Podcasts about Harms

From lesson planning and assessment design to AI-assisted tutoring and district-wide policy development, Chris explores how artificial intelligence is reshaping teaching and learning, not as a replacement for educators, but as a partner in creativity and efficiency. You will gain insights into the AI tipping point, practical classroom applications, real risks (including equity, bias, privacy, and the loss of human connection), and how teachers can lead responsibly through this transformation. The episode also includes a timely #EdTech Recommendation highlighting Google Chrome's live caption and translation features, and an invitation to participate in the 2025 EdTech SmackDown, the annual listener-powered finale of the show. Key Topics Discussed #EdTech Thought: The AI tipping point: Why AI in education is no longer "next" but "now." How educators are using generative AI for planning, differentiation, and feedback. Examples of AI tools supporting English language learners and accessibility. Major risks of AI in schools — equity, bias, privacy, and the human factor. How to lead responsibly with AI in your classroom or district: Build your AI literacy Put pedagogy before technology Model ethical transparency Advocate for clear district policies Share both wins and failures #EdTech Recommendation: Google Chrome's Live Caption & Translate feature. Relevant Links & Resources House of #EdTech Episode 246 – The Harms of Generative AI featuring Tom Mullaney  

Politicians and pundits have made trans rights one of their top wedge issues. They stir up outrage, and push legislation designed to divide, distract, and control.We've all seen it: bills banning gender-affirming care, bathroom access, policing pronouns, especially in state legislations. Leaders pushing them claim it's about “protecting children” or “upholding values.” But, it's not! This is about consolidating power through fear.And while trans people feel the sting of this, the harm doesn't stop with them. It ripples outward, touching every one of us.Because when anti-trans rhetoric spreads, it erodes compassion, truth, and freedom—for everyone.Send us a private message. *Note: INCLUDE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS if you'd like us to answer. :-) Support the show

This time on Code WACK! Why can working as a doctor in America feel like being on a battleground? What questionable tactics are insurance companies using? How are they affecting patients and physicians alike? And when coverage is denied, what can patients do? (See Helpful Links below for tips on appeals.) To find out, we recently spoke with Dr. Erica Rowe Urquhart, a private practice orthopedic surgeon in northern New Jersey. A Harvard-trained biomedical engineer with an MD and PhD from Johns Hopkins, Dr. Urquhart is the author of the forthcoming book The Invisible Hand Wielding the Scalpel: Paying the Price in America's Fractured Healthcare System. This is the first episode of a two-part series. Check out the Transcript and Show Notes for more! And please keep Code WACK! on the air with a tax-deductible donation at heal-ca.org/donate.

Daystar and Alex invite Max back on the podcast to talk about his new novel, ⁠Red Heart⁠, a modern sci-fi thriller that follows an American spy sent to a Chinese AI lab to investigate how far ahead their capabilities are compared to the US.Max works at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and has been thinking about the state of AI Safety for over a decade now. He's also written the Crystal Society trilogy, which we discussed in episode 66. ⁠https://maxharms.com/redheart⁠Co-hosted by ⁠⁠Alexander Wales⁠⁠With thanks to Tim Yarbrough for the Intro/Outro music, ⁠⁠G.A.T.O Must Be Respected

File on Four explores the risks some gay men are taking by habitually mixing their sex lives with drug use. The practice, known as Chemsex has been on the gay scene for more than a decade. It involves taking illegal and addictive substances like Crystal Meth and GHB. While the programme hears from some who say they can manage their use and it heightens their sexual pleasure, others are falling into destructive patterns of addiction, decline and even death. Reporter Mobeen Azhar tries to assess the scale of the problem and hears from medical professionals who fear it could be a crisis that's going under the radar. Presenter: Mobeen Azhar Producer: Alex Collins Sound: Nicky Edwards Production Coordinator: Tim Fernley Editor: Nick Holland

This time on Code WACK! Why can working as a doctor in America feel like being on a battleground? What questionable tactics are insurance companies using? How are they affecting patients and physicians alike? And when coverage is denied, what can patients do? (See Helpful Links below for tips on appeals.) To find out, we recently spoke with Dr. Erica Rowe Urquhart, a private practice orthopedic surgeon in northern New Jersey. A Harvard-trained biomedical engineer with an MD and PhD from Johns Hopkins, Dr. Urquhart is the author of the forthcoming book The Invisible Hand Wielding the Scalpel: Paying the Price in America's Fractured Healthcare System. This is the first episode of a two-part series. Check out the Transcript and Show Notes for more! And please keep Code WACK! on the air with a tax-deductible donation at heal-ca.org/donate.

This time on Code WACK! Why can working as a doctor in America feel like being on a battleground? What questionable tactics are insurance companies using? How are they affecting patients and physicians alike? And when coverage is denied, what can patients do? (See Helpful Links below for tips on appeals.) To find out, we recently spoke with Dr. Erica Rowe Urquhart, a private practice orthopedic surgeon in northern New Jersey. A Harvard-trained biomedical engineer with an MD and PhD from Johns Hopkins, Dr. Urquhart is the author of the forthcoming book The Invisible Hand Wielding the Scalpel: Paying the Price in America's Fractured Healthcare System. This is the first episode of a two-part series. Check out the Transcript and Show Notes for more! And please keep Code WACK! on the air with a tax-deductible donation at heal-ca.org/donate.

This video answers the question: Can I analyze the case of Jeanine Sanchez-Harms? Support Dr. Grande on Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/drgrande⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dr. Grande's book Harm Reduction: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.amazon.com/Harm-Reduction-Todd-Grande-PhD/dp/1950057313⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dr. Grande's book Psychology of Notorious Serial Killers: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Notorious-Serial-Killers-Intersection/dp/1950057259⁠⁠⁠ Check out Dr. Grande's merchandise ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://teespring.com/stores/dr-grandes-store⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

⁠Jenny Lindsay⁠ had a successful career in the arts as a poet and events programmer in Scotland when she made the mistake of ⁠challenging threats of violence ⁠against lesbians at Pride London. She was not just cancelled, but “hounded,” in her words. This would eventually become the title of her ⁠book⁠, Hounded: Women, Harms, and the Gender Wars, published last year.In this episode, ⁠Meghan Murphy⁠ speaks with her about her experience and what she learned about how women are treated in the gender identity debate. ⁠Read Jenny's piece on Meghan Murphy in The Times. ⁠The Same Drugs is on X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ @thesamedrugs_⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Meghan Murphy is on X ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@meghanemurphy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and on Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ @meghanemilymurphy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Find The Same Drugs merch at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Fourthwall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Don't forget to click that "follow" button to ensure you don't miss a single episode!

Professor Mohammad Rasekh investigates a classical theological problem: do divine laws derive from inherent benefits and harms, or from pure command? Engaging Shaykh Anṣārī and the principle of maṣāliḥ wa mafāsid wāqiʿīyya, he dissects the tension between reason and revelation in determining moral reality. His discussion challenges listeners to consider whether religious law is descriptive of truth or prescriptive of obedience.

What happens when a work of fiction becomes a real grimoire? In this episode, we explore The Demons of the Necronomicon, H. P. Lovecraft's imagined pantheon of cosmic entities and their extraordinary transformation into living figures within modern occultism. Drawing on peer-reviewed research, we trace how Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, and Nyarlathotep escaped the pages of pulp horror to become objects of ritual, devotion, and philosophical speculation. From Kenneth Grant's Typhonian Thelema to chaos magic's postmodern experiments, this video unveils how fiction, faith, and imagination converge in the making of contemporary demonology.CONNECT & SUPPORT

Tired of hearing that mass timber is “promising” but not practical? We dig into what actually moves the needle: turning raw products into clean, repeatable systems that installers love and owners can price with confidence. No fluff—just the playbook that took projects from pause to go, even as tariffs and supply shocks rattled budgets.We start with the shift from panels to platforms: shaft wall systems that swap in for CMU without fuss, union training and mock‑ups that build real‑world confidence, and a timber bay approach designed for warehouses and data centres. Then we unpack a standout case study—the Amazon final‑mile warehouse in Indiana—where early alignment around a mass‑timber‑forward hybrid, local forests, and a tight grid delivered speed, beauty, and over 40 sustainability strategies. When teams coordinate around the module, cost and schedule stop fighting each other.Data centre interiors get a rethink too. A patent‑pending CLT base for electrical equipment skids replaces thick steel plates, shortens lead times, and can generate significant sustainability wins. Pair that with the rise of modular, edge data centres and you've got a new standard for fit‑out speed and embodied carbon reduction. Along the way, we make the case for hybrid construction as the default future: concrete where it belongs, steel where it performs, and timber where it excels. Use a practical “purity” lens and real invoice volumes to find the tipping points for cost and carbon, region by region.This conversation champions regional species and honest specs—span tables over wish lists, performance criteria over perfection. Knots are not defects; they're the story of the forest. And that story extends to circularity: repeatable grids that enable disassembly, second‑life panels, and cross‑market reuse, all supported by a healthy whole‑tree economy that includes sawmills, bioenergy, and paper. Subscribe for more grounded, system‑level insights, share this with a colleague who needs a faster path to low‑carbon builds, and leave a review to tell us which system you want to try next.You can access more information here:-CLTower Shaft WallsCLTimber Bay SystemCLTrainer Mock-upDesign Manual Amazon DII5 Warehouse - Shout out to ZGF Architects and KPFF EngineersSend us a textSupport the show

Joining us for a roundtable discussion are Brooke Siem, David Antonuccio, Kim Witzak, Angie Peacock and David Healy. They discuss the challenges of openly discussing psychiatric drug withdrawal, the true meaning of informed consent, getting doctors to acknowledge medication-induced harm and much more. *** Thank you for being with us to listen to the podcast and read our articles this year. MIA is funded entirely by reader donations. If you value MIA, please help us continue to survive and grow. https://www.madinamerica.com/donate/ To find the Mad in America podcast on your preferred podcast player, click here: https://pod.link/1212789850 © Mad in America 2025. Produced by James Moore https://www.jmaudio.org

We talk with Max Harms on the air for the first time since 2017! He's got a new book coming out (pre-order your copy here or at Amazon) and we spend about the first half talking about If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. LINKS Max's first book, Crystal Society Eneasz's audiobook of about the first […]

In this episode of the Leadership and Learning Podcast, host Randy Goruk welcomes Steve Harms, General Manager at Builders FirstSource, who draws on over 40 years of experience in the building materials industry. Steve shares his journey from humble beginnings to leading successful improvement initiatives, including the implementation of Kata teams, fostering a culture of ownership, and achieving outstanding results in safety, quality, and productivity. Packed with practical stories, expert insights, and leadership advice, this episode offers inspiration and tools for leaders eager to build a thriving, continuously improving organization. Listeners will gain actionable insights and real examples to help implement or enhance continuous improvement in their own organizations. You will learn: The importance and mindset of continuous improvement as a daily commitment. The concept of employee engagement and practical ways to give employees ownership and responsibility for their work. Results of the Kata continuous improvement methodology in manufacturing. Key metrics for success: safety, quality, and productivity and how to measure and improve them. Recognizing early warning signs of employee disengagement and strategies to address them. Effective leadership practices, including the value of humility ("free yourself from ego") and building trust. Training and empowering leaders and teams to take initiative and drive sustained improvements. Adapting operations to environmental challenges, while maintaining engagement and efficiency. Step-by-step methods for starting small with improvement teams and scaling success within an organization. The value of mentorship, leadership consistency, and enjoying the journey of improvement.

“He doesn't hit you, so it must not be abuse.” Yeah, no. That tired old line needs to die.This week, I sat down with Dr. Christine Cocchiola, a powerhouse expert on coercive control, the kind of abuse that doesn't leave bruises but instead, destroys lives. Christine breaks down how abusers don't need fists to dominate; they weaponize EVERYTHING from the court system, to churches, to your very own kids.If you've ever been dismissed, disbelieved, or labeled “too angry,” this episode is a masterclass in seeing the invisible, calling it what it is, and taking your power back, even if you have to fake it ‘til you make it from the ICU of your life.What You'll Learn: Why coercive control isn't a form of abuse, it IS abuse. Period. Full stop.How abusers hide behind charisma, charm, and a well-timed Bible verse.The horrifying way the legal system often rewards abusers and punishes protective moms.How abuse affects children, even when it's subtle, and especially when it's court-sanctioned.Why your anger is holy fire, not a character defect.How to start healing and parenting differently, even while walking through hell with a diaper bag.Read the full show notes and/or ask Natalie a question hereRelated Resources:Check out Dr. Christine Cocchiola's website.Connect with her on Instagram and Facebook.  Read FRAMED: Women in the Family Court Underworld, Dr. Cocchiola's co-authored book. Get her free map called Clinical Implications for Children Who Are Coercively ControlledWatch her recent TED Talk: It's All Coercive ControlChristine M. Cocchiola, DSW, LCSW is an expert on the experiences of adult and child victims of coercive control. A college professor teaching social work, she received her doctorate in clinical social work from New York University working under the tutelage of Dr. Evan Stark. She presents nationally and internationally on the concept of coercive control with a focus on educating professionals, advocates, and protective parents, on the experiences of children and best intervention strategies for adult and child victims of coercive control/narcissistic abuse. Her Clinician Certification Training is ASWB approved for 14 CE's. Dr. C is the creator of The Protective Parenting Program, a therapeutic evidence based attachment focused program for parents of children harmed by abusers and the co-author of FRAMED: Women in the Family Court Underworld.

There are more than 5,400 data centers in the United States, which is almost half of the number of data centers worldwide. In the past four years, there has been a surge in data center construction, particularly in poor communities in the South. Clearing the FOG speaks with Jai Dulani of Media Justice, who authored a new report: The People Say No: Resisting Data Centers in the South, and Kali Akuno of Cooperation Jackson, about the harms that these centers are causing in local communities, particularly in their enormous consumption of water and energy, and the risk they pose to the US economy. Akuno also addresses the bigger picture of the deleterious impact of artificial intelligence on our lives. For more information, visit PopularResistance.org.

Disgraced former New Zealand cricket star Lou Vincent has spoken out on the tolls of match fixing. Over a decade ago, Vincent was banned for life for his involvement in attempting to manipulate cricket matches overseas, including in England, South Africa, India and Bangladesh. His ban was later relaxed in December 2023, as it was believed he demonstrated sufficient levels of contrition and remorse. He joined Piney to discuss his motivations behind helping others avoid match-fixing. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An avalanche of information besets us on what to eat. It comes from the news, from influencers of every ilk, from scientists, from government, and of course from the food companies. Super foods? Ultra-processed foods? How does one find a source of trust and make intelligent choices for both us as individuals and for the society as a whole. A new book helps in this quest, a book entitled Food Intelligence: the Science of How Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us. It is written by two highly credible and thoughtful people who join us today.Julia Belluz is a journalist and a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times. She reports on medicine, nutrition, and public health. She's been a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and holds a master's in science degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Dr. Kevin Hall trained as a physicist as best known for pioneering work on nutrition, including research he did as senior investigator and section chief at the National Institutes of Health. His work is highly regarded. He's won awards from the NIH, from the American Society of Nutrition, the Obesity Society and the American Physiological Society. Interview Transcript Thank you both very much for being with us. And not only for being with us, but writing such an interesting book. I was really eager to read it and there's a lot in there that people don't usually come across in their normal journeys through the nutrition world. So, Julia, start off if you wouldn't mind telling us what the impetus was for you and Kevin to do this book with everything else that's out there. Yes, so there's just, I think, an absolute avalanche of information as you say about nutrition and people making claims about how to optimize diet and how best to lose or manage weight. And I think what we both felt was missing from that conversation was a real examination of how do we know what we know and kind of foundational ideas in this space. You hear a lot about how to boost or speed up your metabolism, but people don't know what metabolism is anyway. You hear a lot about how you need to maximize your protein, but what is protein doing in the body and where did that idea come from? And so, we were trying to really pair back. And I think this is where Kevin's physics training was so wonderful. We were trying to look at like what are these fundamental laws and truths. Things that we know about food and nutrition and how it works in us, and what can we tell people about them. And as we kind of went through that journey it very quickly ended up in an argument about the food environment, which I know we're going to get to. We will. It's really interesting. This idea of how do we know what we know is really fascinating because when you go out there, people kind of tell us what we know. Or at least what they think what we know. But very few people go through that journey of how did we get there. And so people can decide on their own is this a credible form of knowledge that I'm being told to pursue. So Kevin, what do you mean by food intelligence? Coming from a completely different background in physics where even as we learn about the fundamental laws of physics, it's always in this historical context about how we know what we know and what were the kind of key experiments along the way. And even with that sort of background, I had almost no idea about what happened to food once we ate it inside our bodies. I only got into this field by a happenstance series of events, which is probably too long to talk about this podcast. But to get people to have an appreciation from the basic science about what is going on inside our bodies when we eat. What is food made out of? As best as we can understand at this current time, how does our body deal with. Our food and with that sort of basic knowledge about how we know what we know. How to not be fooled by these various sound bites that we'll hear from social media influencers telling you that everything that you knew about nutrition is wrong. And they've been hiding this one secret from you that's been keeping you sick for so long to basically be able to see through those kinds of claims and have a bedrock of knowledge upon which to kind of evaluate those things. That's what we mean by food intelligence. It makes sense. Now, I'm assuming that food intelligence is sort of psychological and biological at the same time, isn't it? Because that there's what you're being told and how do you process that information and make wise choices. But there's also an intelligence the body has and how to deal with the food that it's receiving. And that can get fooled too by different things that are coming at it from different types of foods and stuff. We'll get to that in a minute, but it's a very interesting concept you have, and wouldn't it be great if we could all make intelligent choices? Julia, you mentioned the food environment. How would you describe the modern food environment and how does it shape the choices we make? It's almost embarrassing to have this question coming from you because so much of our understanding and thinking about this idea came from you. So, thank you for your work. I feel like you should be answering this question. But I think one of the big aha moments I had in the book research was talking to a neuroscientist, who said the problem in and of itself isn't like the brownies and the pizza and the chips. It's the ubiquity of them. It's that they're most of what's available, along with other less nutritious ultra-processed foods. They're the most accessible. They're the cheapest. They're kind of heavily marketed. They're in our face and the stuff that we really ought to be eating more of, we all know we ought to be eating more of, the fruits and vegetables, fresh or frozen. The legumes, whole grains. They're the least available. They're the hardest to come by. They're the least accessible. They're the most expensive. And so that I think kind of sums up what it means to live in the modern food environment. The deck is stacked against most of us. The least healthy options are the ones that we're inundated by. And to kind of navigate that, you need a lot of resources, wherewithal, a lot of thought, a lot of time. And I think that's kind of where we came out thinking about it. But if anyone is interested in knowing more, they need to read your book Food Fight, because I think that's a great encapsulation of where we still are basically. Well, Julie, it's nice of you to say that. You know what you reminded me one time I was on a panel and a speaker asks the audience, how many minutes do you live from a Dunkin Donuts? And people sort of thought about it and nobody was more than about five minutes from a Dunkin Donuts. And if I think about where I live in North Carolina, a typical place to live, I'm assuming in America. And boy, within about five minutes, 10 minutes from my house, there's so many fast-food places. And then if you add to that the gas stations that have foods and the drug store that has foods. Not to mention the supermarkets. It's just a remarkable environment out there. And boy, you have to have kind of iron willpower to not stop and want that food. And then once it hits your body, then all heck breaks loose. It's a crazy, crazy environment, isn't it? Kevin, talk to us, if you will, about when this food environment collides with human biology. And what happens to normal biological processes that tell us how much we should eat, when we should stop, what we should eat, and things like that. I think that that is one of the newer pieces that we're really just getting a handle on some of the science. It's been observed for long periods of time that if you change a rat's food environment like Tony Sclafani did many, many years ago. That rats aren't trying to maintain their weight. They're not trying to do anything other than eat whatever they feel like. And, he was having a hard time getting rats to fatten up on a high fat diet. And he gave them this so-called supermarket diet or cafeteria diet composed of mainly human foods. And they gained a ton of weight. And I think that pointed to the fact that it's not that these rats lacked willpower or something like that. That they weren't making these conscious choices in the same way that we often think humans are entirely under their conscious control about what we're doing when we make our food choices. And therefore, we criticize people as having weak willpower when they're not able to choose a healthier diet in the face of the food environment. I think the newer piece that we're sort of only beginning to understand is how is it that that food environment and the foods that we eat might be changing this internal symphony of signals that's coming from our guts, from the hormones in our blood, to our brains and the understanding that of food intake. While you might have control over an individual meal and how much you eat in that individual meal is under biological control. And what are the neural systems and how do they work inside our brains in communicating with our bodies and our environment as a whole to shift the sort of balance point where body weight is being regulated. To try to better understand this really intricate interconnection or interaction between our genes, which are very different between people. And thousands of different genes contributing to determining heritability of body size in a given environment and how those genes are making us more or less susceptible to these differences in the food environment. And what's the underlying biology? I'd be lying to say if that we have that worked out. I think we're really beginning to understand that, but I hope what the book can give people is an appreciation for the complexity of those internal signals and that they exist. And that food intake isn't entirely under our control. And that we're beginning to unpack the science of how those interactions work. It's incredibly interesting. I agree with you on that. I have a slide that I bet I've shown a thousand times in talks that I think Tony Sclafani gave me decades ago that shows laboratory rats standing in front of a pile of these supermarket foods. And people would say, well, of course you're going to get overweight if that's all you eat. But animals would eat a healthy diet if access to it. But what they did was they had the pellets of the healthy rat chow sitting right in that pile. Exactly. And the animals ignore that and overeat the unhealthy food. And then you have this metabolic havoc occur. So, it seems like the biology we've all inherited works pretty well if you have foods that we've inherited from the natural environment. But when things become pretty unnatural and we have all these concoctions and chemicals that comprise the modern food environment the system really breaks down, doesn't it? Yeah. And I think that a lot of people are often swayed by the idea as well. Those foods just taste better and that might be part of it. But I think that what we've come to realize, even in our human experiments where we change people's food environments... not to the same extent that Tony Sclafani did with his rats, but for a month at a time where we ask people to not be trying to gain or lose weight. And we match certain food environments for various nutrients of concern. You know, they overeat diets that are higher in these so-called ultra-processed foods and they'd spontaneously lose weight when we remove those from the diet. And they're not saying that the foods are any more or less pleasant to eat. There's this underlying sort of the liking of foods is somewhat separate from the wanting of foods as neuroscientists are beginning to understand the different neural pathways that are involved in motivation and reward as opposed to the sort of just the hedonic liking of foods. Even the simple explanation of 'oh yeah, the rats just like the food more' that doesn't seem to be fully explaining why we have these behaviors. Why it's more complicated than a lot of people make out. Let's talk about ultra-processed foods and boy, I've got two wonderful people to talk to about that topic. Julia, let's start with your opinion on this. So tell us about ultra-processed foods and how much of the modern diet do they occupy? So ultra-processed foods. Obviously there's an academic definition and there's a lot of debate about defining this category of foods, including in the US by the Health and Human Services. But the way I think about it is like, these are foods that contain ingredients that you don't use in your home kitchen. They're typically cooked. Concocted in factories. And they now make up, I think it's like 60% of the calories that are consumed in America and in other similar high-income countries. And a lot of these foods are what researchers would also call hyper palatable. They're crossing these pairs of nutrient thresholds like carbohydrate, salt, sugar, fat. These pairs that don't typically exist in nature. So, for the reasons you were just discussing they seem to be particularly alluring to people. They're again just like absolutely ubiquitous and in these more developed contexts, like in the US and in the UK in particular. They've displaced a lot of what we would think of as more traditional food ways or ways that people were eating. So that's sort of how I think about them. You know, if you go to a supermarket these days, it's pretty hard to find a part of the supermarket that doesn't have these foods. You know, whole entire aisles of processed cereals and candies and chips and soft drinks and yogurts, frozen foods, yogurts. I mean, it's just, it's all over the place. And you know, given that if the average is 60% of calories, and there are plenty of people out there who aren't eating any of that stuff at all. For the other people who are, the number is way higher. And that, of course, is of great concern. So there have been hundreds of studies now on ultra-processed foods. It was a concept born not that long ago. And there's been an explosion of science and that's all for the good, I think, on these ultra-processed foods. And perhaps of all those studies, the one discussed most is one that you did, Kevin. And because it was exquisitely controlled and it also produced pretty striking findings. Would you describe that original study you did and what you found? Sure. So, the basic idea was one of the challenges that we have in nutrition science is accurately measuring how many calories people eat. And the best way to do that is to basically bring people into a laboratory and measure. Give them a test meal and measure how many calories they eat. Most studies of that sort last for maybe a day or two. But I always suspected that people could game the system if for a day or two, it's probably not that hard to behave the way that the researcher wants, or the subject wants to deceive the researcher. We decided that what we wanted to do was bring people into the NIH Clinical Center. Live with us for a month. And in two two-week blocks, we decided that we would present them with two different food environments essentially that both provided double the number of calories that they would require to maintain their body weight. Give them very simple instructions. Eat as much or as little as you'd like. Don't be trying to change your weight. We're not going to tell you necessarily what the study's about. We're going to measure lots of different things. And they're blinded to their weight measurements and they're wearing loose fitting scrubs and things like that, so they can't tell if their clothes are getting tighter or looser. And so, what we did is in for one two-week block, we presented people with the same number of calories, the same amount of sugar and fat and carbs and fiber. And we gave them a diet that was composed of 80% of calories coming from these ultra-processed foods. And the other case, we gave them a diet that was composed of 0% of calories from ultra-processed food and 80% of the so-called minimally processed food group. And what we then did was just measured people's leftovers essentially. And I say we, it was really the chefs and the dieticians at the clinical center who are doing all the legwork on this. But what we found was pretty striking, which was that when people were exposed to this highly ultra-processed food environment, despite being matched for these various nutrients of concern, they overate calories. Eating about 500 calories per day on average, more than the same people in the minimally processed diet condition. And they gained weight and gained body fat. And, when they were in the minimally processed diet condition, they spontaneously lost weight and lost body fat without trying in either case, right? They're just eating to the same level of hunger and fullness and overall appetite. And not reporting liking the meals any more or less in one diet versus the other. Something kind of more fundamental seemed to have been going on that we didn't fully understand at the time. What was it about these ultra-processed foods? And we were clearly getting rid of many of the things that promote their intake in the real world, which is that they're convenient, they're cheap, they're easy to obtain, they're heavily marketed. None of that was at work here. It was something really about the meals themselves that we were providing to people. And our subsequent research has been trying to figure out, okay, well what were the properties of those meals that we were giving to these folks that were composed primarily of ultra-processed foods that were driving people to consume excess calories? You know, I've presented your study a lot when I give talks. It's nice hearing it coming from you rather than me. But a couple of things that interest me here. You use people as their own controls. Each person had two weeks of one diet and two weeks of another. That's a pretty powerful way of providing experimental control. Could you say just a little bit more about that? Yeah, sure. So, when you design a study, you're trying to maximize the efficiency of the study to get the answers that you want with the least number of participants while still having good control and being able to design the study that's robust enough to detect a meaningful effect if it exists. One of the things that you do when you analyze studies like that or design studies like that, you could just randomize people to two different groups. But given how noisy and how different between people the measurement of food intake is we would've required hundreds of people in each group to detect an effect like the one that we discovered using the same person acting as their own control. We would still be doing the study 10 years later as opposed to what we were able to do in this particular case, which is completed in a year or so for that first study. And so, yeah, when you kind of design a study that way it's not always the case that you get that kind of improvement in statistical power. But for a measurement like food intake, it really is necessary to kind of do these sorts of crossover type studies where each person acts as their own control. So put the 500 calorie increment in context. Using the old fashioned numbers, 3,500 calories equals a pound. That'd be about a pound a week or a lot of pounds over a year. But of course, you don't know what would happen if people were followed chronically and all that. But still 500 calories is a whopping increase, it seems to me. It sure is. And there's no way that we would expect it to stay at that constant level for many, many weeks on end. And I think that's one of the key questions going forward is how persistent is that change. And how does something that we've known about and we discuss in our books the basic physiology of how both energy expenditure changes as people gain and lose weight, as well as how does appetite change in a given environment when they gain and lose weight? And how do those two processes eventually equate at a new sort of stable body weight in this case. Either higher or lower than when people started the program of this diet manipulation. And so, it's really hard to make those kinds of extrapolations. And that's of course, the need for further research where you have longer periods of time and you, probably have an even better control over their food environment as a result. I was surprised when I first read your study that you were able to detect a difference in percent body fat in such a short study. Did that surprise you as well? Certainly the study was not powered to detect body fat changes. In other words, we didn't know even if there were real body fat changes whether or not we would have the statistical capabilities to do that. We did use a method, DXA, which is probably one of the most precise and therefore, if we had a chance to measure it, we had the ability to detect it as opposed to other methods. There are other methods that are even more precise, but much more expensive. So, we thought that we had a chance to detect differences there. Other things that we use that we also didn't think that we necessarily would have a chance to detect were things like liver fat or something like that. Those have a much less of an ability. It's something that we're exploring now with our current study. But, again, it's all exploratory at that point. So what can you tell us about your current study? We just wrapped it up, thankfully. What we were doing was basically re-engineering two new ultra-processed diets along parameters that we think are most likely the mechanisms by which ultra-processed meals drove increased energy intake in that study. One was the non-beverage energy density. In other words, how many calories per gram of food on the plate, not counting the beverages. Something that we noticed in the first study was that ultra-processed foods, because they're essentially dried out in the processing for reasons of food safety to prevent bacterial growth and increased shelf life, they end up concentrating the foods. They're disrupting the natural food matrix. They last a lot longer, but as a result, they're a more concentrated form of calories. Despite being, by design, we chose the overall macronutrients to be the same. They weren't necessarily higher fat as we often think of as higher energy density. What we did was we designed an ultra-processed diet that was low in energy density to kind of match the minimally processed diet. And then we also varied the number of individual foods that were deemed hyper palatable according to kind of what Julia said that crossed these pairs of thresholds for fat and sugar or fat and salt or carbs and salt. What we noticed in the first study was that we presented people with more individual foods on the plate that had these hyper palatable combinations. And I wrestle with the term terminology a little bit because I don't necessarily think that they're working through the normal palatability that they necessarily like these foods anymore because again, we asked people to rate the meals and they didn't report differences. But something about those combinations, regardless of what you call them, seemed to be driving that in our exploratory analysis of the first study. We designed a diet that was high in energy density, but low in hyper palatable foods, similar to the minimally processed. And then their fourth diet is with basically low in energy density and hyper palatable foods. And so, we presented some preliminary results last year and what we were able to show is that when we reduced both energy density and the number of hyper palatable foods, but still had 80% of calories from ultra-processed foods, that people more or less ate the same number of calories now as they did when they were the same people were exposed to the minimally processed diet. In fact they lost weight, to a similar extent as the minimally processed diet. And that suggests to me that we can really understand mechanisms at least when it comes to calorie intake in these foods. And that might give regulators, policy makers, the sort of information that they need in order to target which ultra-processed foods and what context are they really problematic. It might give manufacturers if they have the desire to kind of reformulate these foods to understand which ones are more or less likely to cause over consumption. So, who knows? We'll see how people respond to that and we'll see what the final results are with the entire study group that, like I said, just finished, weeks ago. I respond very positively to the idea of the study. The fact that if people assume ultra-processed foods are bad actors, then trying to find out what it is about them that's making the bad actors becomes really important. And you're exactly right, there's a lot of pressure on the food companies now. Some coming from public opinion, some coming from parts of the political world. Some from the scientific world. And my guess is that litigation is going to become a real actor here too. And the question is, what do you want the food industry to do differently? And your study can really help inform that question. So incredibly valuable research. I can't wait to see the final study, and I'm really delighted that you did that. Let's turn our attention for a minute to food marketing. Julia, where does food marketing fit in all this? Julia - What I was very surprised to find while we were researching the book was this deep, long history of calls against marketing junk food in particular to kids. I think from like the 1950s, you have pediatrician groups and other public health professionals saying, stop this. And anyone who has spent any time around small children knows that it works. We covered just like a little, it was from an advocacy group in the UK that exposed aid adolescents to something called Triple Dip Chicken. And then asked them later, pick off of this menu, I think it was like 50 items, which food you want to order. And they all chose Triple Dip chicken, which is, as the name suggests, wasn't the healthiest thing to choose on the menu. I think we know obviously that it works. Companies invest a huge amount of money in marketing. It works even in ways like these subliminal ways that you can't fully appreciate to guide our food choices. Kevin raised something really interesting was that in his studies it was the foods. So, it's a tricky one because it's the food environment, but it's also the properties of the foods themselves beyond just the marketing. Kevin, how do you think about that piece? I'm curious like. Kevin - I think that even if our first study and our second study had turned out there's no real difference between these artificial environments that we've put together where highly ultra-processed diets lead to excess calorie intake. If that doesn't happen, if it was just the same, it wouldn't rule out the fact that because these foods are so heavily marketed, because they're so ubiquitous. They're cheap and convenient. And you know, they're engineered for many people to incorporate into their day-to-day life that could still promote over consumption of calories. We just remove those aspects in our very artificial food environment. But of course, the real food environment, we're bombarded by these advertisements and the ubiquity of the food in every place that you sort of turn. And how they've displaced healthy alternatives, which is another mechanism by which they could cause harm, right? It doesn't even have to be the foods themselves that are harmful. What do they displace? Right? We only have a certain amount the marketers called stomach share, right? And so, your harm might not be necessarily the foods that you're eating, but the foods that they displaced. So even if our experimental studies about the ultra-processed meals themselves didn't show excess calorie intake, which they clearly did, there's still all these other mechanisms to explore about how they might play a part in the real world. You know, the food industry will say that they're agnostic about what foods they sell. They just respond to demand. That seems utter nonsense to me because people don't overconsume healthy foods, but they do overconsume the unhealthy ones. And you've shown that to be the case. So, it seems to me that idea that they can just switch from this portfolio of highly processed foods to more healthy foods just doesn't work out for them financially. Do you think that's right? I honestly don't have that same sort of knee jerk reaction. Or at least I perceive it as a knee jerk reaction, kind of attributing malice in some sense to the food industry. I think that they'd be equally happy if they could get you to buy a lot and have the same sort of profit margins, a lot of a group of foods that was just as just as cheap to produce and they could market. I think that you could kind of turn the levers in a way that that would be beneficial. I mean, setting aside for example, that diet soda beverages are probably from every randomized control trial that we've seen, they don't lead to the same amount of weight gain as the sugar sweetened alternatives. They're just as profitable to the beverage manufacturers. They sell just as many of them. Now they might have other deleterious consequences, but I don't think that it's necessarily the case that food manufacturers have to have these deleterious or unhealthy foods as their sole means of attaining profit. Thanks for that. So, Julia, back to you. You and Kevin point out in your book some of the biggest myths about nutrition. What would you say some of them are? I think one big, fundamental, overarching myth is this idea that the problem is in us. That this rise of diet related diseases, this explosion that we've seen is either because of a lack of willpower. Which you have some very elegant research on this that we cite in the book showing willpower did not collapse in the last 30, 40 years of this epidemic of diet related disease. But it's even broader than that. It's a slow metabolism. It's our genes. Like we put the problem on ourselves, and we don't look at the way that the environment has changed enough. And I think as individuals we don't do that. And so much of the messaging is about what you Kevin, or you Kelly, or you Julia, could be doing better. you know, do resistance training. Like that's the big thing, like if you open any social media feed, it's like, do more resistance training, eat more protein, cut out the ultra-processed foods. What about the food environment? What about the leaders that should be held accountable for helping to perpetuate these toxic food environments? I think that that's this kind of overarching, this pegging it and also the rise of personalized nutrition. This like pegging it to individual biology instead of for whatever the claim is, instead of thinking about how did environments and don't want to have as part of our lives. So that's kind of a big overarching thing that I think about. It makes sense. So, let's end on a positive note. There's a lot of reason to be concerned about the modern food environment. Do you see a helpful way forward and what might be done about this? Julia, let's stay with you. What do you think? I think so. We spent a lot of time researching history for this book. And a lot of things that seem impossible are suddenly possible when you have enough public demand and enough political will and pressure. There are so many instances and even in the history of food. We spend time with this character Harvey Wiley, who around the turn of the century, his research was one of the reasons we have something like the FDA protecting the food supply. That gives me a lot of hope. And we are in this moment where a lot of awareness is being raised about the toxic food environment and all these negative attributes of food that people are surrounded by. I think with enough organization and enough pressure, we can see change. And we can see this kind of flip in the food environment that I think we all want to see where healthier foods become more accessible, available, affordable, and the rest of it. Sounds good. Kevin, what are your thoughts? Yes, I just extend that to saying that for the first time in history, we sort of know what the population of the planet is going to be that we have to feed in the future. We're not under this sort of Malthusian threat of not being able to know where the population growth is going to go. We know it's going to be roughly 10 billion people within the next century. And we know we've got to change the way that we produce and grow food for the planet as well as for the health of people. We know we've got to make changes anyway. And we're starting from a position where per capita, we're producing more protein and calories than any other time in human history, and we're wasting more food. We actually know we're in a position of strength. We don't have to worry so acutely that we won't be able to provide enough food for everybody. It's what kind of food are we going to produce? How are we going to produce it in the way that's sustainable for both people and the planet? We have to tackle that anyway. And for the folks who had experienced the obesity epidemic or finally have drugs to help them and other kinds of interventions to help them. That absolve them from this idea that it's just a matter of weak willpower if we finally have some pharmaceutical interventions that are useful. So, I do see a path forward. Whether or not we take that is another question. Bios Dr. Kevin Hall is the section chief of Integrative Physiology Section in the Laboratory of Biological Modeling at the NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Kevin's laboratory investigates the integrative physiology of macronutrient metabolism, body composition, energy expenditure, and control of food intake. His main goal is to better understand how the food environment affects what we eat and how what we eat affects our physiology. He performs clinical research studies as well as developing mathematical models and computer simulations to better understand physiology, integrate data, and make predictions. In recent years, he has conducted randomized clinical trials to study how diets high in ultra-processed food may cause obesity and other chronic diseases. He holds a Ph.D. from McGill University. Julia Belluz is a Paris-based journalist and a contributing opinion writer to the New York Times, she has reported extensively on medicine, nutrition, and global public health from Canada, the US, and Europe. Previously, Julia was Vox's senior health correspondent in Washington, DC, a Knight Science Journalism fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and she worked as a reporter in Toronto and London. Her writing has appeared in a range of international publications, including the BMJ, the Chicago Tribune, the Economist, the Globe and Mail, Maclean's, the New York Times, ProPublica, and the Times of London. Her work has also had an impact, helping improve policies on maternal health and mental healthcare for first responders at the hospital- and state-level, as well as inspiring everything from scientific studies to an opera. Julia has been honored with numerous journalism awards, including the 2016 Balles Prize in Critical Thinking, the 2017 American Society of Nutrition Journalism Award, and three Canadian National Magazine Awards (in 2007 and 2013). In 2019, she was a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Communications Award finalist. She contributed chapters on public health journalism in the Tactical Guide to Science Journalism, To Save Humanity: What Matters Most for a Healthy Future, and was a commissioner for the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges.

In seinem Buch „Der NGO-Komplex“ beschreibt Journalist Björn Harms ein verborgenes Machtgeflecht aus Politik, Verwaltung und zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen. Im AUF1-Interview erklärt er, wie staatliche Gelder gezielt genutzt werden, um linke Ideologie zu fördern und oppositionelle Stimmen zu schwächen. Und er schildert, welche Rolle dabei der "tiefe Staat" spielt und warum auch vermeintlich konservative Parteien wie die CDU diesen Komplex unangetastet lassen.

In this episode, Dr. Ahmad Ammous, MD, exposes the profit-driven "profit mills" of modern medicine, critiquing its reliance on pills to manage symptoms rather than address root causes. Drawing from his journey as an internal medicine physician, he challenges pharmaceutical-centric practices and delves into quantum biology's healing potential, exploring topics like light-driven energy production through melanin's water-splitting mechanism, cytochrome sensitivity to red and blue light in the electron transport chain, and circadian biology's role in melatonin and cortisol regulation. Dr. Ammous offers practical solutions, such as paleo diets and sunlight exposure, to optimize health, while advocating for decentralized systems, including Bitcoin, to empower patients over profits.Modern Medicine is Profits over HumanityTHIS IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICECentralized Medicine = PROFITS over HUMANITYDr. Ammous X https://x.com/AmmousMDDr. Ammous website https://ammousmd.com/?v=eb65bcceaa5fDaylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off athttps://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismChroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount athttps://getchroma.co/?ref=autismCognity AI for Autistic Social Skills, use "autism" for 10% discount athttps://thecognity.com0:00 Dr. Ahmad Ammous, MD; Internal Medicine Medical Doctor5:22 The Harms of Medical School8:13 The Profit Mill in Centralized Medicine & Banks; Rockefeller Medicine & Fed Reserve; Flexnor Report; Big Harma (Pharma)14:21 The Role of Light in Life & Health; Isolated Blue Light is the new smoking17:09 Melanin20:13 Melanin's Role as an Antioxidant & Detoxing23:07 Autism & Sensitivities26:24 Melatonin's Additional Roles29:10 The Harms of Artificial Light on Health; POMC; Cortisol31:18 Artificial Light at Night & Sleep; Massive Hormone Disruptor33:21 The Electron Transport Chain & OXPHOS; Cytochromes; Biological Energy; ROS; Red Light & Cytochrome C Oxidase38:21 The Massive Scams of Heart Prescriptions, Guidelines, Cholesterol and Statins & a leading cause of death is still Heart Disease, Heart Attacks; Big Harma49:19 Environmental Factors & Modern Diseases53:55 Covert Push:Pull Tactic on Humans from Medicine & Health Insurance; The Profit Mills58:38 Autism & Lifestyle; Circadian Rhythms, Diet, & GI59:35 Daylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 discount1:03:00 Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discountX: https://x.com/rps47586YT: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGxEzLKXkjppo3nqmpXpzuAemail: info.fromthespectrum@gmail.com

Guests:Neurologist Dr Suzanne O'SullivanShelley Brady, DCUShane Bergin, UCD

On July 21st 2025, the FDA convened a hearing on maternal use of antidepressants during pregnancy and the impact this use has on fetal development. Around 400,000 children in the United States are born each year whose mothers took antidepressants while pregnant, and so it's easy to see the societal importance of this topic. What are the risks to the fetus, the newborn, and the long-term development of that child? Adam Urato and Joanna Moncrieff were members of that FDA panel, and so too were several others well-known to MIA readers, including David Healy and Joseph Witt-Doerring. The purpose of the panel was to assess whether the FDA needed to put a warning on antidepressants related to their use in pregnancy, and most on the panel spoke of research that told of the need to do so. However, after the panel concluded, the American Psychiatric Association and other medical associations, most notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, responded with what can only be described as howls of outrage, issuing press releases and telling the public that the panel was biased and that the real risk during pregnancy was untreated mental illness. These medical organizations asserted that the increased risk of adverse outcomes for children born to depressed mothers is due to the illness and not the drug, and that there was plenty of evidence that antidepressants were a helpful and even life-saving treatment for maternal depression. Here is where we are today. That FDA hearing put two narratives on public display, and most media reports embraced the narrative put forth by the medical organizations. What we will do today is review the evidence that exists on this topic and the response by the medical guilds to a public airing of that evidence. Dr. Adam Urato is Chief of Maternal and Fetal Medicine at the Metro West Medical Center in Framingham, Massachusetts, and he has been speaking and writing about the risk of medications used during pregnancy for years. Dr. Joanna Moncrieff is a UK psychiatrist and researcher who was a co-founder of the Critical Psychiatry Network and is well known for her research on the safety and efficacy of psychiatric drugs. *** Thank you for being with us to listen to the podcast and read our articles this year. MIA is funded entirely by reader donations. If you value MIA, please help us continue to survive and grow. https://www.madinamerica.com/donate/ To find the Mad in America podcast on your preferred podcast player, click here: https://pod.link/1212789850 © Mad in America 2025. Produced by James Moore https://www.jmaudio.org

Rachael Harms Mahlandt is passionate about creating Sidewalk Joy - adding bright spots of whimsy to her city through creative art installations. Sidewalk Joy spots are free, curated public galleries, exchanges and displays, often installed in front yards, along a sidewalk fence, or on the side of a building. Her first project was creating a dinosaur-themed diorama (a ‘Dinorama'), which then led to a dino exchange, a micro book swap, an Air Bee N Bee, micro parks, a mug exchange, and more.Building on the success of the Portland Sidewalk Joy map she co-created, Rachael recently launched a Worldwide Sidewalk Joy map, highlighting hundreds of projects (and growing!). She loves the community connections that happen through Sidewalk Joy spots and openly shares her own knowledge to help other people get started.On this episode, host Angela de Burger chats with Rachael about what sparked her love of sidewalk art installations, how she comes up with new ideas, how these projects bring people together and build community, and what you can find on the Worldwide Sidewalk Joy map. Say hi to Rachael:  Websites:     - Sidewalk Joy - sidewalkjoy.com    - PDX Sidewalk Joy - pdxsidewalkjoy.com    - Worldwide Sidewalk Joy - worldwidesidewalkjoy.com  Instagram - @pdxdinorama  TikTok - @pdxdinorama   Facebook - /pdxdinorama   YouTube - @PDXDinorama/shorts  Bluesky - /pdxdinorama.bsky.socialShow mentions:  Awesome Foundation Portland - awesomefoundation.org/en/chapters/portland----Creative Pulse Podcast socials:  Instagram: @creativepulsepodcastMusic credit: https://www.purple-planet.com

Contributor: Aaron Lessen, MD Educational Pearls: The cause of Alzheimer's disease is multifactorial, but the most widely suspected mechanism is the amyloid cascade hypothesis: Beta-amyloid proteins accumulate in the central nervous system, forming plaques that impair neuronal function. In recent years, advances have led to the development of targeted therapies with monoclonal antibodies. These drugs: Work by degrading amyloid plaques Slow the rate of cognitive decline and disease progression Have major side effects, most notably the development of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) ARIA may present as edema, effusion, or microhemorrhages, which are only detectable on MRI Symptoms can include headache, vertigo, or focal neurologic deficits that mimic stroke For patients presenting to the emergency department with stroke-like symptoms, it is important to consider whether they have a history of Alzheimer's disease and whether they are taking these medications. This guides decisions about imaging and treatment: The work-up may require MRI, which can delay thrombolytic or endovascular therapy in patients with true strokeConversely, treating a patient with ARIA using thrombolytics increases the risk of bleeding and other complications References Ebell MH, Barry HC, Baduni K, Grasso G. Clinically Important Benefits and Harms of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Fam Med. 2024 Jan-Feb;22(1):50-62. doi: 10.1370/afm.3050. PMID: 38253509; PMCID: PMC11233076. Ma C, Hong F, Yang S. Amyloidosis in Alzheimer's Disease: Pathogeny, Etiology, and Related Therapeutic Directions. Molecules. 2022 Feb 11;27(4):1210. doi: 10.3390/molecules27041210. PMID: 35209007; PMCID: PMC8876037. Perneczky R, Dom G, Chan A, Falkai P, Bassetti C. Anti-amyloid antibody treatments for Alzheimer's disease. Eur J Neurol. 2024 Feb;31(2):e16049. doi: 10.1111/ene.16049. Epub 2023 Sep 11. PMID: 37697714; PMCID: PMC11235913. Summarized by Ashley Lyons, OMS3 | Edited by Ashley Lyons and Jorge Chalit, OMS4 Donate: https://emergencymedicalminute.org/donate/

ACOG: Cannabis Harms PregnanciesVidcast:  https://www.instagram.com/p/DPa3nh4jPE_/Here's a warning from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  Cannabis use, that is products that contain THC and CBD, during pregnancy or while you're breastfeeding increases your chances of delivering a baby prematurely with a low birth weight due to in-uteri growth retardation, requiring a NICU admission, and/or raising a baby with long-term neurological, cognitive, and behavioral issues. Cannabis also impacts you. The smoke and vapors harm lung tissues and lower your oxygen levels.  It can increase your risk of falling and trigger auto accidents.By cannabis I mean smoking, vaping, or munching on cannabis products.Why the alarm?  Over a recent 15 year period, cannabis use by pregnant women has more than doubled.  Now that these products are legal in more states, more women are using them to relieve their pregnancy-related issues including morning sickness, headache, back pains, fatigue, and emotional distress.Your medical teams are so worried about this that ACOG has directed them to ask you about cannabis use and give you practical and safe alternatives. They will not be drug testing you but rather counseling you. They will tell you to avoid cannabis products if you can and to minimize their use if your can't.For morning sickness: eat bland foods, keep hydrated with non-caffeinated beverages; eat dry foods such as crackers and cereal in he morning; and eat small meals every 3 hours rather than the traditional 3 meals a day. For breast pain: wear soft supportive bras and loose-fitting garments; wash your breasts gently; apply ice packs; and absorb leaking fluids with soft pads.For other body pains: find comfortable positions and change positions often; use a lumbar pillow when sitting; wear comfortable low-heeled shoes; wear support stockings; use heating pads and massage.For dizziness: move around while standing; if lying down, turn to your side as you rise; rise slowly.One more thing: Researchers at the University of Toronto testing 1050 egg bathing follicular fluid have shown that  cannabis diminishes fertility in women by triggering genetic misfires that lead to non-viable embryos.  Men…Cannabis has also been shown to reduce sperm count and viability.https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2025/09/acog-releases-new-recommendations-cannabis-use-pregnancy-lactationhttps://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/pregnancy-painshttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63011-2https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7385722/#cannabis #THC #CBD #ACOG #pregnancy #NICU #eggs #spermcannabis, THC, CBD, ACOG, pregnancy, NICU, eggs, sperm

Daystar and Alexander hang out with Max Harms at LessOnline, and invite him to record an episode on his books Crystal Society, Crystal Mentality, and Crystal Eternity. Max works at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and the trilogy is an imagining of what Artificial General Intelligence might be like, written from the perspective of one of the AI's subagents.His newest book, Red Heart, will be out November 3rd and is available for pre-order.https://maxharms.com/redheart

Jonathan and Jolene Harms have been arrested for Felony Stalking and other crimes in Boise, Idaho. They are both being held on a $15 million bond.https://idahonews.com/news/local/boise-man-and-wife-arrested-for-violating-protection-order-threatening-police-officer?utm_source=chatgpt.comhttps://www.cityofboise.org/news/police/2025/july/boise-police-arrest-suspect-on-felony-stalking-charges-second-arrest-made-in-ongoing-investigation/?utm_source=chatgpt.comhttps://people.com/go-hunt-kill-idaho-couple-charged-277-page-hit-list-church-11820386?utm_source=chatgpt.comDumb Criminals-The Penis Man of Tempehttps://www.azfamily.com/2025/09/26/tempe-police-arrest-man-suspected-vandalizing-penis-man-buildings/Florida ManThief steals Sheriff Grady's picture right off the wallhttps://www.fox13news.com/news/polk-sheriff-grady-judds-picture-stolen-from-substation-florida-man-arrested-he-stole-my-picture Join our squad! Kristi and Katie share true crime stories and give you actionable things you can do to help, all with a wicked sense of humor.Merch Store: https://truecrimesquad-shop.fourthwall.com/Follow our True Crime Trials Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TrueCrimeSquadTrialsFollow our True Crime Shorts Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@truecrimesquadshorts-t6iWant to Support our work and get extra perks?https://buymeacoffee.com/truecrimesquadLooking for extra content?https://www.patreon.com/truecrimesquad*Social Media Links*Facebook: www.facebook.com/truecrimesquadFacebook Discussion Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/215774426330767Website: https://www.truecrimesquad.comTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@truecrimesquadBlueSky- https://bsky.app/profile/truecrimesquad.bsky.social True Crime Squad on Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/show/5gIPqBHJLftbXdRgs1Bqm1

Dr. Kimberly Harms discusses the importance of end of life planning. She shares her journey from dentistry to becoming a grief counselor, death doula, mediator, and life coach after personal loss, emphasizing the importance of preparing for death and leaving a meaningful legacy. She explains how avoiding conversations about death often leads to family conflict, highlighting the need for clear wills, healthcare directives, letters of intent, and honest family discussions. Beyond finances, she stresses that legacies should center on love, resilience, forgiveness, and teaching life skills to future generations.  We discuss...  Dr. Kimberly Harms transitioned from a 30-year dental career to grief counseling and becoming a death doula after personal health issues and loss. She emphasizes the importance of preparing for death to prevent family conflict and ensure a peaceful legacy. Clear wills, healthcare directives, letters of intent, and family discussions are critical to avoiding post-death disputes. Legacy goes beyond money, including love, resilience, life skills, and emotional guidance for future generations. Grief is a process that requires active effort, time, and sometimes professional help to work through. Celebrating life after grieving can bring joy and help loved ones move forward. Discussing death openly with family, including children, helps prepare them and reduces misunderstandings later. Emotional affairs, forgiveness, and reconciliation should be addressed while alive to avoid burdening loved ones. Material possessions should be organized or distributed before death to minimize conflict. True legacy is remembered in the hearts and minds of loved ones, not through wealth or public recognition. Giving back through acts like teaching, volunteering, or creating positive impact can extend one's legacy beyond family. Preparing now—financially, emotionally, and relationally—ensures loved ones can thrive after one's passing. Today's Panelists: Kirk Chisholm | Innovative Wealth Barbara Friedberg | Barbara Friedberg Personal Finance Douglas Heagren | Mergent College Advisors Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/moneytreepodcast Follow LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/money-tree-investing-podcast Follow on Twitter/X: https://x.com/MTIPodcast For more information, visit the show notes at https://moneytreepodcast.com/end-of-life-planning-kimberly-harms-750 

After a hiatus, we've officially restarted the Uncommons podcast, and our first long-form interview is with Professor Taylor Owen to discuss the ever changing landscape of the digital world, the fast emergence of AI and the implications for our kids, consumer safety and our democracy.Taylor Owen's work focuses on the intersection of media, technology and public policy and can be found at taylorowen.com. He is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications and the founding Director of The Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University where he is also an Associate Professor. He is the host of the Globe and Mail's Machines Like Us podcast and author of several books.Taylor also joined me for this discussion more than 5 years ago now. And a lot has happened in that time.Upcoming episodes will include guests Tanya Talaga and an episode focused on the border bill C-2, with experts from The Citizen Lab and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.We'll also be hosting a live event at the Naval Club of Toronto with Catherine McKenna, who will be launching her new book Run Like a Girl. Register for free through Eventbrite. As always, if you have ideas for future guests or topics, email us at info@beynate.ca Chapters:0:29 Setting the Stage1:44 Core Problems & Challenges4:31 Information Ecosystem Crisis10:19 Signals of Reliability & Policy Challenges14:33 Legislative Efforts18:29 Online Harms Act Deep Dive25:31 AI Fraud29:38 Platform Responsibility32:55 Future Policy DirectionFurther Reading and Listening:Public rules for big tech platforms with Taylor Owen — Uncommons Podcast“How the Next Government can Protect Canada's Information Ecosystem.” Taylor Owen with Helen Hayes, The Globe and Mail, April 7, 2025.Machines Like Us PodcastBill C-63Transcript:Nate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:43Welcome to Uncommons, I'm Nate Erskine-Smith. This is our first episode back after a bit of a hiatus, and we are back with a conversation focused on AI safety, digital governance, and all of the challenges with regulating the internet. I'm joined by Professor Taylor Owen. He's an expert in these issues. He's been writing about these issues for many years. I actually had him on this podcast more than five years ago, and he's been a huge part of getting us in Canada to where we are today. And it's up to this government to get us across the finish line, and that's what we talk about. Taylor, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me. So this feels like deja vu all over again, because I was going back before you arrived this morning and you joined this podcast in April of 2020 to talk about platform governance.Taylor Owen00:43-00:44It's a different world.Taylor00:45-00:45In some ways.Nate Erskine-Smith00:45-01:14Yeah. Well, yeah, a different world for sure in many ways, but also the same challenges in some ways too. Additional challenges, of course. But I feel like in some ways we've come a long way because there's been lots of consultation. There have been some legislative attempts at least, but also we haven't really accomplished the thing. So let's talk about set the stage. Some of the same challenges from five years ago, but some new challenges. What are the challenges? What are the problems we're trying to solve? Yeah, I mean, many of them are the same, right?Taylor Owen01:14-03:06I mean, this is part of the technology moves fast. But when you look at the range of things citizens are concerned about when they and their children and their friends and their families use these sets of digital technologies that shape so much of our lives, many things are the same. So they're worried about safety. They're worried about algorithmic content and how that's feeding into what they believe and what they think. They're worried about polarization. We're worried about the integrity of our democracy and our elections. We're worried about sort of some of the more acute harms of like real risks to safety, right? Like children taking their own lives and violence erupting, political violence emerging. Like these things have always been present as a part of our digital lives. And that's what we were concerned about five years ago, right? When we talked about those harms, that was roughly the list. Now, the technologies we were talking about at the time were largely social media platforms, right? So that was the main way five years ago that we shared, consumed information in our digital politics and our digital public lives. And that is what's changing slightly. Now, those are still prominent, right? We're still on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook to a certain degree. But we do now have a new layer of AI and particularly chatbots. And I think a big question we face in this conversation in this, like, how do we develop policies that maximize the benefits of digital technologies and minimize the harms, which is all this is trying to do. Do we need new tools for AI or some of the things we worked on for so many years to get right, the still the right tools for this new set of technologies with chatbots and various consumer facing AI interfaces?Nate Erskine-Smith03:07-03:55My line in politics has always been, especially around privacy protections, that we are increasingly living our lives online. And especially, you know, my kids are growing up online and our laws need to reflect that reality. All of the challenges you've articulated to varying degrees exist in offline spaces, but can be incredibly hard. The rules we have can be incredibly hard to enforce at a minimum in the online space. And then some rules are not entirely fit for purpose and they need to be updated in the online space. It's interesting. I was reading a recent op-ed of yours, but also some of the research you've done. This really stood out. So you've got the Hogue Commission that says disinformation is the single biggest threat to our democracy. That's worth pausing on.Taylor Owen03:55-04:31Yeah, exactly. Like the commission that spent a year at the request of all political parties in parliament, at the urging of the opposition party, so it spent a year looking at a wide range of threats to our democratic systems that everybody was concerned about originating in foreign countries. And the conclusion of that was that the single biggest threat to our democracy is the way information flows through our society and how we're not governing it. Like that is a remarkable statement and it kind of came and went. And I don't know why we moved off from that so fast.Nate Erskine-Smith04:31-05:17Well, and there's a lot to pull apart there because you've got purposeful, intentional, bad actors, foreign influence operations. But you also have a really core challenge of just the reliability and credibility of the information ecosystem. So you have Facebook, Instagram through Meta block news in Canada. And your research, this was the stat that stood out. Don't want to put you in and say like, what do we do? Okay. So there's, you say 11 million views of news have been lost as a consequence of that blocking. Okay. That's one piece of information people should know. Yeah. But at the same time.Taylor Owen05:17-05:17A day. Yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith05:18-05:18So right.Taylor Owen05:18-05:2711 million views a day. And we should sometimes we go through these things really fast. It's huge. Again, Facebook decides to block news. 40 million people in Canada. Yeah.Taylor05:27-05:29So 11 million times a Canadian.Taylor Owen05:29-05:45And what that means is 11 million times a Canadian would open one of their news feeds and see Canadian journalism is taken out of the ecosystem. And it was replaced by something. People aren't using these tools less. So that journalism was replaced by something else.Taylor05:45-05:45Okay.Taylor Owen05:45-05:46So that's just it.Nate Erskine-Smith05:46-06:04So on the one side, we've got 11 million views a day lost. Yeah. And on the other side, Canadians, the majority of Canadians get their news from social media. But when the Canadians who get their news from social media are asked where they get it from, they still say Instagram and Facebook. But there's no news there. Right.Taylor Owen06:04-06:04They say they get.Nate Erskine-Smith06:04-06:05It doesn't make any sense.Taylor Owen06:06-06:23It doesn't and it does. It's terrible. They ask Canadians, like, where do you get people who use social media to get their news? Where do they get their news? and they still say social media, even though it's not there. Journalism isn't there. Journalism isn't there. And I think one of the explanations— Traditional journalism. There is—Taylor06:23-06:23There is—Taylor Owen06:23-06:47Well, this is what I was going to get at, right? Like, there is—one, I think, conclusion is that people don't equate journalism with news about the world. There's not a one-to-one relationship there. Like, journalism is one provider of news, but so are influencers, so are podcasts, people listening to this. Like this would be labeled probably news in people's.Nate Erskine-Smith06:47-06:48Can't trust the thing we say.Taylor Owen06:48-07:05Right. And like, and neither of us are journalists, right? But we are providing information about the world. And if it shows up in people's feeds, as I'm sure it will, like that probably gets labeled in people's minds as news, right? As opposed to pure entertainment, as entertaining as you are.Nate Erskine-Smith07:05-07:06It's public affairs content.Taylor Owen07:06-07:39Exactly. So that's one thing that's happening. The other is that there's a generation of creators that are stepping into this ecosystem to both fill that void and that can use these tools much more effectively. So in the last election, we found that of all the information consumed about the election, 50% of it was created by creators. 50% of the engagement on the election was from creators. Guess what it was for journalists, for journalism? Like 5%. Well, you're more pessimistic though. I shouldn't have led with the question. 20%.Taylor07:39-07:39Okay.Taylor Owen07:39-07:56So all of journalism combined in the entire country, 20 percent of engagement, influencers, 50 percent in the last election. So like we've shifted, at least on social, the actors and people and institutions that are fostering our public.Nate Erskine-Smith07:56-08:09Is there a middle ground here where you take some people that play an influencer type role but also would consider themselves citizen journalists in a way? How do you – It's a super interesting question, right?Taylor Owen08:09-08:31Like who – when are these people doing journalism? When are they doing acts of journalism? Like someone can be – do journalism and 90% of the time do something else, right? And then like maybe they reveal something or they tell an interesting story that resonates with people or they interview somebody and it's revelatory and it's a journalistic act, right?Taylor08:31-08:34Like this is kind of a journalistic act we're playing here.Taylor Owen08:35-08:49So I don't think – I think these lines are gray. but I mean there's some other underlying things here which like it matters if I think if journalistic institutions go away entirely right like that's probably not a good thing yeah I mean that's whyNate Erskine-Smith08:49-09:30I say it's terrifying is there's a there's a lot of good in the in the digital space that is trying to be there's creative destruction there's a lot of work to provide people a direct sense of news that isn't that filter that people may mistrust in traditional media. Having said that, so many resources and there's so much history to these institutions and there's a real ethics to journalism and journalists take their craft seriously in terms of the pursuit of truth. Absolutely. And losing that access, losing the accessibility to that is devastating for democracy. I think so.Taylor Owen09:30-09:49And I think the bigger frame of that for me is a democracy needs signals of – we need – as citizens in a democracy, we need signals of reliability. Like we need to know broadly, and we're not always going to agree on it, but like what kind of information we can trust and how we evaluate whether we trust it.Nate Erskine-Smith09:49-10:13And that's what – that is really going away. Pause for a sec. So you could imagine signals of reliability is a good phrase. what does it mean for a legislator when it comes to putting a rule in place? Because you could imagine, you could have a Blade Runner kind of rule that says you've got to distinguish between something that is human generatedTaylor10:13-10:14and something that is machine generated.Nate Erskine-Smith10:15-10:26That seems straightforward enough. It's a lot harder if you're trying to distinguish between Taylor, what you're saying is credible, and Nate, what you're saying is not credible,Taylor10:27-10:27which is probably true.Nate Erskine-Smith10:28-10:33But how do you have a signal of reliability in a different kind of content?Taylor Owen10:34-13:12I mean, we're getting into like a journalistic journalism policy here to a certain degree, right? And it's a wicked problem because the primary role of journalism is to hold you personally to account. And you setting rules for what they can and can't do and how they can and can't behave touches on some real like third rails here, right? It's fraught. However, I don't think it should ever be about policy determining what can and can't be said or what is and isn't journalism. The real problem is the distribution mechanism and the incentives within it. So a great example and a horrible example happened last week, right? So Charlie Kirk gets assassinated. I don't know if you opened a feed in the few days after that, but it was a horrendous place, right? Social media was an awful, awful, awful place because what you saw in that feed was the clearest demonstration I've ever seen in a decade of looking at this of how those algorithmic feeds have become radicalized. Like all you saw on every platform was the worst possible representations of every view. Right. Right. It was truly shocking and horrendous. Like people defending the murder and people calling for the murder of leftists and like on both sides. Right. people blaming Israel, people, whatever. Right. And that isn't a function of like- Aaron Charlie Kirk to Jesus. Sure. Like- It was bonkers all the way around. Totally bonkers, right? And that is a function of how those ecosystems are designed and the incentives within them. It's not a function of like there was journalism being produced about that. Like New York Times, citizens were doing good content about what was happening. It was like a moment of uncertainty and journalism was doing or playing a role, but it wasn't And so I think with all of these questions, including the online harms ones, and I think how we step into an AI governance conversation, the focus always has to be on those systems. I'm like, what is who and what and what are the incentives and the technical decisions being made that determine what we experience when we open these products? These are commercial products that we're choosing to consume. And when we open them, a whole host of business and design and technical decisions and human decisions shape the effect it has on us as people, the effect it has on our democracy, the vulnerabilities that exist in our democracy, the way foreign actors or hostile actors can take advantage of them, right? Like all of that stuff we've been talking about, the role reliability of information plays, like these algorithms could be tweaked for reliable versus unreliable content, right? Over time.Taylor13:12-13:15That's not a – instead of reactionary –Taylor Owen13:15-13:42Or like what's most – it gets most engagement or what makes you feel the most angry, which is largely what's driving X, for example, right now, right? You can torque all those things. Now, I don't think we want government telling companies how they have to torque it. But we can slightly tweak the incentives to get better content, more reliable content, less polarizing content, less hateful content, less harmful content, right? Those dials can be incentivized to be turned. And that's where the policy space should play, I think.Nate Erskine-Smith13:43-14:12And your focus on systems and assessing risks with systems. I think that's the right place to play. I mean, we've seen legislative efforts. You've got the three pieces in Canada. You've got online harms. You've got the privacy and very kind of vague initial foray into AI regs, which we can get to. And then a cybersecurity piece. And all of those ultimately died on the order paper. Yeah. We also had the journalistic protection policies, right, that the previous government did.Taylor Owen14:12-14:23I mean – Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can debate their merits. Yeah. But there was considerable effort put into backstopping the institutions of journalism by the – Well, they're twofold, right?Nate Erskine-Smith14:23-14:33There's the tax credit piece, sort of financial support. And then there was the Online News Act. Right. Which was trying to pull some dollars out of the platforms to pay for the news as well. Exactly.Taylor14:33-14:35So the sort of supply and demand side thing, right?Nate Erskine-Smith14:35-14:38There's the digital service tax, which is no longer a thing.Taylor Owen14:40-14:52Although it still is a piece of past legislation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It still is a thing. Yeah, yeah. Until you guys decide whether to negate the thing you did last year or not, right? Yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith14:52-14:55I don't take full responsibility for that one.Taylor Owen14:55-14:56No, you shouldn't.Nate Erskine-Smith14:58-16:03But other countries have seen more success. Yeah. And so you've got in the UK, in Australia, the EU really has led the way. 2018, the EU passes GDPR, which is a privacy set of rules, which we are still behind seven years later. But you've got in 2022, 2023, you've got Digital Services Act that passes. You've got Digital Markets Act. And as I understand it, and we've had, you know, we've both been involved in international work on this. And we've heard from folks like Francis Hogan and others about the need for risk-based assessments. And you're well down the rabbit hole on this. But isn't it at a high level? You deploy a technology. You've got to identify material risks. You then have to take reasonable measures to mitigate those risks. That's effectively the duty of care built in. And then ideally, you've got the ability for third parties, either civil society or some public office that has the ability to audit whether you have adequately identified and disclosed material risks and whether you have taken reasonable steps to mitigate.Taylor Owen16:04-16:05That's like how I have it in my head.Nate Erskine-Smith16:05-16:06I mean, that's it.Taylor Owen16:08-16:14Write it down. Fill in the legislation. Well, I mean, that process happened. I know. That's right. I know.Nate Erskine-Smith16:14-16:25Exactly. Which people, I want to get to that because C63 gets us a large part of the way there. I think so. And yet has been sort of like cast aside.Taylor Owen16:25-17:39Exactly. Let's touch on that. But I do think what you described as the online harms piece of this governance agenda. When you look at what the EU has done, they have put in place the various building blocks for what a broad digital governance agenda might look like. Because the reality of this space, which we talked about last time, and it's the thing that's infuriating about digital policy, is that you can't do one thing. There's no – digital economy and our digital lives are so vast and the incentives and the effect they have on society is so broad that there's no one solution. So anyone who tells you fix privacy policy and you'll fix all the digital problems we just talked about are full of it. Anyone who says competition policy, like break up the companies, will solve all of these problems. is wrong, right? Anyone who says online harms policy, which we'll talk about, fixes everything is wrong. You have to do all of them. And Europe has, right? They updated their privacy policy. They've been to build a big online harms agenda. They updated their competition regime. And they're also doing some AI policy too, right? So like you need comprehensive approaches, which is not an easy thing to do, right? It means doing three big things all over.Nate Erskine-Smith17:39-17:41Especially minority parlance, short periods of time, legislatively.Taylor Owen17:41-18:20Different countries have taken different pieces of it. Now, on the online harms piece, which is what the previous government took really seriously, and I think it's worth putting a point on that, right, that when we talked last was the beginning of this process. After we spoke, there was a national expert panel. There were 20 consultations. There were four citizens' assemblies. There was a national commission, right? Like a lot of work went into looking at what every other country had done because this is a really wicked, difficult problem and trying to learn from what Europe, Australia and the UK had all done. And we kind of taking the benefit of being late, right? So they were all ahead of us.Taylor18:21-18:25People you work with on that grant committee. We're all quick and do our own consultations.Taylor Owen18:26-19:40Exactly. And like the model that was developed out of that, I think, was the best model of any of those countries. And it's now seen as internationally, interestingly, as the new sort of milestone that everybody else is building on, right? And what it does is it says if you're going to launch a digital product, right, like a consumer-facing product in Canada, you need to assess risk. And you need to assess risk on these broad categories of harms that we have decided as legislators we care about or you've decided as legislators you cared about, right? Child safety, child sexual abuse material, fomenting violence and extremist content, right? Like things that are like broad categories that we've said are we think are harmful to our democracy. All you have to do as a company is a broad assessment of what could go wrong with your product. If you find something could go wrong, so let's say, for example, let's use a tangible example. Let's say you are a social media platform and you are launching a product that's going to be used by kids and it allows adults to contact kids without parental consent or without kids opting into being a friend. What could go wrong with that?Nate Erskine-Smith19:40-19:40Yeah.Taylor19:40-19:43Like what could go wrong? Yeah, a lot could go wrong.Taylor Owen19:43-20:27And maybe strange men will approach teenage girls. Maybe, right? Like if you do a risk assessment, that is something you might find. You would then be obligated to mitigate that risk and show how you've mitigated it, right? Like you put in a policy in place to show how you're mitigating it. And then you have to share data about how these tools are used so that we can monitor, publics and researchers can monitor whether that mitigation strategy worked. That's it. In that case, that feature was launched by Instagram in Canada without any risk assessment, without any safety evaluation. And we know there was like a widespread problem of teenage girls being harassed by strange older men.Taylor20:28-20:29Incredibly creepy.Taylor Owen20:29-20:37A very easy, but not like a super illegal thing, not something that would be caught by the criminal code, but a harm we can all admit is a problem.Taylor20:37-20:41And this kind of mechanism would have just filtered out.Taylor Owen20:41-20:51Default settings, right? And doing thinking a bit before you launch a product in a country about what kind of broad risks might emerge when it's launched and being held accountable to do it for doing that.Nate Erskine-Smith20:52-21:05Yeah, I quite like the we I mean, maybe you've got a better read of this, but in the UK, California has pursued this. I was looking at recently, Elizabeth Denham is now the Jersey Information Commissioner or something like that.Taylor Owen21:05-21:06I know it's just yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith21:07-21:57I don't random. I don't know. But she is a Canadian, for those who don't know Elizabeth Denham. And she was the information commissioner in the UK. And she oversaw the implementation of the first age-appropriate design code. That always struck me as an incredibly useful approach. In that even outside of social media platforms, even outside of AI, take a product like Roblox, where tons of kids use it. And just forcing companies to ensure that the default settings are prioritizing child safety so that you don't put the onus on parents and kids to figure out each of these different games and platforms. In a previous world of consumer protection, offline, it would have been de facto. Of course we've prioritized consumer safety first and foremost. But in the online world, it's like an afterthought.Taylor Owen21:58-24:25Well, when you say consumer safety, it's worth like referring back to what we mean. Like a duty of care can seem like an obscure concept. But your lawyer is a real thing, right? Like you walk into a store. I walk into your office. I have an expectation that the bookshelves aren't going to fall off the wall and kill me, right? And you have to bolt them into the wall because of that, right? Like that is a duty of care that you have for me when I walk into your public space or private space. Like that's all we're talking about here. And the age-appropriate design code, yes, like sort of developed, implemented by a Canadian in the UK. And what it says, it also was embedded in the Online Harms Act, right? If we'd passed that last year, we would be implementing an age-appropriate design code as we speak, right? What that would say is any product that is likely to be used by a kid needs to do a set of additional things, not just these risk assessments, right? But we think like kids don't have the same rights as adults. We have different duties to protect kids as adults, right? So maybe they should do an extra set of things for their digital products. And it includes things like no behavioral targeting, no advertising, no data collection, no sexual adult content, right? Like kind of things that like – Seem obvious. And if you're now a child in the UK and you open – you go on a digital product, you are safer because you have an age-appropriate design code governing your experience online. Canadian kids don't have that because that bill didn't pass, right? So like there's consequences to this stuff. and I get really frustrated now when I see the conversation sort of pivoting to AI for example right like all we're supposed to care about is AI adoption and all the amazing things AI is going to do to transform our world which are probably real right like not discounting its power and just move on from all of these both problems and solutions that have been developed to a set of challenges that both still exist on social platforms like they haven't gone away people are still using these tools and the harms still exist and probably are applicable to this next set of technologies as well. So this moving on from what we've learned and the work that's been done is just to the people working in this space and like the wide stakeholders in this country who care about this stuff and working on it. It just, it feels like you say deja vu at the beginning and it is deja vu, but it's kind of worse, right? Cause it's like deja vu and then ignoring theTaylor24:25-24:29five years of work. Yeah, deja vu if we were doing it again. Right. We're not even, we're not evenTaylor Owen24:29-24:41Well, yeah. I mean, hopefully I actually am not, I'm actually optimistic, I would say that we will, because I actually think of if for a few reasons, like one, citizens want it, right? Like.Nate Erskine-Smith24:41-24:57Yeah, I was surprised on the, so you mentioned there that the rules that we design, the risk assessment framework really applied to social media could equally be applied to deliver AI safety and it could be applied to new technology in a useful way.Taylor Owen24:58-24:58Some elements of it. Exactly.Nate Erskine-Smith24:58-25:25I think AI safety is a broad bucket of things. So let's get to that a little bit because I want to pull the pieces together. So I had a constituent come in the office and he is really like super mad. He's super mad. Why is he mad? Does that happen very often? Do people be mad when they walk into this office? Not as often as you think, to be honest. Not as often as you think. And he's mad because he believes Mark Carney ripped him off.Taylor Owen25:25-25:25Okay.Nate Erskine-Smith25:25-26:36Okay. Yep. He believes Mark Carney ripped him off, not with broken promise in politics, not because he said one thing and is delivering something else, nothing to do with politics. He saw a video online, Mark Carney told him to invest money. He invested money and he's out the 200 bucks or whatever it was. And I was like, how could you possibly have lost money in this way? This is like, this was obviously a scam. Like what, how could you have been deceived? But then I go and I watched the video And it is, okay, I'm not gonna send the 200 bucks and I've grown up with the internet, but I can see how- Absolutely. In the same way, phone scams and Nigerian princes and all of that have their own success rate. I mean, this was a very believable video that was obviously AI generated. So we are going to see rampant fraud. If we aren't already, we are going to see many challenges with respect to AI safety. What over and above the risk assessment piece, what do we do to address these challenges?Taylor Owen26:37-27:04So that is a huge problem, right? Like the AI fraud, AI video fraud is a huge challenge. In the election, when we were monitoring the last election, by far the biggest problem or vulnerability of the election was a AI generated video campaign. that every day would take videos of Polyevs and Carney's speeches from the day before and generate, like morph them into conversations about investment strategies.Taylor27:05-27:07And it was driving people to a crypto scam.Taylor Owen27:08-27:11But it was torquing the political discourse.Taylor27:11-27:11That's what it must have been.Taylor Owen27:12-27:33I mean, there's other cases of this, but that's probably, and it was running rampant on particularly meta platforms. They were flagged. They did nothing about it. There were thousands of these videos circulating throughout the entire election, right? And it's not like the end of the world, right? Like nobody – but it torqued our political debate. It ripped off some people. And these kinds of scams are –Taylor27:33-27:38It's clearly illegal. It's clearly illegal. It probably breaks his election law too, misrepresenting a political figure, right?Taylor Owen27:38-27:54So I think there's probably an Elections Canada response to this that's needed. And it's fraud. And it's fraud, absolutely. So what do you do about that, right? And the head of the Canadian Banking Association said there's like billions of dollars in AI-based fraud in the Canadian economy right now. Right? So it's a big problem.Taylor27:54-27:55Yeah.Taylor Owen27:55-28:46I actually think there's like a very tangible policy solution. You put these consumer-facing AI products into the Online Harms Act framework, right? And then you add fraud and AI scams as a category of harm. And all of a sudden, if you're meta and you are operating in Canada during an election, you'd have to do a risk assessment on like AI fraud potential of your product. Responsibility for your platform. And then it starts to circulate. We would see it. They'd be called out on it. They'd have to take it down. And like that's that, right? Like so that we have mechanisms for dealing with this. But it does mean evolving what we worked on over the past five years, these like only harms risk assessment models and bringing in some of the consumer facing AI, both products and related harms into the framework.Nate Erskine-Smith28:47-30:18To put it a different way, I mean, so this is years ago now that we had this, you know, grand committee in the UK holding Facebook and others accountable. This really was creating the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And the platforms at the time were really holding firm to this idea of Section 230 and avoiding host liability and saying, oh, we couldn't possibly be responsible for everything on our platform. And there was one problem with that argument, which is they completely acknowledged the need for them to take action when it came to child pornography. And so they said, yeah, well, you know, no liability for us. But of course, there can be liability on this one specific piece of content and we'll take action on this one specific piece of content. And it always struck me from there on out. I mean, there's no real intellectual consistency here. It's more just what should be in that category of things that they should take responsibility for. And obviously harmful content like that should be – that's an obvious first step but obvious for everyone. But there are other categories. Fraud is another one. When they're making so much money, when they are investing so much money in AI, when they're ignoring privacy protections and everything else throughout the years, I mean, we can't leave it up to them. And setting a clear set of rules to say this is what you're responsible for and expanding that responsibility seems to make a good amount of sense.Taylor Owen30:18-30:28It does, although I think those responsibilities need to be different for different kinds of harms. Because there are different speech implications and apocratic implications of sort of absolute solutions to different kinds of content.Taylor30:28-30:30So like child pornography is a great example.Taylor Owen30:30-31:44In the Online Harms Bill Act, for almost every type of content, it was that risk assessment model. But there was a carve out for child sexual abuse material. So including child pornography. And for intimate images and videos shared without consent. It said the platforms actually have a different obligation, and that's to take it down within 24 hours. And the reason you can do it with those two kinds of content is because if we, one, the AI is actually pretty good at spotting it. It might surprise you, but there's a lot of naked images on the internet that we can train AI with. So we're actually pretty good at using AI to pull this stuff down. But the bigger one is that we are, I think, as a society, it's okay to be wrong in the gray area of that speech, right? Like if something is like debatable, whether it's child pornography, I'm actually okay with us suppressing the speech of the person who sits in that gray area. Whereas for something like hate speech, it's a really different story, right? Like we do not want to suppress and over index for that gray area on hate speech because that's going to capture a lot of reasonable debate that we probably want.Nate Erskine-Smith31:44-31:55Yeah, I think soliciting investment via fraud probably falls more in line with the child pornography category where it's, you know, very obviously illegal.Taylor Owen31:55-32:02And that mechanism is like a takedown mechanism, right? Like if we see fraud, if we know it's fraud, then you take it down, right? Some of these other things we have to go with.Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:24I mean, my last question really is you pull the threads together. You've got these different pieces that were introduced in the past. And you've got a government that lots of similar folks around the table, but a new government and a new prime minister certainly with a vision for getting the most out of AI when it comes to our economy.Taylor32:24-32:25Absolutely.Nate Erskine-Smith32:25-33:04You have, for the first time in this country, an AI minister, a junior minister to industry, but still a specific title portfolio and with his own deputy minister and really wants to be seized with this. And in a way, I think that from every conversation I've had with him that wants to maximize productivity in this country using AI, but is also cognizant of the risks and wants to address AI safety. So where from here? You know, you've talked in the past about sort of a grander sort of tech accountability and sovereignty act. Do we do piecemeal, you know, a privacy bill here and an AI safety bill and an online harms bill and we have disparate pieces? What's the answer here?Taylor Owen33:05-34:14I mean, I don't have the exact answer. But I think there's some like, there's some lessons from the past that we can, this government could take. And one is piecemeal bills that aren't centrally coordinated or have no sort of connectivity between them end up with piecemeal solutions that are imperfect and like would benefit from some cohesiveness between them, right? So when the previous government released ADA, the AI Act, it was like really intention in some real ways with the online harms approach. So two different departments issuing two similar bills on two separate technologies, not really talking to each other as far as I can tell from the outside, right? So like we need a coordinating, coordinated, comprehensive effort to digital governance. Like that's point one and we've never had it in this country. And when I saw the announcement of an AI minister, my mind went first to that he or that office could be that role. Like you could – because AI is – it's cross-cutting, right? Like every department in our federal government touches AI in one way or another. And the governance of AI and the adoption on the other side of AI by society is going to affect every department and every bill we need.Nate Erskine-Smith34:14-34:35So if Evan pulled in the privacy pieces that would help us catch up to GDPR. Which it sounds like they will, right? Some version of C27 will probably come back. If he pulls in the online harms pieces that aren't related to the criminal code and drops those provisions, says, you know, Sean Frazier, you can deal with this if you like. But these are the pieces I'm holding on to.Taylor Owen34:35-34:37With a frame of consumer safety, right?Nate Erskine-Smith34:37-34:37Exactly.Taylor Owen34:38-34:39If he wants...Nate Erskine-Smith34:39-34:54Which is connected to privacy as well, right? Like these are all... So then you have thematically a bill that makes sense. And then you can pull in as well the AI safety piece. And then it becomes a consumer protection bill when it comes to living our lives online. Yeah.Taylor Owen34:54-36:06And I think there's an argument whether that should be one bill or whether it's multiple ones. I actually don't think it... I think there's cases for both, right? There's concern about big omnibus bills that do too many things and too many committees reviewing them and whatever. that's sort of a machinery of government question right but but the principle that these should be tied together in a narrative that the government is explicit about making and communicating to publics right that if if you we know that 85 percent of canadians want ai to be regulated what do they mean what they mean is at the same time as they're being told by our government by companies that they should be using and embracing this powerful technology in their lives they're also seeing some risks. They're seeing risks to their kids. They're being told their jobs might disappear and might take their... Why should I use this thing? When I'm seeing some harms, I don't see you guys doing anything about these harms. And I'm seeing some potential real downside for me personally and my family. So even in the adoption frame, I think thinking about data privacy, safety, consumer safety, I think to me, that's the real frame here. It's like citizen safety, consumer safety using these products. Yeah, politically, I just, I mean, that is what it is. It makes sense to me.Nate Erskine-Smith36:06-36:25Right, I agree. And really lean into child safety at the same time. Because like I've got a nine-year-old and a five-year-old. They are growing up with the internet. And I do not want to have to police every single platform that they use. I do not want to have to log in and go, these are the default settings on the parental controls.Taylor36:25-36:28I want to turn to government and go, do your damn job.Taylor Owen36:28-36:48Or just like make them slightly safer. I know these are going to be imperfect. I have a 12-year-old. He spends a lot of time on YouTube. I know that's going to always be a place with sort of content that I would prefer he doesn't see. But I would just like some basic safety standards on that thing. So he's not seeing the worst of the worst.Nate Erskine-Smith36:48-36:58And we should expect that. Certainly at YouTube with its promotion engine, the recommendation function is not actively promoting terrible content to your 12 year old.Taylor Owen36:59-37:31Yeah. That's like de minimis. Can we just torque this a little bit, right? So like maybe he's not seeing content about horrible content about Charlie Kirk when he's a 12 year old on YouTube, right? Like, can we just do something? And I think that's a reasonable expectation as a citizen. But it requires governance. That will not – and that's – it's worth putting a real emphasis on that is one thing we've learned in this moment of repeated deja vus going back 20 years really since our experience with social media for sure through to now is that these companies don't self-govern.Taylor37:31-37:31Right.Taylor Owen37:32-37:39Like we just – we know that indisputably. So to think that AI is going to be different is delusional. No, it'll be pseudo-profit, not the public interest.Taylor37:39-37:44Of course. Because that's what we are. These are the largest companies in the world. Yeah, exactly. And AI companies are even bigger than the last generation, right?Taylor Owen37:44-38:00We're creating something new with the scale of these companies. And to think that their commercial incentives and their broader long-term goals of around AI are not going to override these safety concerns is just naive in the nth degree.Nate Erskine-Smith38:00-38:38But I think you make the right point, and it's useful to close on this, that these goals of realizing the productivity possibilities and potentials of AI alongside AI safety, these are not mutually exclusive or oppositional goals. that it's you create a sandbox to play in and companies will be more successful. And if you have certainty in regulations, companies will be more successful. And if people feel safe using these tools and having certainly, you know, if I feel safe with my kids learning these tools growing up in their classrooms and everything else, you're going to adoption rates will soar. Absolutely. And then we'll benefit.Taylor Owen38:38-38:43They work in tandem, right? And I think you can't have one without the other fundamentally.Nate Erskine-Smith38:45-38:49Well, I hope I don't invite you back five years from now when we have the same conversation.Taylor Owen38:49-38:58Well, I hope you invite me back in five years, but I hope it's like thinking back on all the legislative successes of the previous five years. I mean, that'll be the moment.Taylor38:58-38:59Sounds good. Thanks, David. Thanks. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

In this episode we explore the challenges of digital evidence and how international courts are keeping pace with Sarah Zarmsky. If this is interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

Connected TV is no longer just a buzzword in the ad world — it's where the industry is being reinvented. Audiences aren't just watching differently; they're shopping, engaging, and co-viewing in ways that open new creative doors for brands. And sitting at the intersection of entertainment and advertising is Roku, a company that's helping marketers meet these shifts head-on.In this episode of The Big Impression, Roku's VP of advertising, marketing & measurement, Sarah Harms, explains why the company is uniquely positioned as a publisher and an operating system. Episode TranscriptPlease note, this transcript  may contain minor inconsistencies compared to the episode audio.Damian Fowler (00:00):I'm Damian Fowler.Ilyse Liffreing (00:01):And I'm Ilyse Liffreing.Damian Fowler (00:02):And welcome to this edition of The Big Impression.Ilyse Liffreing (00:09):Today we're talking about how streaming and connected TV are transforming not just how we watch, but how brands connect with audiences.Damian Fowler (00:17):Our guest is Sarah Harms vice president of advertising, marketing and measurement at Roku. She leads the strategy behind Roku's advertising business, helping brands tap into streaming's growing audience while building smarter measurement tools along the way.Ilyse Liffreing (00:32):Before Roku, Sarah built her expertise across both the buy and sell sides of the industry with leadership roles at Microsoft XR and wpp giving her a unique perspective on how ad tech data and storytelling all come together on Connected tv.Damian Fowler (00:49):We'll talk about how Roku's helping brands of all scientists meet new viewer behaviors, build more effective campaigns, and push the creative boundaries of what's possible on CTV.Ilyse Liffreing (01:00):So let's get into it.Damian Fowler (01:03):So Sarah Roku is in a pretty unique spot right now, right? Between entertainment and ads with this latest brand or measurement move, what got it started? Was there an insight or audience need that really stood out to you?Sarah Harms (01:17):Yeah, so in my role I run ad marketing and measurement. So much of my job is us as a marketer, so marketing roku's, advertising proposition, but also in support of our marketers. And so that makes my job very fun. And so a lot of this conversation today, I'm going to go back and forth between my job as a marketer, but also my job in B2B advertising of driving marketers results on our platform. Something that's really fun about Roku is that we're a publisher, but we're also the largest operating system in the us. We see consumers come through our front door to get to the content they know and love and care about. And so that gives us a really rich canvas for supporting some of our marketers initiatives. And so for example, the Super Bowl was very fun for us, whether it was using our platform to drive traffic to Tuby or to build really fun brand experiences on our canvases.(02:13):So we had, when Sally met Hellman's and we had Hellman's and Roku City and we had the Super Bowl ad and a really lovely zone destination to drive shopping and drive purchases of Hellman's mayonnaise, which you really wouldn't expect from a television advertising experience. And so I think that was a fun one from us in supportive marketers. And then a whole part of my job is making sure our advertisers really know about the Roku experience. And so while it's B2B, it would be silly not to address them in a B2C capacity because our marketers could also be customers, the need to understand the value of the Roku experience even if they don't have a televisionDamian Fowler (02:53):From ro. Once you realize your customers could be businesses, consumers, or both, how did that shift your strategy? Did it change the way you approach things?Sarah Harms (03:01):I think it's just strategic use of our resources and a strategic use of our messaging. We certainly think the Roku experience as an operating system is delightful and easy and intuitive. We talk about how your mother-in-law can set it up herself as the example we always use. And so we certainly want our advertising customers to know that too because it really is a beautiful, elegant experience for advertising as well, for watching content.Ilyse Liffreing (03:28):So you've got such a big range of advertisers from big Fortune five hundreds to D two C brands to B2B. How do you build campaigns or measurements that flex for either of them but still stay true to your own approach?Sarah Harms (03:44):Great. So I'll address that as a speaking to the advertising community part of my job, we certainly are on a journey to evolve our strategy to be more flexible and meet our customers where they want us to be, whether it being in their buying platforms of choice or providing optionality to a D two C customer by giving them a very lightweight, intuitive self-service platform like Roku Ads Manager. And so I think a lot of it from a measurement standpoint is doing some education. I think some of the questions were ground around CTV is still somewhat new, but I don't know if it's new, but it's certainly new in the eyes of performance. And so it's a lot of education about how we can enable customers to drive true outcomes using connected television. And so whether it's ad manager or unique measurement integrations, shoppable formats, we really try to address all of thatIlyse Liffreing (04:36):Now. Streaming's completely changed how people watch from binging to co-viewing and basically everything in between. How do cultural or data trends help shape what you're doing on the platform?Sarah Harms (04:48):Yeah, I mean it's been so interesting to see it change even since the pandemic. I think for a long time CTV was synonymous with SVOD or subscription video on demand. We're very much seen that is not the case anymore. A majority of our households are using some form of A VOD, we're advertising video on demand. And so that trend coupled with live sports coming into CTV and streaming, it's really just driven a whole new slew of opportunities for advertising. And so off the back of that, that's more addressable, more accountable television because it is connected television. And so that's been fun from a education standpoint, it's been fun from a how do we enable our platform to address that and also how do we educate our customers from a measurement standpoint.Damian Fowler (05:37):So what's the ad experience like on Roku? You mentioned CTV and it sounds like there's a pretty wide mix of formats. Can you break that down a little more?Sarah Harms (05:46):I'd love to because I think that's again, where my role as a B2B marketer, it's of course helpful to inform our clients about our experiences then they might not have a Roku device or television. And so we think about our business in really two core buckets. We have the Roku experiences, which is our beautiful ui, so native home screen units, they're customized, they're elegant, and we have some of our more kind of viral experiences like Roku City, which is fun and delightful. We're now doing brand integrations there. But then on the other side, we're also a very scaled publisher. So the Roku channel continues to climb Nielsen's Gauge in terms of total TV content time. And so that is allowing us to be a very kind of open interoperable, performant publisher as well with standard video that's available programmatically. It's available with unique measurement integrations, and that's really our ecosystem being an interoperable partner in the space.Ilyse Liffreing (06:43):Roku City is that fun, animated screensaver, very purple that a lot of people see on their TVs. Can you tell us a little bit about it and the kinds of brands you're partnering with there?Sarah Harms (06:54):Yeah, so this has just been something really fun that's taken off. So Roku City is our interactive screensaver and people love it. I don't know if you see it every day, but it's cute, it's fun, it grabs your attention. We see that it's tweeted about every 12 minutes, so it is a viral experience and so much so that really our advertisers challenged us to think about it differently. And so now we have really a variety of advertisers coming into Roku City. So I gave the Hellman's example. We had Taylor Swift in Roku City. And so it's really just a fun, unique, totally differentiated advertising experience, but we tie it all to the rest of our assets.Damian Fowler (07:36):I heard somebody say this morning, performance media is kind of the baseline. Now with that in mind, how do you think about measuring engagement across all these different touch points that we've been talking about?Sarah Harms (07:46):Yeah, I mean, so much of my job on the measurement side of the house is education. And I think the challenge is that performance is in the eye of the beholder and CTV is still bought via a very different group of personas from a legacy television buyer all the way to someone that had been in social API partners and dipping their toe into CTV. And so performance is required, but it's really a matter of educating them on what that means to them and supporting them in their efforts. But what's great about CTV is its big beautiful television, but with all the addressability and accountability of digital.Damian Fowler (08:23):And on that point though, what is it that linear TV buyers still don't quite get about CTV?Sarah Harms (08:29):I think it's the ecosystem aspect of it all. I think television in the past was measured by a couple companies with a couple KPIs or just reach. And so I think this is where CTV has really unlocked really turnkey, always on easy to optimize measurement. That's very exciting.Ilyse Liffreing (08:48):So one thing we like to do on the show is pull our takeaways from the big campaigns. Are there any KPIs or success stories from the campaigns running on Roku that stand out to you?Sarah Harms (09:00):Yeah, so I think what's been fun is we see that we have opportunities for really kind of all verticals. Obviously Roku is born out of the media and entertainment industry, but we've expanded there. And so we really do have kind of a playbook for each vertical, but auto specifically comes to mind, which is a really exciting one. You don't really think of performance and auto on tv, but we've built kind of beautiful experiences like showrooms where you can configure cars, sign up for test drives. And so I think we've really changed the narrative there in terms of driving actions for that vertical all in a very big, beautiful, elegant canvas.Damian Fowler (09:37):Are there any other kind of surprises from your takeaways in terms of like, oh, that's popping. I never expected that.Sarah Harms (09:44):So for me, I don't carry a wallet. My phone is my wallet. And I think if you told me that five years ago, I would've never believed you. Similarly, I don't think anyone thought they'd be shopping with their television. That happens every day on our platform, and I think it's because of clients testing with us, but also it comes back to us as an operating system. And really our remote, it's a few buttons. It's really easy. We have a direct relationship with our customers from a billing perspective. And so the same way Apple Pay is just so easy now you can shop from your tv, which again seems insane, but maybe we'll be here in a couple years and we'll see so much direct shopping from televisions.Ilyse Liffreing (10:23):What about the interest from B2B brands? It just feels like that sector is really exploding across all categories, but CTV particularly.Sarah Harms (10:33):Yeah, I mean so much of my job as a B2B marketer is a lot of education and a lot of really, so much of our reframing away from being a walled garden to more of an open collaborative partner. And so much of it is doing, we talked in the press about our change away from doing a big new front event. We did more kind of small customized dinners instead just to make sure there is a very direct touch point, but also specifically cater to each client's needs. And so I think that's been more of our approach of making sure we do pointed conversations to address the nuances and needs of each customer.Ilyse Liffreing (11:12):And how was that new approach for you this year? I know a lot of brands are doing things a bit differently at the fronts. How did it go on your side?Sarah Harms (11:21):I think for us it's knowing the value of us as the operating system and having great content, but not being these content giants that have millions and millions and millions of dollars to spend on content. And so they should do a big show for us. We drive traffic to the big show. And so I think it was more about, yes, of course, talking about our amazing content and brand integrations there, but also acknowledging the integrations that each customer wanted, the platforms each customer wanted, and what we're doing for each of them in a really kind of catered way versus such a one to many message.Damian Fowler (11:57):You mentioned content earlier. Are you seeing any particular trends now? Anything that's really driving interest from certain categories or marketers?Sarah Harms (12:06):So we have our Roku originals, and we do very well in kind of holiday and home as you can expect, but I think this year in Cannes, you won't be in a meeting like this without talking about sports. And so we have sports rights, yes, but again, the value of the operating system, we've built sports zones to help make sport discoverable and findable. I always use the example of my husband's great Uncle Joe, diehard Yankees fan, can't find a Yankees game because it might be on four different places in five days. And so how can Roku as an operating system help in that regard? And so I think Roku is invested a ton in our infrastructure of driving curation of sports, but also we're very invested in what we call challenger sports, so National women's soccer league volleyball, stuff like that where they have really these die hard fan bases and they just want to find it. We're the destination to help them.Damian Fowler (13:01):We keep hearing it's not just about mass reach anymore, it's really about how well the audience, and the better you understand them, the better this whole thing works for both the platform and the advertiser. How do you see that playing out right now?Sarah Harms (13:13):Yeah, and they're loyal. They're diehard. They're big spenders sometimes. And so you want to kind of associate with yourself with such a kind of amazing, loyal fan base that's just so passionate about the sport.Ilyse Liffreing (13:26):So we have some quick questions for you now. So first of all, you've led both creative and analytical teams. What is one timeless truth about great advertising that cuts across both sides?Sarah Harms (13:41):First of all, it's a very fun aspect of my job having both kind of the marketing team and the measurement and analytics team. Two very different personas, but brilliant in their own ways. And so much of my focus since being here is making sure they're working together versus kind of two ships in the night with their own functions because we certainly have such amazing data, so we should use that to speak to the marketplace in a smart way. And so I think that's been really fun. I think they're getting to know the other side of the house and the creative thinkers versus the analytical thinkers like me pushing them to work together has been very fun. And I think with that in mind, a data informed approach is key. And so that's what really drew me to Roku was that opportunity of just this amazing data set that we have that we can use to optimize, but also to tell our story in a more elegant way.Damian Fowler (14:33):Now since you joined Roku, is there a favorite data point or piece of feedback that's really stuck with you?Sarah Harms (14:38):Yeah, well, I think what's interesting about my job is I should have been informing people like myself about the value of Roku. Before the process started of being recruited, I had a pretty antiquated view, the Roku advertising offering. So that's something that in getting here and in going through that process I learned so much more. I think my favorite might be that any given month, we see a user come through our front door about 25 days a month. And so that is an advertising opportunity to message our amazing footprint. But we see that on average an individual app is seven, maybe eight times a month. And so if you think about that, the reach potential, but also just the consumer habit of using our devices and seeing the messaging from our brands, I think is so compelling and something that really we're massive as it relates to our OS and footprint. And so we've designed these beautiful experiences to really account for that.Ilyse Liffreing (15:36):Now, Roku really helped pioneer the modern CTV ad experience. Is there a moment that's made you step back and think, wow, look how far the medium and your team really has come?Sarah Harms (15:49):I think the fact that the Super Bowl was really such a success story for streaming, I think we never thought the Super Bowl would be at that level, but it was streamed and it really streamable and really without a hitch, I think we've seen some live streaming events and there were some issues. I thought it was very well done. We were happy to support it. We drove some amazing traffic to Tubi. And so I just think 10 years ago, we never thought that would be the case. And so that's just been a fun thing to think about that and the Olympics and the Olympic zone that we built, just really elegant experiences and just changing television has been fun.Damian Fowler (16:32):And that's it for this edition of The Big Impression.Ilyse Liffreing (16:35):This show is produced by Molten Hart. Our theme is by Love and Caliber, and our associate producer is Sydney Cairns.Damian Fowler (16:41):And remember,Sarah Harms (16:43):A data informed approach is key. And so that's what really drew me to Roku.Damian Fowler (16:47):I'm Damian, and I'm we'll see you next time.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Scottish poet and writer Jenny Lindsay's artistic career was derailed when she spoke out against the violent tactics used by gender identity activists. Today, Jenny is the author of "Hounded: Women, Harms and the Gender Wars," and her story illustrates what she calls the "secondary harms" of gender ideology - the ripple effects that occur when competent voices are silenced through systematic harassment campaigns.We explore how Jenny went from being "one of Scotland's leading performance poets" to being completely ostracized from the Scottish arts scene, not for discussing gender issues directly, but simply for defending women's right to meet and discuss proposed legal changes. Her experience reveals the parasitic nature of this ideology as it hollows out liberal institutions from within.Jenny breaks down what she identifies as the three core beliefs that get women labeled as "TERFs": that women are a materially definable category, that we have rights based on this reality, and that we deserve freedom of speech on matters affecting us. We discuss the psychological tactics of this movement, the economic warfare against dissenting voices, and why competent women across fields are being systematically targeted. This conversation examines not just what we're losing when reality becomes negotiable, but what happens to a society that rewards ideological conformity over truth-telling and competence.Jenny Lindsay is a writer, poet and essayist based in Scotland. She has a weekly column in The Scotsman and writes for numerous publications including The Spectator, The Daily Mail, and The Times. Her debut book Hounded: Women, Harms and the Gender Wars was published to great acclaim by Polity in 2024, being described as 'one of the most important political books ever to have been written about Scottish culture and politics,' by The Herald, and 'one of the definitive chronicles of these times,' by author JK Rowling. A former poetry performer and live literature programmer, she gained several accolades in the arts prior to her own 'hounding' over gender identity issues in Scotland, including a John Byrne award for Critical Thinking for her film-poem The Imagined We in early 2020, and a Creative Edinburgh Award for Leadership in 2017.Get Jenny's book on AmazonFollow on X @msjlindsay Read Jenny's Substack, The Schism Ring00:00 Core Beliefs and the Hounding Phenomenon06:49 The Existential Question of Gender Identity12:53 Understanding Core Beliefs and Their Implications18:07 The Parasitic Nature of Ideologies24:44 The Sociopathic Dynamics of Hounding32:44 The High Road vs. The Low Road41:33 The Personal Toll of Ideological Conflicts45:54 The Edinburgh Arts Scene and Its Challenges52:56 Cultural and Economic Impacts of Activism01:01:24 The Intersection of Gender and Racial Dialogues01:09:20 Hope Amidst Ongoing Struggles01:19:28 Navigating the Future of DiscourseROGD REPAIR Course + Community gives concerned parents instant access to over 120 lessons providing the psychological insights and communication tools you need to get through to your kid. Now featuring 24/7 personalized AI support implementing the tools with RepairBot! Use code SOMETHERAPIST2025 to take 50% off your first month.PODCOURSES: use code SOMETHERAPIST at LisaMustard.com/PodCoursesTALK TO ME: book a meeting.PRODUCTION: Looking for your own podcast producer? Visit PodsByNick.com and mention my podcast for 20% off your initial services.SUPPORT THE SHOW: subscribe, like, comment, & share or donate.ORGANIFI: Take 20% off Organifi with code SOMETHERAPIST.Watch NO WAY BACK: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care. Use code SOMETHERAPIST to take 20% off your order.SHOW NOTES & transcript with help from SwellAI.MUSIC: Thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude & permission. ALL OTHER LINKS HERE. To support this show, please leave a rating & review on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe, like, comment & share via my YouTube channel. Or recommend this to a friend!Learn more about Do No Harm.Take $200 off your EightSleep Pod Pro Cover with code SOMETHERAPIST at EightSleep.com.Take 20% off all superfood beverages with code SOMETHERAPIST at Organifi.Check out my shop for book recommendations + wellness products.Show notes & transcript provided with the help of SwellAI.Special thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our theme song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude and permission.Watch NO WAY BACK: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care (our medical ethics documentary, formerly known as Affirmation Generation). Stream the film or purchase a DVD. Use code SOMETHERAPIST to take 20% off your order. Follow us on X @2022affirmation or Instagram at @affirmationgeneration.Have a question for me? Looking to go deeper and discuss these ideas with other listeners? Join my Locals community! Members get to ask questions I will respond to in exclusive, members-only livestreams, post questions for upcoming guests to answer, plus other perks TBD. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here's your local news for Wednesday, September 10, 2025:We detail Madison leaders' latest proposal to promote more housing in the city,Learn how white nationalist groups are using so-called 'Active Clubs' to covertly spread their ideology,Outline the research that has a range of experts sounding the alarm on a ubiquitous insecticide,Welcome "Cardinal Call" back from summer break,Find out why containing wildfires is easier said than done,Travel back in time to 1965,And much more.

Study Discovers Increased Cancers After MRNA Vaccines, Bret Weinstein- Covid & mRNA: Harms and Damages Exposed Bret Weinstein- Covid & mRNA: Harms and Damages Exposed (NEW!) REMINDER: CDC Didn't Track VAERS Safety Signals John Campbell- Increased cancers after mRNA vaccines   Study- Covid & mRNA: Harms and Damages Exposed (NEW!) | DarkHorse https://youtu.be/zkrbZmYuRoY?si=_0yO0y5ftLacoVJ1 Bret Weinstein 512K subscribers 25,699 views Sep 5, 2025 A new article on the harms and hazards of both SARS-CoV2 and the mRNA biologics said to counter the virus. Full Episode: https://youtube.com/live/wQWkKrM3Dt8 Mentioned in this segment: Zywiec et al 2025. COVID-19 Injections: Harms and Damages, a Non-Exhaustive Conclusion. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 30(3): https://jpands.org/vol30no3/zywiec.pdf ***** Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com Heather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.com Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned) Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org   REMINDER: CDC Didn't Track VAERS Safety Signals | DarkHorse https://youtu.be/u3UAyr6s7xc?si=VUoenskCyMdViArS Bret Weinstein 512K subscribers 16,906 views Sep 5, 2025 RFK Jr. fires the new director, after which other CDC officials resign, and eight former directors of the CDC pen a letter to the New York Times arguing that Kennedy is a hazard to our health. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying discuss "The Plot Against Kennedy" in Episode 292 of The Evolutionary Lens. Full Episode: https://youtube.com/live/wQWkKrM3Dt8 Mentioned in this segment: NYT op-ed #2 from former CDC directors: We Ran the C.D.C.: Kennedy Is Endangering Every American's Health: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/01/op... Bret and Heather 132nd DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: 50 States not in a Roe https://youtube.com/live/usP2D_qGUZs CDC didn't monitor VAERS for COVID safety signals (June 2022): https://childrenshealthdefense.org/de...   Increased cancers after mRNA vaccines Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/3dnIGqUlluc?si=sDbAdXTgOsCiCLev Dr. John Campbell 3.25M subscribers 143,152 views Sep 5, 2025 COVID-19 vaccination, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for cancer: 30-month cohort study in an Italian province https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40881... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles... https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/brea... The rate of first hospitalization for cancer of any site Unvaccinated group: 0.85% Vaccinated group (one or more doses): 1.15% N = 296,015 population Hospital admission with a cancer diagnosis, 3,124 (p less than 0.001). Vaccination with at least one dose Colon-rectal cancer HR: 1.34 Breast cancer HR: 1.54 Bladder cancer HR: 1.62 After three or more vaccine doses Breast cancer HR: 1.36 Bladder cancer HR: 1.43 All significant After one dose (180 days after) Rate of first hospital admissions for cancers All cancers: up 23% significant Colorectal: up 34% significant Lung: down = 10% Breast: up 54% significant Uterine: up = 75% Ovarian: up = 65% Prostate: up = 1% Bladder: up 62% significant Thyroid: up =58% Haematological: up = 33% After three dose (180 days after administration of third dose) All cancers: up = 9% Colorectal: up = 14% Lung: down = 5% Breast: up=36% significant Uterine: up = 20% Ovarian: up = 86% Prostate: down = 3% Bladder: up=43% significant Thyroid: down = 3% Haematological: up = 5% More about the study Population-wide cohort analysis Evaluating the risk of all-cause death and cancer hospitalization by SARS-CoV-2 immunization status. National Health System official data, entire population, Pescara province, Italy Followed from June 2021 (six months after the first vaccination) to December 2023. 296,015 residents aged ≥11 years Hospital admission with a cancer diagnosis, 3,124 16.6% were unvaccinated 83.3% received ≥1 dose 62.2% ≥3 doses. Compared with the unvaccinated, those receiving ≥1 dose showed a significantly lower likelihood of all-cause death Cancer hospitalization was significant only among the subjects with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection Some cancer risks went down after 1 year (relative to 180 days) (But breast, ovarian and bladder went up at one year relative to 180 days after 1 vaccine dose) Given that it was not possible to quantify the potential impact of the healthy vaccinee bias and unmeasured confounders, these findings are inevitably preliminary.  

Whitney interviews Michelle Dempsey-Multack about how to protect children during divorce and co-parenting. They debunk the myth that divorce inherently harms children, exploring how the quality of the divorce experience—not the divorce itself—determines the impact on kids. The conversation includes practical strategies for healthy co-parenting, introducing new partners, and handling difficult conversations with children.Whitney Goodman is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT) and the founder of Calling Home, a membership community that helps people navigate complex family dynamics and break harmful cycles.Join the Family Cyclebreakers Club⁠⁠ Follow Whitney on Instagram | sitwithwhit Follow Whitney on YouTube | @whitneygoodmanlmft ⁠⁠Order Whitney's book, Toxic Positivity⁠⁠ This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute  for professional mental health advice. 00:00 Debunking Divorce Myths: It's About How You Handle It 02:45 Staying Together for the Kids vs. Healthy Single Parenting 08:00 How to Have a Good Divorce: Separating Emotions from Parenting 13:14 Speaking Poorly About the Other Parent and Its Long-Term Impact 20:16 Balancing Protection with Facilitating Relationships 33:11 Introducing New Partners: Timing and Red Flags Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Keeping yourself up at night? Tips to calm worrying thoughts with Dr. Kimberly Harms In this helpful mini-episode of The Afterlight Podcast with Lauren Grace, Dr. Kimberly Harms shares simple yet powerful ways to quiet the mind and ease those looping, late-night worries. Learn how to: Shift out of fear-based thinking The power of prayer Embrace the power of asking for help when you need it most If worry has been stealing your sleep, this conversation is for you. Tune in now. This is part of our full-length episode: Love, loss, and legacy: Honest conversations about life and death with Dr. Kimberly Harms, https://www.podbean.com/eas/pb-w3tv4-1889255 ----more---- About Welcome to The Afterlight Podcast with Lauren Grace, a spiritual podcast full of stories and conversations that prove we're never alone. Lauren Grace, host of The Afterlight Podcast, is a high-impact coach and medium dedicated to helping professionals deepen their connection to their soul so they can experience more freedom, fulfillment, and purpose.   Connect with Lauren Grace, Lauren Grace Inspirations: Lauren on Social @LaurenGraceInspirations Website: https://laurengraceinspirations.com Want to work with Lauren? Book a Free Discovery Call with Lauren: https://laurengraceinspirations.com Free Offers: https://laurengraceinspirations.com/freeoffers   The Afterlight Podcast:  The Afterlight Podcast on Social @theafterlightpodcast To be a guest, apply here: www.theafterlightpodcast.com Sign up for our newsletter: https://laurengraceinspirations.com/contact   Meet Dr. Kimberly Harms Dr. Kimberly Harms has been around the block in life.  She has served as a Commissioned Officer in the United States Public Health Service, a dental school professor, a grief counselor, a death doula, a civil mediator, a clinical dentist with her late husband Jim in Farmington MN, a school board Chair, President of an international women's organization, the first woman President of the Minnesota Dental Association, a National Spokesperson for the American Dental Association (21 years), Coach for Widows, an award-winning, best selling author and international speaker on the topics of grief, conflict and legacy planning and the cohost of the RethinkingDeath.Life Podcast.  She has also suffered many personal losses, including the deaths by suicide of her mother and son and the death by broken heart of her husband after their son's death.  These days, she enjoys her most important role yet: mom to two remarkable kids and grandma to six delightful grandkids, splitting her time between Kansas City and Minneapolis to soak up every precious moment. Connect with Kim here: https://www.drkimberlyharms.com Resources: https://www.drkimberlyharms.com/resources

Something To Think About Series #263 Thought of the day from Venerable Robina Courtin

Activists concerned with the health consequences of pesticide use in the Pajaro Valley rallied around Omar Dieguez who is leading a monthlong hunger strike.

My guest today is Tristan Scott, an electrical engineer and head of operations at Daylight Computer Company. Tristan delivers a dynamic discussion on redefining technology for human health, blending personal anecdotes with technical insights. His expertise on electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and blue light's impact drives the conversation, illuminating Daylight's mission to create human-friendly technology.The episode explores the harmful effects of modern screens, particularly on children, with Tristan sharing data on developmental delays and technology's addictive design, akin to a casino's flashing lights. He highlights Daylight's DC1 computer, explaining its flicker-free and blue-light-free design, which reduces eye strain and fosters a less addictive digital experience. In addition, we will discuss some issues with Autism's sensory-processing phenomena and the benefits of the DC1 computer from Daylight. The episode wraps up with an inspiring discussion on Daylight's Kids initiative, a hopeful vision for a healthier tech future, making this episode a must-listen for anyone concerned about technology's impact on well-being.Daylight Computer Company https://daylightcomputer.comKids Daylight (!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.comDaylight Computer Company Instagram https://www.instagram.com/daylightco/?hl=enDaylight Kids Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1300308801490853Daylight Computer Company X https://x.com/daylightcoTristan Scott Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tristan_health/?hl=enTristan Scott X https://x.com/bitcoinand_beefTristan's Book https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Beef-Criticisms-Similarities-Decentralization/dp/B09W799F5FDaylight Computer Companyuse "autism" for $50 off athttps://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismChroma Light Devicesuse "autism" for 10% discount athttps://getchroma.co/?ref=autism0:00 Tristan Scott1:09 Tristan's path into holistic health, electrical engineering, & Daylight Computer Company; EMF Harms10:35 Daylight's Mission and DC1 Computer; Importance of Natural Light14:10 The Future of Tech (is already here with Daylight) & Children & Human Health16:54 Daylight's unique approach to Tech20:19 The Role of Tech in Modern Life; Tech Designed for Humans, not Against Humans23:10 Technology and Casinos (Same Trap); Dopamine Trap; Addictive and Maladaptive Behaviors33:25 Creating Synergy between Humans and Tech36:34 Understanding Sensory Processing & Autism42:32 Dangers of Light Flicker & The Harms for the Nervous System52:52 Daylight's Kids Initiative; Tech Designed for Humans & Kids01:02:35 Daylight's Future in Technology and Beyond

For decades, the GOP has perfected the art of sabotage, turning government into a racket where the suffering of millions is simply the cost of keeping billionaires happy…See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How Wisconsin's higher education institutions are doing amid challenges and changes. How CCAP is a useful and harmful tool. Why the Driftless region is one of the country's best places for fly fishing.

Pornography isn't just present in our culture—it's pervasive. The average age of first exposure is 11 for boys, and around 12–13 for girls. About 67% of men and 41% of women view porn at least occasionally. Even in the church, over half of practicing Christians admit to using it, and 67% of pastors have struggled with it—18% currently. The biggest issue? 82% of Christians say no one is helping them. This isn't just a "worldly" issue—it's a tsunami hitting the church. But porn thrives in silence. So, we need to talk about it honestly, embracing the "messy middle"—holding two truths in tension:Porn is an addictive sin that devastates families.Porn is a shortcut that numbs our God-given desires for pleasure and intimacy.1. Porn is an addictive sin.Scripture clearly calls out sexual immorality (porneia) as sin (Colossians 3:5). Porn objectifies people and becomes idolatry—worshiping creation over the Creator. It's not just spiritually harmful; it's mentally and emotionally addictive, rewiring the brain and damaging relationships (1 Cor. 6:18).How it devastates families:Hurts your family tree: Trauma and addiction can leave epigenetic footprints passed to future generations (Exodus 34:7).Creates unrealistic expectations: Porn fosters dissatisfaction with real-life partners and intimacy (Ecclesiastes 9:9).Harms children: Young girls wrestle with distorted self-worth, while boys absorb years of misinformation about sex before marriage.Exploits performers: Many in the industry suffer mental health issues and traumatic backgrounds. Watching porn often means consuming someone else's pain.2. Porn numbs God-given desires.God created us with desires for pleasure and intimacy, but porn offers counterfeit versions—pleasure without fulfillment, intimacy without connection (Proverbs 27:20). Porn silences but never satisfies. People don't view porn because they're bad, but because they've let it hijack their desires.Freedom is possible. The battle plan: Repent, Replace, and Relate.Repent – Turn from sin and toward God (Acts 3:19).Replace – Remove access to porn and renew your mind (Romans 12:2, Matthew 5:29). Married couples should embrace real intimacy (1 Corinthians 7:2-5).Relate – Build accountability with others (James 5:16) and deepen your walk with the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16). Don't deny your desires—let Jesus redeem them.SummaryPorn traffics in pleasure without purpose and intimacy without love. But Jesus offers real freedom—not just forgiveness, but power to overcome. You don't need a counterfeit when you can have the real thing: true love, intimacy, and freedom.Are you willing to follow Jesus into the messy middle?

In this episode, Dave and Laura sit down with world-renowned pyschologist Dr. Diane Langberg for a conversation around her newest book, "When the Church Harms God's People: Becoming Faith Communities that Resist Abuse, Pursue Truth and Care for the Wounded". They talk about what it really means to be the body of Christ, the dangers of unhealthy leadership and how to identify it in yourself and others, how to practically address issues of abuse in the church, and what healthy forgiveness and restoration look like. Stay tuned after the episode while Dave and Laura debrief our conversation with Diane.Find the book on Amazon, Baker Publishing Group, TGC, and more.

Yascha Mounk and Christine Rosen discuss the societal consequences of always being online. Christine Rosen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She is also a monthly columnist for Commentary magazine, one of the cohosts of The Commentary Magazine Daily Podcast, a fellow at the University of Virginia's Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, and senior editor at The New Atlantis.  In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Christine Rosen discuss the perils of online dating, the impact of public shaming, and why the internet makes it harder to develop a sense of self. Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Apple⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Google⁠⁠ X: ⁠⁠@Yascha_Mounk⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠@JoinPersuasion⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠Yascha Mounk⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Persuasion⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My guest is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Professor Emeritus of Health Policy at Stanford University. We discuss which scientific questions ought to be the priority for NIH, how to incentivize bold, innovative science especially from younger labs, how to solve the replication crisis and restore trust and transparency in science and public health, including acknowledging prior failures by the NIH. We discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and the data and sociological factors that motivated lockdowns, masking and vaccine mandates. Dr. Bhattacharya shares his views on how to resolve the vaccine–autism debate and how best to find the causes and cures for autism and chronic diseases. The topics we cover impact everyone: male, female, young and old and, given that NIH is the premier research and public health organization in the world, extend to Americans and non-Americans alike. Read the episode show notes at hubermanlab.com. Thank you to our sponsors AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman David: https://davidprotein.com/huberman Eight Sleep: https://eightsleep.com/huberman Levels: ⁠https://levels.link/huberman⁠ LMNT: https://drinklmnt.com/huberman Timestamps 00:00:00 Jay Bhattacharya 00:06:56 National Institutes of Health (NIH), Mission 00:09:12 Funding, Basic vs. Applied Research 00:18:22 Sponsors: David & Eight Sleep 00:21:20 Indirect Costs (IDC), Policies & Distribution 00:30:43 Taxpayer Funding, Journal Access, Public Transparency 00:38:14 Taxpayer Funding, Patents; Drug Costs in the USA vs Other Countries 00:48:50 Reducing Medication Prices; R&D, Improving Health 01:00:01 Sponsors: AG1 & Levels 01:02:55 Lowering IDC?, Endowments, Monetary Distribution, Scientific Groupthink 01:12:29 Grant Review Process, Innovation 01:21:43 R01s, Tenure, Early Career Scientists & Novel Ideas 01:31:46 Sociology of Grant Evaluation, Careerism in Science, Failures 01:39:08 “Sick Care” System, Health Needs 01:44:01 Sponsor: LMNT 01:45:33 Incentives in Science, H-Index, Replication Crisis 01:58:54 Scientists, Data Fraud, Changing Careers 02:03:59 NIH & Changing Incentive Structure, Replication, Pro-Social Behavior 02:15:26 Scientific Discovery, Careers & Changing Times, Journals & Publications 02:19:56 NIH Grants & Appeals, Under-represented Populations, DEI 02:28:58 Inductive vs Deductive Science; DEI & Grants; Young Scientists & NIH Funding 02:39:38 Grant Funding, Identity & Race; Shift in NIH Priorities 02:51:23 Public Trust & Science, COVID Pandemic, Lockdowns, Masks 03:04:41 Pandemic Mandates & Economic Inequality; Fear; Public Health & Free Speech 03:13:39 Masks, Harms, Public Health Messaging, Uniformity, Groupthink, Vaccines 03:22:48 Academic Ostracism, Public Health Messaging & Opposition 03:30:26 Culture of American Science, Discourse & Disagreement 03:36:03 Vaccines, COVID Vaccines, Benefits & Harms 03:47:05 Vaccine Mandates, Money, Public Health Messaging, Civil Liberties 03:54:52 COVID Vaccines, Long-Term Effects; Long COVID, Vaccine Injury, Flu Shots 04:06:47 Do Vaccines Cause Autism?; What Explains Rise in Autism 04:18:33 Autism & NIH; MAHA & Restructuring NIH? 04:25:47 Zero-Cost Support, YouTube, Spotify & Apple Follow & Reviews, Sponsors, YouTube Feedback, Protocols Book, Social Media, Neural Network Newsletter Disclaimer & Disclosures Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices