealthSpan #Longevity #AIinHealthcare #PreventiveCare  Radence.com Download the transcript here

Dr. Julie Chen, Chief Medical Officer at Radence, outlines the use of genomic precision medicine and advanced biomarkers and imaging technology for early detection and diagnosis of disease, with a focus on extending the health span, not just the lifespan, of their clients.  This comprehensive membership-based model aggregates members' health data to create a 360° view of their health risks. AI is a critical tool for identifying trends in longitudinal data, enabling more accurate and personalized health monitoring for both those who are healthy and those recovering from an existing condition. Julie explains, "Our model is a membership-based model primarily because a lot of the leading-edge technology is not insurance-covered. And so we're able to then utilize what is necessary for the diagnosis and the management, and actionable steps for the members, without having to worry about what insurance will or will not cover." "Our members come through, and we actually aggregate all of their outside medical records and data because we want to see what their baseline health has been up to the point that they join us as a member. And then at that point, we actually get from the cellular level all the way up to the organ level and functionality level, we start to aggregate information about their genomics, so the blueprint of who they are health-wise."   "The key focus here is really looking at the concept that longevity is a larger picture phrase that has been in this industry, used across the board for a lot of different things. That could encompass biohacking, to true evidence-based genomic precision medicine, to just trends of what people are using. So I think it's really important for your listeners to understand that longevity is theoretically in the category of what we're doing in that space, but the very important point is to really look at the space, as there are a lot of things on the market now."   #Radence #GenomicMedicine #PrecisionMedicine #EarlyDetection #HealthSpan #Longevity #AIinHealthcare #PreventiveCare  Radence.com Listen to the podcast here

Explore the inspiring journey of Nguyen Park, DMSc, PA-C, DFAAPA, a PA leader in genetics, as she shares her path and passion for advancing health equity. Delve into her leadership roles, the founding of the Society of PAs in Genetics & Genomics, and her personal experiences as an immigrant shaping her healthcare perspective. This episode addresses the nuance in health challenges in Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities, emphasizing the importance of diversity, mental health, and mentorship. Discover impactful initiatives and collaborations that are transforming access to care and learn how PAs can support culturally responsive healthcare.

In the late 1980s, a child exposed to fallout from the Chernobyl disaster lay in a hospital bed while doctors told his family there were no clear answers and no reliable path forward. Decades later, that same child, Yan Leyfman, walks into exam rooms as a hematology oncology fellow, expected to deliver clarity inside a system that still runs on delay, uncertainty, and institutional self preservation.This episode traces the throughline from early life shaped by radiation exposure and hospice level uncertainty to a career inside academic medicine, translational research, and oncology media. Yan built his identity around survival and usefulness, moving from patient to physician while carrying the memory of what it feels like to sit on the other side of the table. He helped launch MedNews Week during the COVID crisis to push back on misinformation and expand access to medical knowledge, stepping into a public role while still in training.The conversation stays grounded in the friction between personal narrative and system reality. Clinical training demands efficiency, hierarchy, and emotional distance. Cancer care demands time, clarity, and human connection. Those forces collide in real patient encounters where prior authorization delays, insurance barriers, and fragmented care pathways shape outcomes as much as any treatment protocol.Yan speaks openly about mentorship, belonging, and the drive to make meaning out of survival. The discussion pushes further into what the healthcare system actually rewards, what it quietly strips away, and how quickly empathy can erode under institutional pressure. The episode also examines the role of medical media, where education, industry influence, and narrative control often blur together.This is a conversation about identity under construction, about what happens when someone who remembers powerlessness steps into a role that carries authority, and about whether that memory can survive long enough to change anything.RELATED LINKSYan Leyfman on LinkedInYan Leyfman on InstagramSurviving ChernobylFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Howie is joined by guest host Megan Ranney, dean of the the Yale School of Public Health, for a live episode recorded at the Yale Innovation Summit, featuring conversations with five innovators at the intersection of healthcare, public health, and entrepreneurship. Jaya Dadwal, a recent graduate of the School of Public Health and founder of forEVA Health, focused on raising healthcare standards for the female body Monique Rainford, a Yale School of Medicine ob-gyn and founder of Enrich Health, focused on addressing disparities in maternal health Kimberley Steele, a bariatric surgeon and program director at the federal Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) Yusuf Ransome, a faculty member at the School of Public Health and founder of Soul Health, a faith tech solution focused on addressing the mental wellbeing of the "missing middle" Janani Ramaswamy, head of IP and licensing services at Yale Ventures Show notes: The Yale Innovation Summit Yale Innovation Summit 2026 Yale Ventures Jaya Dadwal forEVA  FDA: Essure Permanent Birth Control "Problems Reported with Essure" Jennifer McFadden "Women's Health Strategy for England" A UK government report including the finding that 84% of women report that their voices have not been listened to in the healthcare system. Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) Monique Rainford Megan Ranney and Monique Rainford: "Opinion: Over-the-counter birth control pill could make a huge difference" Enrich Health Monique Rainford: Pregnant While Black: Advancing Justice for Maternal Health in America Sejal Hathi: "Nine Months of Medical Attention. Then Almost Nothing" Kimberley Steele Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) Lymphatic System: Function, Conditions & Disorders ARPA-H: Lymphatic Imaging, Genomics, and Phenotyping Technologies (LIGHT) ARPA-H: Groundbreaking Lymphatic Interventions and Drug Explorations (GLIDE) "GLIDE set to prevent and cure human disease by targeting the lymphatic system" Yusuf Ransome Yusuf Ransome  on LinkedIn: "The hardest part of building a solution is when your own family depends on it" SOCAH Lab Pew Research: "Spirituality Among Americans" Janani Ramaswamy "Arvinas Announces FDA Approval of VEPPANU (vepdegestrant) for the Treatment of ESR1m, ER+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer" Arvinas Yale Ventures: Accelerators, Programs, and Innovation Centers HealthTech Works In the Yale School of Management's MBA for Executives program, you'll get a full MBA education in 22 months while applying new skills to your organization in real time. Yale's Executive Master of Public Health offers a rigorous public health education for working professionals, with the flexibility of evening online classes alongside three on-campus trainings. Email Howie and Harlan comments or questions.

Matthew Zachary is a brain cancer survivor, healthcare advocate, founder of Stupid Cancer and We the Patients, and host of Out of Patients. In April 2026, he returned to the stage at Merkin Hall near Lincoln Center for his first solo public piano concert in almost 22 years while launching his debut book, We the Patients: Understanding, Navigating, and Surviving America's Healthcare Nightmare.What unfolded became far larger than a concert.Over 2 hours, survivors, clinicians, advocates, nonprofit founders, journalists, pharmaceutical sponsors, and healthcare insiders gathered in one room to reflect on 30 years of survivorship, institutional failure, accidental advocacy, and the emotional afterlife of cancer. The evening moved through original piano performances, live chapter readings, and deeply personal conversations about infertility, disability, financial toxicity, insurance denials, grief, burnout, and what happens when patients spend decades navigating systems designed around transactions instead of continuity.Guests including Wendell Potter, Maimah Karmo, Craig Lustig, Shelly Fuld Nasso, Tamika Felder, and others reflected on how the modern cancer advocacy movement emerged largely because patients built parallel systems where healthcare infrastructure failed to meet human needs. The conversation explored how prior authorization, reimbursement incentives, administrative fragmentation, and institutional distrust continue shaping the patient experience across oncology and survivorship.The performance also marked a deeply personal milestone. After brain cancer compromised his left hand at age 21, Zachary spent 6 months rehabilitating both hands to return to public performance for the first time in over 2 decades. The result became part concert, part civic gathering, and part historical record of a generation of survivors who refused to disappear quietly.RELATED LINKSMZLIVE Official WebsiteMZLIVE YouTube VideoFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In December 1996, a 37 year old pharmaceutical executive sat in a Borders bookstore reading medical textbooks on the floor, trying to understand a disease she had never heard of. Multiple myeloma carried a three year prognosis. Her daughter was 18 months old. Her father had just died of cancer. Within weeks, she pushed her doctors to say the quiet part clearly. This would likely end her life before her child entered kindergarten.Kathy Giusti refused to accept passive survival. She built a plan while the system offered fragments. She interviewed oncologists and fertility specialists at the same time. She pursued IVF to have a second child while preparing for treatment. She stayed employed to keep insurance coverage. Every decision carried financial, medical, and emotional risk.That same urgency exposed a deeper failure. Cancer research moved slowly. Academic centers guarded data. Clinical trials lacked coordination. Patients entered a system that demanded compliance without providing clarity. Giusti responded by building the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, not as a support group, but as an operating engine to accelerate drug development, fund research, and force collaboration across institutions.This episode tracks the tension between individual agency and systemic failure. Giusti describes how patients navigate diagnosis, insurance barriers, and fragmented care in real time. She explains how data, genomics, and clinical trials reshape cancer treatment while still leaving patients responsible for decisions they are not trained to make. She addresses disparities in access, the limits of early detection, and the reality that progress in oncology often depends on speed, funding, and alignment of incentives.The conversation moves between lived experience and structural critique. It names the cost of delay, the burden placed on patients to act as their own advocate, and the tradeoffs required to push a system forward that still protects itself first.⸻RELATED LINKSKathy GiustiMultiple Myeloma Research FoundationFatal to FearlessAmerican Society of Hematology⸻FEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, Dr. Paloma Giangrande, Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Therapy Nucleic Acids, speaks with Normand Allaire, Head of Genomics at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Therapeutics Lab. They discuss the article, Upregulation of a CFTR mRNA isoform has therapeutic potential for the treatment of 3’ CFTR PTC variants, which introduces an ASO-based therapeutic approach to cystic fibrosis for the 10% of patients who lack an approved treatment. Music: 'Electric Dreams' by Scott Buckley - released under CC-BY 4.0. www.scottbuckley.com.auShow your support for ASGCT!: https://asgct.org/membership/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's episode, we welcomed Pedram Razavi, MD, PhD, and Dara S. Ross, MD. Dr Razavi is a breast medical oncologist and director of Liquid Biopsy & Genomics at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York. Dr Ross is an associate attending pathologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.In our exclusive interview, Drs Razavi and Ross discussed the evolution of ESR1 mutation–directed breast cancer management, emphasizing the role of comprehensive genomic testing at metastatic recurrence, including liquid biopsy and tissue sequencing. They highlighted that ESR1 mutations can develop in patients receiving aromatase inhibitors and that the detection of these mutations is crucial for treatment decisions. They also highlighted findings from the phase 3 SERENA-6 trial (NCT04964934), which tested switching to camizestrant upon the emergence of an ESR1 mutation during treatment with an aromatase inhibitor and a CDK4/6 inhibitor ahead of radiographic disease progression in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Despite concerns from the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) about SERENA-6's design and overall survival outcomes, the experts praised the trial's innovative approach to personalizing breast cancer management based on biomarkers and noted ways that the ODAC decision may affect future clinical research in this field.

At 19, Shlomit woke up unable to speak. The right side of her body went numb. An emergency room sent her home and called it stress. That moment did not end in a diagnosis that changed policy or triggered reform. It sent her into a decade long pursuit of understanding how the brain fails language and how the healthcare system fails patients who cannot advocate for themselves.Shlomit trained as a speech language pathologist and spent years inside acute care hospitals and ICUs, performing endoscopies and treating patients with brain injury, stroke, and dysphagia. She watched medical teams rotate in and out, deliver dense updates, and leave families nodding without comprehension. She stayed behind and translated. Every day, patients told her she was the only one who explained what was happening. That gap is not an accident. Hospital systems optimize for throughput, not understanding. Patients move through beds based on cost, not readiness. Discharge planning becomes a financial decision wrapped in clinical language. A stay under 48 hours can shift the insurance burden dramatically, leaving patients exposed to higher out of pocket costs. Shlomit left the system and built Patient Path NYC, a private patient advocacy service. She now spends 15 to 20 hours a week per client reading charts, coordinating care teams, and translating medical decisions into plain language. Her work sits in the uncomfortable space between healthcare policy and lived experience. Families pay out of pocket to understand their own care. Hospitals benefit from the clarity she provides while maintaining the same structural incentives that created the confusion.This conversation tracks the human cost of fragmented care, the economics behind discharge decisions, and the quiet reality that patients who cannot communicate clearly often lose control of their own outcomes.RELATED LINKSShlomit LibertyShlomit Liberty on LinkedInPatient Path NYCBoard Certified Patient AdvocateFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Precision medicine is changing the future of women's health by helping clinicians move beyond labels and uncover the true root causes driving symptoms. In this episode, Dr. Jen sits down with Dr. Sharon Hausman-Cohen, co-founder of IntellxxDNA, to explore how actionable genomics can personalize care for fertility, menopause, ADHD, autism, cognitive health, and chronic illness. They discuss how genetics influence oxidative stress, inflammation, estrogen metabolism, sleep, neurotransmitters, and nutrient pathways, and why understanding someone's unique biology allows for more targeted interventions instead of endless trial and error. This conversation offers a fascinating look at how genomics and epigenetics can help women optimize health at every stage of life. Dr. Sharon Hausman-Cohen is a Harvard-trained physician and the co-founder of IntellxxDNA, a precision medicine genomics platform designed to help clinicians uncover root causes behind complex health conditions. With a background in research and clinical medicine, she specializes in actionable genomics related to cognitive health, women's health, fertility, pediatrics, and chronic illness. Through IntellxxDNA, Dr. Hausman-Cohen helps practitioners use genetic insights to create highly personalized “N of 1” treatment plans focused on prevention, resilience, and long-term wellness. Website: https://intellxxdna.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/intellxxdnaLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/intellxxdnaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@intellxxdnaFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/intellxxdnaPODCAST: Thank you for listening please subscribe and share! Shop supplements: https://healthybydrjen.shop/CHECK OUT a list of my Favorite products here: https://www.healthybydrjen.com/drjenfavoritesFOLLOW ME:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/integrativedrmom/Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/integrativedrmomYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@integrativedrmomFTC: Some links included in this description might be affiliate links. If you purchase a product through one of them, I will receive a commission (at no additional cost to you).  I truly appreciate your support of my channel. Thank you for watching! Video is not sponsored.DISCLAIMER: This podcast does not contain any medical or health related diagnosis or treatment advice. Content provided on this podcast is for informational purposes only.  For any medical or health related advice, please consult with a physician or other healthcare professionals. Further, information about specific products or treatments within this podcast are not to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

In 2020, developmental biologist Dr. Crystal Rogers drove the country roads outside Davis, California crying between grant rejections, wondering whether she was about to lose her lab, her career, and the scientific future she had spent years building. She had already done what academia tells young scientists to do. She earned the credentials. She landed a faculty position at UC Davis. She built a lab. Then the real test began.On this episode of Standard Deviation, Dr. Oliver Bogler examines the unspoken rules that determine which scientists survive academic research and which quietly disappear from it. The conversation follows Crystal Rogers and cancer biologist Dr. Michelle Mendoza as they collide with the “Hidden Curriculum” of biomedical science: the unwritten rhetoric, institutional signaling, and grant writing strategies that often decide who receives funding, tenure, and long term stability.Michelle Mendoza entered a tenure track position at the Huntsman Cancer Institute while raising 3 children, navigating a divorce, and trying to secure major NIH funding during COVID. What looked like objective scientific review turned out to depend heavily on persuasion, presentation, and insider fluency. Established researchers could promise massive research agendas based on reputation alone. Junior investigators faced a completely different standard.Oliver traces how the Life Science Editors Foundation and its JEDI program intervened by pairing scientists with former editors from journals including Cell and Nature. The work had little to do with commas or grammar. Editors challenged logic, structure, and scientific framing before grant reviewers could destroy an application in public.Both researchers eventually secured career defining grants. One realized she would keep her job and not have to move her family. The other celebrated by ordering a personalized “DEV BIO” license plate and driving through Davis blasting nineties hip hop and Beyoncé.The episode exposes how biomedical research funding rewards institutional fluency as much as scientific talent, and how hidden systems inside academic medicine continue shaping who gets to stay in science long enough to make discoveries.RELATED LINKSDr. Crystal Rogers LinkedInDr. Crystal Rogers Faculty PageDr. Crystal Rogers LabDr. Michelle Mendoza LinkedInDr. Michelle Mendoza Faculty PageHuntsman Cancer Institute Mendoza LabLife Science Editors FoundationFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In 2008, Katy Talento walked away from Capitol Hill and into a Catholic convent. Within a year, she walked out. Within another decade, she sat inside the White House shaping health policy. Somewhere in between, she got labeled “infertile” after a single cycle of testing and spent years believing it.That label stuck. The pain that came before it never got investigated. Doctors offered birth control and moved on. No one asked why her body was struggling. No one followed the thread.Talento built her career inside the very systems she now critiques. She worked on federal health policy, global disease programs, and later advised the Trump administration on healthcare reform. She helped advance price transparency rules in a system where hospitals can still list 457 different prices for the same service.Then she left.Now she builds employer health plans that bypass insurers, PBMs, and traditional networks. Her approach replaces insurance contracts with direct payment, nurse navigators, and cost sharing models that promise simplicity but raise hard questions about risk and protection.This conversation sits in that tension.Talento describes a healthcare system shaped by layered incentives, where insurers, hospitals, and intermediaries profit from complexity. She argues that employers hold the leverage to disrupt it. The host pushes on what happens when patients fall outside those structures, when contracts disappear, and when community based models fail.The episode moves through infertility, misdiagnosis, insurance design, and the mechanics of employer sponsored care. It tracks how policy decisions made in Washington ripple into exam rooms, billing departments, and family lives.It also confronts a harder truth.Even insiders who understand the system can still get caught in it.RELATED LINKSAllBetter HealthKaty TalentoThem Before UsAn Arm and a LegRelentless Health ValueFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's no secret that students' interest in STEM keeps growing. With an overwhelming number of different fields to pursue and growing opportunities for high schoolers, where do they start? Summer Science Program International (SSPI) helps students develop a deeper love for STEM and research through SSPI's immersive, rigorous, and collaborative summer program. SSP is a highly competitive (10,000 applicants for about 700 spots this year) 60-year old STEM program (Summer Science Program) that empowers students to follow their passions and more importantly gives them the opportunity to participate in rote experiments and gain hands-on experience, vs. being taught about STEM.  Key program study topics include astrophysics, bacterial genomics, biochemistry and cell biology.These flagship summer programs are a rigorous five-week residential summer research experience designed for highly motivated high school juniors. Participants engage in advanced research in astrophysics, biochemistry, bacterial genomics, and synthetic chemistry while living on a college campus. Summer Science Program has offered participants “the educational experience of a lifetime” for over 66 years, and program alumni have gone on to leading positions in industry, business, innovation, and more.Amy Hee Kim joined SSP International in 2025 as the Chief Program Officer, bringing 15 years in STEM fields as well as her background as a physical chemist (PhD from University of Chicago). Before joining SSPI, Amy served as the Executive Director of EnCorps helping STEM professionals become teachers in under-resourced community schools.Connect with Amy & SSP International:Website: ssp.orgYouTube: @sspinternational Instagram: @summerscienceFacebook: @SummerScienceProgramAmy's email: amy.kim@ssp.org Amy's LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/amy-hee-kim-b6507b7/Chris Woods is the host of the STEM Everyday Podcast... Connect with him:Website: dailystem.comTwitter/X: @dailystemInstagram: @dailystemYouTube: @dailystemGet Chris's book Daily STEM on AmazonSupport the show

In a wooded campground cabin in the early 2000s, 19 year old Ben Unger stood in the doorway and watched 20 naked men form a circle around a crying teenager. A counselor held up two tangerines and shouted, “These are your balls.” The exercise claimed to cure same sex attraction by forcing young men to “reclaim” their masculinity from overbearing mothers. Phones had been confiscated. Parents had paid thousands of dollars. Religion supplied the script. Pseudoscience supplied the props.Ben had grown up in an Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn and later studied in Israel to become a rabbi. When he admitted he felt attracted to men, rabbis told him to eat 7 figs a day, immerse in a ritual bath 5 times daily, or marry a woman and trust that “if there's friction, it works.” At 19, he entered conversion therapy through an organization called Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, known as JONAH. He left with depression, religious trauma, and 6 months of silence toward the mother he had been taught to blame.Years later, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Ben helped sue JONAH for consumer fraud in a landmark New Jersey case. The argument centered on evidence, not theology. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. The jury deliberated for 3 hours and ruled against the organization. The verdict helped reshape how states regulate conversion therapy and protect minors from psychological harm disguised as treatment.Today, Ben runs Buff Personal Training in New York City, a gym built on autonomy, mental health, and self respect. His story traces the arc from institutional control to self authorship. The conversation examines religion, LGBTQ rights, conversion therapy, consumer protection law, and the lasting cost of being told your identity is a disorder.RELATED LINKSBen Unger on LinkedInBen Unger on InstagramBUF Personal TrainingSouthern Poverty Law CenterJONAHFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Drew Flugstad-Clarke never planned to work in brain cancer. She planned to play Division I soccer at Georgetown. She planned to paint. She even tried investment banking, answering emails at 4am in a cubicle that never slept. Then in June 2022 her father, Jim, was diagnosed with glioblastoma at 57. He died 1 day shy of 7 months later, just before his 58th birthday. His symptoms began with emotion, not seizures. A steady HR executive suddenly cried. His golf game slipped. By the time he entered the hospital for a scan, he did not leave without surgery. A subway poster for a 5K became a lifeline. Drew showed up. She found a community. She later joined the American Brain Tumor Association as Community Manager for the Eastern Region. This conversation walks through anticipatory grief, caregiving in real time, strategic numbness, and what it costs to curate hope when the median survival clock is already ticking.RELATED LINKSDrew Clark Flukestad on LinkedInTopor StudiosAmerican Brain Tumor AssociationGeorgetown University Women's SoccerFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Janine Durso spent 30 years inside pharmaceutical advertising shaping healthcare narratives before becoming a belief strategist and founder of The Believist. In November 2024, during a routine Zoom coaching session, she felt what she called a sharp, terrible pain in the right side of her head. Within hours she was in surgery for a ruptured brain aneurysm. She does not remember the ambulance, the ICU, or the first weeks that followed. She spent 5 weeks in intensive care, then 10 days relearning how to walk, calculate simple change, and manage basic cognition. Doctors later placed a stent and continue monitoring a second unruptured aneurysm.This episode traces the moment she told her husband something broke in my brain, the 14 days doctors called touch and go, and the slow mental rebuild that followed. It also examines insurance barriers that require 2 direct relatives with aneurysms before screening coverage, and why she now lobbies in Washington for change.RELATED LINKSJanine DursoThe BelievistBrain Aneurysm FoundationWhite Plains HospitalDr. Jared CooperFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Rebecca Benghiat holds a JD, passed the bar, and skipped corporate law to build mental health systems instead. She now serves as Chief of Staff and Head of Impact at Inner Foundation, where she helps direct capital toward emerging adults ages 18 to 30 and asks a hard question every day: Is this actually working?In this conversation, she dismantles the myth of easy fixes. She explains why mental health measurement resists clean metrics, why a PHQ 9 score starts a conversation but never finishes one, and why “scale” often flatters institutions more than it helps people. She breaks down how impact investing shapes care delivery, why schools need networked systems not slogans, and why friction might be developmentally necessary.The stakes are real. Vulnerable families navigate snake oil, glossy apps, and pay to play algorithms while carrying the burden of choice in crisis. Benghiat lives inside that complexity and refuses to simplify it.RELATED LINKSRebecca BenghiatInner FoundationAspen Ideas HealthThe Jed FoundationFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

At age 12, Dr. Chrystal Starbird stood by a pond after turning her mother in to the police. She watched tadpoles and fish move beneath the surface and found a strange kind of order. Science became her refuge long before it became her career. Years later, she built that refuge into a profession. She now serves as an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina, studies structural biology tied to cancer and Alzheimer's disease, and won Cell's first Rising Black Scientist Award in 2020. On paper, she fits the model of success. In practice, she had to fight for basic access at every stage.Conference travel required upfront cash she did not have. Networking favored pedigree over merit. Mentorship often depended on who knew your name in the room. Chrystal learned those rules, then chose to break them open for others.Oliver Bogler examines what Chrystal calls the advocacy tax. She has delivered over 70 invited talks. Nearly 40 percent focus on equity, mentorship, and policy. Academic reward systems do not count that labor toward tenure. She still does it.Through her leadership at the Life Science Editors Foundation, Chrystal helped build the JEDI program, which pairs underrepresented scientists with editors from journals like Cell and Nature. The program has supported over 100 awardees with more than 1,000 hours of mentorship. This episode exposes how biomedical science rewards output while ignoring the work required to make the system accessible. It also shows what happens when the people most affected refuse to step back.RELATED LINKSDr. Chrystal StarbirdStarbird LabLife Science Editors FoundationJEDI ProgramFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Most doctors treat the average patient. But you are not average, and this episode gives you the precision medicine blueprint to treat yourself like the individual you are, using multi-omic testing, biohacking technology, and longevity science to optimize every layer of your biology. -Watch this episode on YouTube for the full video experience: https://www.youtube.com/@DaveAspreyBPR Host Dave Asprey sits down with Dr. Anil Bajnath, a Board-Certified Family Physician, author of The Longevity Equation, and President and Founder of the American Board of Precision Medicine. He serves as Adjunct Professor at the George Washington University School of Medicine and CEO of the Institute for Human Optimization. Dr. Bajnath is certified through the Institute for Functional Medicine, board certified in anti-aging and regenerative medicine, and is one of the few clinicians actively applying genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and epigenetics together in a real clinical practice. Together, Dave and Dr. Bajnath break down why population-based medicine fails individuals, how functional medicine and precision science combine to unlock real human performance, and why your mitochondria sit at the foundation of every longevity strategy worth pursuing. They dig into how AI can help you decode your own inflammasome biology, why biohackers are using “sex drugs” to extend longevity, why vagal nerve stimulation directly suppresses the NLRP3 inflammasome, and which biomarkers like MMP9 and homocysteine mainstream medicine keeps ignoring. They also cover peptides, supplements, the dark side of metformin, microdosing for anti-aging, and why biohacking works best when it's personalized and precise. This is essential listening for anyone serious about longevity, smarter not harder health strategies, metabolism, sleep optimization, brain optimization, functional medicine, and taking full control of their biology. You'll Learn: Why precision medicine outperforms population-based health strategies for human performance How to layer genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics into one complete biological picture Which longevity biomarkers your doctor is likely ignoring, including MMP9 and homocysteine How vagal nerve stimulation suppresses the NLRP3 inflammasome and drives anti-aging benefits The real story on metformin, peptides, and which supplements actually move the needle How AI can help you understand your own biology and act on it faster Why biohacking precision beats random stacking every time Thank you to our sponsors! • Igniton | Head over to Igniton.com and use code DAVE for an exclusive 15% off your first order. • BEYOND Biohacking Conference 2026 | Register with code DAVE300 for $300 off https://beyondconference.com • Caldera + Lab | Go to https://calderalab.com/DAVE and use code DAVE at checkout for 20% off your first order. • Screenfit | Get your at-home eye training program for 40% off using code DAVE at https://www.screenfit.com/dave. Dave Asprey is a four-time New York Times bestselling author, founder of Bulletproof Coffee, and the father of biohacking. With over 1,000 interviews and 1 million monthly listeners, The Human Upgrade brings you the knowledge to take control of your biology, extend your longevity, and optimize every system in your body and mind. Each episode delivers cutting-edge insights in health, performance, neuroscience, supplements, nutrition, biohacking, emotional intelligence, and conscious living. New episodes are released every Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday (BONUS). Dave asks the questions no one else will and gives you real tools to become stronger, smarter, and more resilient. Keywords: precision medicine, biohacking, Dave Asprey Cialis, Anil Bajnath, American Board of Precision Medicine, multi-omics, genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenetics, NLRP3 inflammasome, vagal nerve stimulation, MMP9, homocysteine, mitochondria, longevity, anti-aging, peptides, BPC-157, metformin, rapamycin, functional medicine, human performance, supplements, EGCG, exposome, nitric oxide, vascular health, metabolism, brain optimization, AI health, biohacking technology, Dave Asprey Sex Drugs Resources: • Learn More About Anil's Work And the Institute For Human Optimization At: https://ifho.org/ • Get My 2026 Clean Nicotine Roadmap | Enroll for free at https://daveasprey.com/2026-clean-nicotine-roadmap/ • Dave Asprey's Latest News | Go to https://daveasprey.com/ to join Inside Track today. • Danger Coffee: https://dangercoffee.com/discount/dave15 • My Daily Supplements: SuppGrade Labs (15% Off) • Favorite Blue Light Blocking Glasses: TrueDark (15% Off) • Dave Asprey's BEYOND Conference: https://beyondconference.com • Dave Asprey's New Book – Heavily Meditated: https://daveasprey.com/heavily-meditated • Join My Substack (Live Access To Podcast Recordings): https://substack.daveasprey.com/ • Upgrade Labs: https://upgradelabs.com Timestamps: 00:00 – Trailer 00:53 – Intro to Precision Medicine 01:58 – Dr. Bajnath's Holistic Health Journey 05:03 – Pharmaceuticals vs. Supplements 07:58 – Peptides and Longevity Molecules 10:34 – Sexual Health and Vitality 13:56 – Vascular Health and Blood Flow 15:14 – Multi-Omics Approach 19:03 – DNA and Genomics 22:17 – Transcriptomics and RNA 24:24 – Proteomics and Inflammation Markers 32:00 – The Human Exposome 34:55 – Key Health Biomarkers 36:58 – Cell Membrane Dynamics 40:28 – Biological Investment Strategy 41:53 – Life Extension Possibilities 48:52 – Bioenergetics and Mitochondria 49:47 – Quantum Medicine and the Future 51:33 – Vagal Nerve Stimulation See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.