Podcasts about Kahn

Join Dr. Kahn for the 4th Reversing Heart Disease Summit beginning March 7, 2026. The event is free to attend online. Register here: drtalks.com/summits/reversing-heart-disease This week, Dr. Kahn reviews new research examining the connection between red meat consumption and the risk of diabetes, elevated cholesterol, and cancer. He also discusses findings from a large study showing that vegetarian diets are associated with a lower risk of several types of cancer.  Additional topics include emerging treatments for Lipoprotein(a), the role of coronary CT angiography in women and in individuals with a family history of heart disease, newly identified predictors of cardiovascular risk in women, dietary patterns that support brain health, and screening strategies to reduce the risk of cardiac arrest in young athletes.  Thanks to Igennus. Visit igennus.com and use the discount code DrKahn for savings on their products.

This week, Dr. Kahn discusses his current health challenge: a leaky mitral valve due to mitral valve prolapse, a condition of unknown cause that is unrelated to lifestyle or diet. He reviews data on mitral valve surgery, comparing repair to replacement, as well as the current availability of robotic surgery and its advantages. He plans to keep the Heart Doc VIP community updated on his status and is feeling great day to day. Short topics this week include wine, olive oil, plant-based diets for breast cancer, Life's Essential 8, the health of babies raised in vegan families, and new data on Lipoprotein(a).  Thanks to Igennus. Use the discount code DRKAHN at igennus.com .

Joop en Roland praten uitgebreid over de situatie in Israel; uitgebreid over het stijgende antismitisme, niet alleen in Nederland maar ook andere landen; over president Trump en krijgen we nu wel of niet een oorlog erbij tegen Iran en heel veel andere zaken.

This Day in Legal History: Jacobson v. MassachusettsOn this day in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), a case that defined the balance between individual liberty and public health. The dispute arose during a smallpox outbreak when Massachusetts authorized local governments to require vaccinations. Henning Jacobson refused the vaccine, arguing that the mandate violated his personal liberty under the Constitution. The case presented a fundamental question: how far can the state go in protecting the health of its citizens?In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the compulsory vaccination law. The justices reasoned that individual freedoms are not absolute. Writing for the majority, the Court explained that the Constitution permits reasonable regulations to protect public health and safety. This authority stems from the state's “police power,” a broad power to enact laws for the welfare of the community. The Court emphasized that liberty does not include the right to act in a way that harms others. During an epidemic, the government may impose measures necessary to prevent disease from spreading.The decision established an enduring precedent for public health regulation. It has been cited in later cases involving quarantine laws, vaccine mandates, and emergency health orders. More than a century later, Jacobson remains central to debates about the limits of government authority in times of crisis.A federal judge in California sharply reduced a jury pool in a class action securities trial against Elon Musk after many potential jurors said they could not be impartial. Out of 92 candidates, 38 were dismissed after admitting they could not fairly judge the case, prompting Musk's attorney to argue that strong personal hostility toward his client was affecting the process. The lawsuit, brought by former Twitter investors, alleges that Musk made misleading statements in 2022 to depress the company's stock price while negotiating its purchase. Musk denies the allegations.Judge Charles R. Breyer reminded jurors that their verdict must be based only on evidence presented at trial, not personal opinions about Musk. Several prospective jurors expressed strong views, both positive and negative, and some were removed for cause. One man who said he believed Musk should be in prison but could be fair in a civil case was not selected. Others who openly supported Musk or dismissed class actions as frivolous were also excluded. By the end of the day, a nine-member jury was seated.The case centers on claims that Musk's tweets about the deal being “on hold” and about the percentage of fake accounts misled investors. The judge previously ruled that investors plausibly alleged securities law violations and certified a class of affected shareholders. He also denied early summary judgment motions, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The upcoming trial will determine whether Musk's public statements violated federal securities laws during the 2022 acquisition process.‘Hate' For Musk Quickly Narrows Jury Pool In Twitter Deal Trial - Law360Jeffrey Epstein's estate has agreed to pay up to $35 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that two of his longtime advisers helped facilitate his sex trafficking scheme. The proposed agreement was disclosed in a federal court filing in Manhattan and must still be approved by a judge. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, targeted Darren Indyke, Epstein's former personal lawyer, and Richard Kahn, his longtime accountant, who serve as co-executors of the estate.Attorneys for the victims claimed the two men assisted Epstein by managing a network of corporations and financial accounts that concealed his activities and enabled payments to victims and recruiters. As part of the settlement, neither Indyke nor Kahn admitted wrongdoing. Their attorney stated they were prepared to contest the claims at trial but chose to settle to bring closure and resolve remaining potential claims against the estate.The estate has already distributed substantial sums to victims. A compensation program previously paid out $121 million, and an additional $49 million has been resolved through other settlements. According to defense counsel, the new agreement will offer a confidential path to compensation for individuals who have not yet settled claims.Epstein died in a New York jail in 2019, and his death was ruled a suicide.Epstein estate agrees to $35 million settlement in victim class action | ReutersThe Trump administration announced plans to scale back federal limits on mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants. Officials said easing these standards would help utilities manage costs and maintain reliable baseload electricity as power demand rises, particularly from artificial intelligence data centers. The move targets updates made during the Biden administration to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which built on regulations first adopted in 2012.The Biden-era revisions would have significantly reduced allowable mercury emissions and cut releases of toxic metals such as arsenic, nickel, and lead. Supporters of those rules argued they would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in public health savings by lowering exposure to harmful pollutants. The Supreme Court previously declined to pause the updated standards while legal challenges proceeded.Environmental and public health advocates warn that weakening the rule could increase health risks, especially for children and other vulnerable populations, since mercury exposure can impair neurological development. The EPA, however, stated that the original 2012 rule already provides sufficient public health protection and that the newer requirements impose costs exceeding their benefits.The rollback aligns with broader administration efforts to support coal power, including declaring an energy emergency, granting temporary exemptions to dozens of coal plants, and revisiting prior climate-related regulatory findings. Coal plants currently produce less than one-fifth of U.S. electricity but remain significant sources of hazardous air pollution.Trump EPA to weaken rule limiting harmful mercury, air toxics from coal plants | ReutersA federal judge in California ruled that PepsiCo and its Frito-Lay division can block a proposed class action brought by convenience store owners alleging unfair pricing practices. The stores claimed the company favored large national retailers by offering them better wholesale prices, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits certain forms of price discrimination. The lawsuit sought to represent thousands of independently owned California stores that said they lost significant sales as a result of the alleged practices.U.S. District Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani determined that the plaintiffs failed to show that all proposed class members suffered the same type of injury, a key requirement for class certification under federal law. She explained that price discrimination claims typically require detailed, transaction-specific evidence, making broad class treatment difficult. The court agreed with the defendants' argument that resolving the claims would require individualized inquiries into each store's circumstances.Although the judge rejected the class action request, she did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit. Instead, she allowed the plaintiffs to revise and refile their class allegations. Attorneys for the convenience stores said they plan to amend the complaint to provide additional detail about how Frito-Lay allegedly disadvantaged smaller retailers.PepsiCo, Frito-Lay win US court order barring class action in snack pricing lawsuit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Donald Trump to impose broad tariffs under a declared national emergency. In a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court emphasized that the Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and duties exclusively to Congress, not the executive branch. The case arose after President Trump declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade deficits and then imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China.Small businesses and several states challenged the tariffs, arguing that IEEPA permits the president to “regulate” importation but does not explicitly authorize the imposition of duties. Lower courts agreed, and the Federal Circuit largely affirmed those rulings before the cases reached the Supreme Court. The majority concluded that the statutory term “regulate . . . importation” cannot be read to include the power to impose taxes, especially given Congress's consistent practice of clearly and specifically granting tariff authority in other statutes. The Court also relied on the “major questions” doctrine, reasoning that such sweeping economic authority requires clear congressional authorization, which IEEPA does not provide.The justices rejected arguments that emergency powers or foreign affairs concerns justified a broader interpretation. They noted that no prior president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history. As a result, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision invalidating the tariffs and directed dismissal of a related case for lack of jurisdiction.Justices Strike Down Trump's Emergency TariffsThis week's closing theme is by Louis Spohr.This week's closing theme features music by Spohr, a composer who stood at the crossroads between the Classical and early Romantic eras. Born in 1784, Spohr was a celebrated violinist, conductor, and teacher whose reputation in his lifetime rivaled many of his contemporaries. Though his name is less familiar today, he played an important role in shaping early nineteenth-century orchestral and chamber music. His style combines Classical clarity with the expressive warmth that would define the Romantic movement.Spohr wrote four clarinet concertos, each showcasing the instrument's growing technical and expressive range. The Clarinet Concerto in F minor reflects both virtuosity and lyricism, qualities that made the clarinet increasingly popular in concert halls of the time. The first movement, Allegro assai, opens with dramatic orchestral energy before introducing the soloist in sweeping, agile lines. The music balances precision with expressive phrasing, demanding both technical control and emotional depth from the performer.Throughout the movement, Spohr allows the clarinet to sing as much as it dazzles. Rapid passages are paired with moments of lyrical calm, highlighting the instrument's wide tonal palette. The dialogue between soloist and orchestra feels conversational rather than combative, giving the concerto an elegant cohesion. As our closing theme, this Allegro assai offers drive, color, and a glimpse into a composer once central to Europe's musical life.Without further ado, Louis Spohr's Clarinet Concerto in F minor, the first movement, the Allegro assai – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Om deltakerne:Zhira Beck bor i Oslo, hun er statsansatt og tidligere nestleder i DMT i den hektiske tiden etter 07.10. Ble kastet inn i det offentlige som følge av 07.10-massakren og reaksjonene norske jøder fikk som følge av krigen mot Hamas i Gaza. Zhira bodde i Israel fra hun var 8 til hun var 25 år gammel. Leif Knutsen er økonom, filolog og har doktorgrad i ingeniørvitenskap. Leif har flere tiår som ekspert innenfor god bruk av teknologi og forsker nå på emnet. Opptatt av kunnskapsbasert problemløsning for vår tids største problemer. Louise Kahn vokste opp på Nordstrand i Oslo, og fikk tidlig oppleve det nynazistiske miljøet. Som 18-åring dro hun til Israel, og kom aldri tilbake til Norge igjen. Hun er musiker, og har turnert verden med bandet Terry Poison, hun er UX designer, front-end utvikler og Social entreprenør. Louise snakker flytende hebraisk, og tilbringer halvparten av året med å surfe på Costa Rica, og den andre halvparten i Tel Aviv. Grunnlegger av Kos og Kaos - the Nordic Jewish network.I dagens episode snakker vi om de utfordringene det jødiske samfunnet står overfor etter hendelsene 7. oktober. Vi diskuterer hvordan identitet, trygghet og fellesskap påvirkes i kjølvannet av slike hendelser. Episoden gir innsikt i hvordan traumer kan forandre oss, viktigheten av å eie vår historie, og hvordan vi kan bruke vår kollektive styrke til å forme vår fremtid.Vi ser nærmere på den globale antisemitismens virkelighet og hvorfor det er viktig med handling. Episoden oppfordrer til refleksjon over vår kollektive identitet og hvordan vi kan samarbeide for å overvinne utfordringer.Dette er en samtale om en kompleks verden, med fokus på å bevare identitet og stolthet over den man er.***► NY BOK UTE NÅ: Frykt og Stillhet - jødiske stemmer i Norge etter 7. oktober. Bestill her:  https://bok.norli.no/frykt-og-stillhet► STØTT ARBEIDET PÅ VIPPSOm du ønsker å støtte arbeidet med denne podcasten, kan du bidra med et stort eller lite beløp, etter eget ønske. All støtte settes pris på, og du bidrar til arbeidet med å lage flere episoder. Bruk Vippsnummer: #823278►  ⁠BLI ⁠⁠⁠⁠MEDLEM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Fremover vil de som er støttemedlemmer få tilgang til episodene først. Da støtter du podcasten med det samme som prisen av en kaffe hver måned. Setter stor pris på om du blir støttemedlem. Tusen takk.► Annonsere på Henrik Beckheim Podcast?Send en mail til post@henrikbeckheim.no ► MERCH: Kjøp klær, kopper, capser og mer: https://henrikbeckheim.com/store► Linker:⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Nettside⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ | Podimo | ⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Apple

Todd Kahn, President and CEO of Fashion Brand Coach, sits with Bloomberg's Romaine Bostick and Katie Greifeld about the company's focus on Gen Z, the power that pricing plays in attracting a new customer base, and more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures in Jeffrey Epstein's world but central operators who helped build, maintain, and financially sustain his criminal enterprise. As Epstein's longtime lawyer and accountant, they created and managed the complex web of trusts, shell companies, bank accounts, and legal entities that allowed money to move discreetly while obscuring its purpose. Lawsuits filed by survivors and the U.S. Virgin Islands government describe them as “indispensable captains” of the enterprise, alleging they facilitated payments to victims and recruiters, structured entities to shield assets, and continued working for Epstein even after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Though they deny any knowledge of abuse, judges have allowed civil claims against them to proceed, ruling that allegations of aiding and abetting trafficking are legally plausible and worthy of full discovery.After Epstein's death in 2019, Indyke and Kahn were named co-executors of his estate, giving them control over key documents, assets, and settlement negotiations, including a $105 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Their continued gatekeeping role, combined with their status as beneficiaries of Epstein-linked trusts, has fueled criticism that the system has protected the very professionals accused of enabling his crimes. Despite being repeatedly named in court filings and investigative reports, they have largely avoided public scrutiny and congressional testimony. Critics argue that the failure to subpoena or question them under oath reflects a broader pattern of performative oversight, where political theater replaces substantive investigation into the financial and legal infrastructure that made Epstein's long-running operation possible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This week on Heart Doc VIP, Dr. Joel Kahn takes a deep dive into one of the most influential research projects in cardiovascular history: the Framingham Heart Study. Launched in 1948 and still going strong, this landmark study helped identify many of the risk factors we now take for granted, including smoking, diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity, and physical inactivity. Much of what modern cardiology considers "common knowledge" about prevention started in Framingham. Dr. Kahn also explores practical and emerging topics in heart health, including the role of magnesium and berberine supplementation, how to approach both low-carb and low-fat diets in a healthy way, and concerns about long-term proton pump inhibitor use. Additional discussion covers EECP therapy and strategies to improve coronary blood flow, along with the potential benefits of ezetimibe for cholesterol reduction and brain health. Thank you to this week's sponsor, Igennus. Visit igennus.com and use code DRKAHN for a special discount.

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures in Jeffrey Epstein's world but central operators who helped build, maintain, and financially sustain his criminal enterprise. As Epstein's longtime lawyer and accountant, they created and managed the complex web of trusts, shell companies, bank accounts, and legal entities that allowed money to move discreetly while obscuring its purpose. Lawsuits filed by survivors and the U.S. Virgin Islands government describe them as “indispensable captains” of the enterprise, alleging they facilitated payments to victims and recruiters, structured entities to shield assets, and continued working for Epstein even after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Though they deny any knowledge of abuse, judges have allowed civil claims against them to proceed, ruling that allegations of aiding and abetting trafficking are legally plausible and worthy of full discovery.After Epstein's death in 2019, Indyke and Kahn were named co-executors of his estate, giving them control over key documents, assets, and settlement negotiations, including a $105 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Their continued gatekeeping role, combined with their status as beneficiaries of Epstein-linked trusts, has fueled criticism that the system has protected the very professionals accused of enabling his crimes. Despite being repeatedly named in court filings and investigative reports, they have largely avoided public scrutiny and congressional testimony. Critics argue that the failure to subpoena or question them under oath reflects a broader pattern of performative oversight, where political theater replaces substantive investigation into the financial and legal infrastructure that made Epstein's long-running operation possible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael wollte als Kind Betonmischer Fahrer werden. Beton anrühren reicht im modernen Fussball nicht mehr aus - St.Pauli, Bremen und Heidenheim wird die schlechte Offensive zum Verhängnis.Sind die Torhüter von heute zu nett? Eine neue Ecken-Variante hält Einzug in die Liga - Olli Kahn hätte sich das nicht bieten lassen.Ewald holte seinerzeit Albert Riera von Liverpool zu Olympiacos. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The February episode of "Crossroads of Rockland History" started streaming on Monday, February 16, at 10 am.On this episode of Crossroads of Rockland History, host Clare Sheridan welcomed author Eve Kahn as she returns to discuss her latest work ahead of her March presentation at Sloatsburg's Harmony Hall. The focus will be on Kahn's new book, Queen of Bohemia Predicts Own Death: Gilded-Age Journalist Zoe Anderson Norris (Fordham University Press).If you're unfamiliar with Zoe Anderson Norris (1860–1914), a notable journalist of the Gilded Age, you're not alone: Eve Kahn is on a mission to bring her story to light. Norris was known for blending fact and fiction in her writings, often weaving autobiographical elements into her stories, which led to criticism for using her personal relationships as material. Despite this, she was deeply committed to exposing the struggles of New York's poor through East Side, the magazine she launched and ran from 1909 to 1914. Remarkably, its final issue included Norris's own prediction of her death, inspiring the dramatic title of Kahn's book.Eve Kahn's presentation at Harmony Hall will take place on Sunday, March 8, at 2 pm. Tickets are $20 and benefit the restoration of the historic Jacob Sloat House.Information and tickets are online here: https://www.friendsofharmonyhall.org/events-2/queen-of-bohemia-predicts-own-death-eve-kahn-returns__________________Crossroads of Rockland History, a program of the Historical Society of Rockland County, starts streaming new episodes on the third Monday of each month at 10am. From October 2010 to May 2025, the program aired after the morning show on WRCR radio 1700 AM and www.WRCR.com. Join host Clare Sheridan as we explore, celebrate, and learn about our local history, with different topics and guest speakers every month. Our recorded broadcasts are also available for streaming on all major podcasts platforms and at our website. The Historical Society of Rockland County is a nonprofit educational institution and principal repository for original documents and artifacts relating to Rockland County. Its headquarters are a four-acre site featuring a history museum and the 1832 Jacob Blauvelt House in New City, New York. www.RocklandHistory.org

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Dr. Kahn breaks down a new paper examining the risks and reported side effects of statins—including the surprising finding that placebo alone is linked to many of the same symptoms. He also covers an oral PCSK9 inhibitor currently under study and what it could mean for cholesterol management. The episode then dives into the latest research on emerging therapies designed to lower lipoprotein(a), including a real-world case study that highlights where this rapidly evolving field is headed.  Shorter discussions include heart disease at a young age, why so many patients fail to reach blood pressure treatment goals, aspirin use one year after AFib ablation, skeletal muscle as an endothelial stabilizer, and why exercise variety may be one of the most powerful risk reducers we have.  Thanks to WellBean for sponsoring the show. Save on their delicious bean-based products at wellbean.life with code DrKahn15.  Dr. Kahn will also be leading a free online seminar on cholesterol on February 17, 2026 at 7 PM EST with Forks Over Knives. Register HERE.

Send a textIn this episode of Coffee Nº5, I sit down with Jennifer Bickerton and Lauren Kahn, Co-Founders of Intersection PR, to unpack the real state of PR in 2026—without buzzwords and without nostalgia.PR is no longer about isolated placements or one-off moments. It's about ecosystems. Marketing, digital, retail, Amazon, influencers, AI, and brand narrative now live in the same room whether brands like it or not. If one piece breaks, momentum breaks.We talk about what brands consistently misunderstand: influencer ROI, launch events that don't move the needle, why “just PR” doesn't exist anymore, and why communication across teams is now non-negotiable. We also dive into how AI is reshaping authority, discovery, and credibility—making long-term PR maintenance more important than ever.This episode is a grounded, honest look at PR as it actually works today—and why partnership, clarity, and integration matter more than hype.We'll talk about:Why PR in 2026 is an ecosystem—not a standalone functionThe myth of “just PR” and why siloed teams break brand momentumInfluencer ROI realities: affiliates, attribution, and what actually convertsLaunch events: when they work, when they don't, and why most failPR + AI: authority, citations, and why human voice still mattersFor more information, visit Lauren's LinkedIn and Instagram and Jennifer's LinkedIn and InstagramSubscribe to Lara's newsletter.Also, follow our host Lara Schmoisman on social media:Instagram: @laraschmoismanFacebook: @LaraSchmoismanSupport the show

This CEO is Building The Institutional Gateway To The Onchain Financial Economy – Meet Jolie Kahn Ceo AVAX One Tech $AVXGuest InformationName: Jolie KahnTitle: CEOCompany InformationCompany Name: AVAX One Technology Ltd.Ticker: (NASDAQ: AVX)Website: https://avax-one.com/ Jolie's Bio: Jolie Kahn has an extensive background in cryptocurrency, corporate finance and corporate and securities law. She has been the proprietor of Jolie Kahn, Esq. since 2002 and has a deep depth of involvement in various aspects of cryptocurrency including serving as general counsel to one of the largest bitcoin mining companies from 2018-2023 and as outside counsel to various other cryptocurrency-based public entities. She has participated in various large industry conferences both as a speaker and panelist, supporting the cryptocurrency and the blockchain ecosystem. Ms. Kahn has also acted in various corporate finance roles, including extensive involvement of preparation of period filings and financial statements and playing an integral part in public company audits. She also has worked with companies and hedge funds in complex transactions involving the structuring and negotiation of large scale debt and equity financings, mergers, and acquisitions. Ms. Kahn has practiced law in the areas of corporate finance, mergers & acquisitions, reverse mergers, and general corporate, banking, and real estate matters. She represents both public and private companies, hedge funds, and other institutional investors in their role as investors in public companies. She served as Interim CFO of GlucoTrack, Inc. from 2019 - 2023. Ms. Kahn holds a BA from Cornell University and a J.D. magna cum laude from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.Company Bio:AVAX One offers investors regulated access to Avalanche, one of the fastest-growing Layer 1 blockchain ecosystems. Combining the reliability of U.S. equity markets with the upside of next-gen finance, it is a modern strategy for a new financial era. AVAX One Technology Ltd. (NASDAQ: AVX) is the first publicly traded Avalanche Treasury company, building the premier institutional gateway to the onchain financial economy powered by the Avalanche blockchain network. Through AVAX accumulation, onchain yield, and strategic acquisitions, we aim to compound long-term value for our shareholders while supporting the growth of the Avalanche ecosystem. Led by a team of veterans from institutional finance and public company backgrounds and advised by leaders from across the digital asset industry, AVAX One is being built to be a scalable, regulated gateway for public market investors to participate in the growth of the onchain economy.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This week, Dr. Kahn discussed a case study involving a 30-year-old man with newly discovered, very high cholesterol. The implications of heart disease in young adults—backed by a recent paper from the CARDIA study group—suggest that early intervention, beginning with lifestyle changes, should be offered, along with follow-up lab testing. The Portfolio Diet plan would be a strong starting point on the journey toward a more plant-based diet. Other topics covered include the risks of diet soda, the health impacts of being a night owl, coffee consumption for atrial fibrillation patients, the role of genetics in longevity, plant-based diets for kidney health, and red light therapy for brain illness and trauma.  Thanks to getfreshDRKAHN.com for the $1 offer on a bottle of fresh-pressed olive oil from some of the finest estates. EXTENDED SHOWNOTES:  Dr. Kahn also touched on several additional topics during the episode. He discussed olive oil tasting and shipping, encouraging listeners to sign up before the current shipment from Italy ends and explaining how tasting fresh olive oil helps assess quality. Red light therapy came up in the context of brain injury, including a study showing potential benefits from nasal exposure in college athletes with repeated head trauma. He also mentioned advocacy efforts to promote routine coronary calcium scoring starting at age 45. Several studies on diet and longevity were reviewed, including research showing that plant-forward diets are associated with better kidney health and that genetics may account for up to 50% of longevity—though lifestyle choices still matter greatly. Dr. Kahn also covered caffeine and heart rhythm, noting research where coffee consumption was linked to fewer episodes of atrial fibrillation, while diet soda was associated with a higher risk of dementia. Finally, he discussed sleep patterns, citing data suggesting that night owls face higher cardiovascular risks than early risers.

Dr. Kahn calls for cancer-level attention to heart disease, citing death rates, hidden symptoms, and young-age fatalities. #HeartHealth #CardiacAwareness #PreventionMatters #SuddenDeath

Send us a textIn this episode: Christi Powell and Angela Gardner speak with Kelly Wyatt and Jimmy Kaphusman from M.B. Kahn regarding their experiences in the construction industry. The discussion covers important topics such as mentorship, workplace culture, and the impact of technology and innovation in construction. Kelly shares her career journey from starting as an administrative assistant to becoming a project manager, emphasizing the importance of taking initiative and finding mentors. Jimmy discusses the significance of fostering a supportive workplace culture and the role of technology in leveling the playing field. The conversation also highlights the importance of mental health awareness and support within the industry. This episode is a valuable resource for anyone looking to advance their career in construction or understand the evolving dynamics of the industry.Sponsored by: ConExpo & NPKSupport the show

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures orbiting Jeffrey Epstein. They were structural supports, the load bearing pillars that allowed his criminal empire to function, survive scrutiny, and endure scandal. Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer, was the gatekeeper. He controlled access, managed settlements, structured opaque trusts, and ensured that Epstein's money and secrets were insulated from exposure. Indyke was there through arrests, plea deals, civil suits, and reputational implosions, always positioning Epstein one legal step ahead of accountability. Without Indyke's legal architecture, Epstein's web of shell companies, offshore vehicles, and confidentiality agreements collapses under its own weight. He was not merely providing legal services. He was actively maintaining the machinery that allowed Epstein to keep operating in plain sight.And then there was Richard Kahn, the financial engineer who made the money move quietly and efficiently. Kahn handled Epstein's books, managed his finances, and kept the cash flowing through a maze designed to obscure origin, purpose, and beneficiaries. This was not passive bookkeeping. This was deliberate financial camouflage, the kind that allows illegal activity to be funded, sustained, and hidden behind layers of complexity. Together, Indyke and Kahn formed a firewall between Epstein and consequence. They didn't just serve a client, they preserved an ecosystem of abuse by protecting the money that powered it. Strip them away and Epstein is exposed, vulnerable, and limited. With them in place, he was untouchable for decades. That is what indispensability looks like, and it should haunt anyone who still pretends this was the work of a lone monster rather than a professionally maintained criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this episode of Overcoming Distractions, Dave welcomes Dr. Gilly Kahn, a clinical psychologist, ADHD specialist, and author of the new book, Allow Me to Interrupt. While ADHD is often associated with external disruptions in boys, Dr. Kahn highlights how it frequently manifests internally as emotional dysregulation in women. The conversation dives deep into why women are often diagnosed later in life and how biological factors, specifically hormonal shifts, play a critical role in how ADHD symptoms fluctuate. Key Discussion Points The Gender Bias in Diagnosis: Dr. Kahn discusses how current ADHD diagnostic criteria are historically rooted in observations of male children, often leading to women provided with an accurate diagnosis. The Estrogen-Dopamine Connection: A fascinating look at how fluctuating estrogen levels during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and perimenopause directly impact dopamine availability, often exacerbating ADHD symptoms during the luteal phase. Late-Life Diagnosis: Why many professional women aren't diagnosed until their 40s or 50s, often triggered by the increased cognitive load of demanding careers, parenting, or perimenopause. Co-occurring Physical Challenges: The link between ADHD and chronic health issues like migraines, which further complicate emotional and physical regulation. Strategic Management: Practical advice on "capitalizing" on high-energy weeks and practicing self-compassion during more difficult hormonal shifts. You can find Dr. Kahn at her website: https://www.drgillykahn.com/ **Do you want to work with Dave one-on-one? Go to www.overcomingdistractions.com and book an introductory Zoom chat. Or go directly to Dave's calendar; https://calendly.com/davidgreenwood1/15min  

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures orbiting Jeffrey Epstein. They were structural supports, the load bearing pillars that allowed his criminal empire to function, survive scrutiny, and endure scandal. Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer, was the gatekeeper. He controlled access, managed settlements, structured opaque trusts, and ensured that Epstein's money and secrets were insulated from exposure. Indyke was there through arrests, plea deals, civil suits, and reputational implosions, always positioning Epstein one legal step ahead of accountability. Without Indyke's legal architecture, Epstein's web of shell companies, offshore vehicles, and confidentiality agreements collapses under its own weight. He was not merely providing legal services. He was actively maintaining the machinery that allowed Epstein to keep operating in plain sight.And then there was Richard Kahn, the financial engineer who made the money move quietly and efficiently. Kahn handled Epstein's books, managed his finances, and kept the cash flowing through a maze designed to obscure origin, purpose, and beneficiaries. This was not passive bookkeeping. This was deliberate financial camouflage, the kind that allows illegal activity to be funded, sustained, and hidden behind layers of complexity. Together, Indyke and Kahn formed a firewall between Epstein and consequence. They didn't just serve a client, they preserved an ecosystem of abuse by protecting the money that powered it. Strip them away and Epstein is exposed, vulnerable, and limited. With them in place, he was untouchable for decades. That is what indispensability looks like, and it should haunt anyone who still pretends this was the work of a lone monster rather than a professionally maintained criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this bonus episode, Dr. Kahn sits down with his longtime friend TJ Robinson, founder of the Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club and self-described "olive oil hunter." TJ has made it his life's mission to track down the freshest, highest-quality extra virgin olive oils in the world — often straight from small producers in Europe and South America — and get them shipped to the U.S. as quickly as possible. The conversation dives into what most people don't realize about olive oil: how freshness impacts flavor, health benefits, and antioxidant levels, and why the oil sitting on a grocery store shelf may not be doing your heart any favors. TJ explains how he sources each harvest, what separates truly exceptional olive oil from the rest, and why timing is everything when it comes to preserving polyphenols and taste. Dr. Kahn and TJ also discuss why extra virgin olive oil remains one of the healthiest dietary staples available, especially for cardiovascular health, and how consumers can avoid misleading labels and outdated products.  Listeners can sample the latest Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club release for just $1 shipping by visiting getfreshDRKAHN.com .  If you prefer to watch the conversation, the full video interview is available on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=AZP64Au_j5M

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures orbiting Jeffrey Epstein. They were structural supports, the load bearing pillars that allowed his criminal empire to function, survive scrutiny, and endure scandal. Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer, was the gatekeeper. He controlled access, managed settlements, structured opaque trusts, and ensured that Epstein's money and secrets were insulated from exposure. Indyke was there through arrests, plea deals, civil suits, and reputational implosions, always positioning Epstein one legal step ahead of accountability. Without Indyke's legal architecture, Epstein's web of shell companies, offshore vehicles, and confidentiality agreements collapses under its own weight. He was not merely providing legal services. He was actively maintaining the machinery that allowed Epstein to keep operating in plain sight.And then there was Richard Kahn, the financial engineer who made the money move quietly and efficiently. Kahn handled Epstein's books, managed his finances, and kept the cash flowing through a maze designed to obscure origin, purpose, and beneficiaries. This was not passive bookkeeping. This was deliberate financial camouflage, the kind that allows illegal activity to be funded, sustained, and hidden behind layers of complexity. Together, Indyke and Kahn formed a firewall between Epstein and consequence. They didn't just serve a client, they preserved an ecosystem of abuse by protecting the money that powered it. Strip them away and Epstein is exposed, vulnerable, and limited. With them in place, he was untouchable for decades. That is what indispensability looks like, and it should haunt anyone who still pretends this was the work of a lone monster rather than a professionally maintained criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This week, Dr. Kahn discusses a new report from the American Heart Association on the causes of heart-related deaths in the U.S., and the sobering reality that cardiovascular disease remains the nation's leading cause of death. Despite this, prevention and early detection continue to be underemphasized at the national level—meaning much of the responsibility still falls on individuals. Dr. Kahn also covers several shorter topics, including a response to the CSPI food pyramid, water quality on airplanes, Apple Watch detection of atrial fibrillation, why earlier meal timing is better, the vascular benefits of extra-virgin olive oil, and the cholesterol-lowering power of oats. Thanks to the Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club, you can sample a bottle of high-quality extra-virgin olive oil for just $1 at getfreshDRKAHN.com. Registration is now open for Dr. Kahn's lecture on January 29, 2026 at 7:00 PM EST. Sign up HERE.

We wrap up our conversation with Niles Township Supervisor Bonnie Kahn Ognisanti. We explore her background in policy writing, what's new in Springfield, and how the community can give back.   

Are your digital ads performing poorly despite significant investment? You might be a fraud victim. This episode breaks down the explosive growth of ad fraud from $8 billion in 2015 to $140 billion today, fueled by accessible AI tools and global criminal networks. Expert Rich Kahn explains how fraudsters use bots, malware, and human click farms to steal from every digital channel. Red flags include unpredictable campaign results, chargeback spikes, and leads who don't recognize your brand. The key to fighting back is professional fraud detection using collective intelligence from multiple clients, real-time monitoring that adapts weekly, and ongoing team education. With affiliate traffic showing 45% fraud rates, waiting for a crisis costs more than proactive prevention. Free fraud scans can reveal whether your budget is bleeding money to criminals.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Kahn explore how ketogenic diets and saturated fats impact cardiovascular health and longevity. #KetogenicDiet #SaturatedFat #HeartHealth

Bots are everywhere. Yes, there are reasons to be worried. Fortunately, there are some good agents out there cracking down on the bad guys - and bringing back our confidence in media spending. In this Quick Hit, you'll hear from Rich Kahn, Co-Founder & CEO of Anura. They eliminate invalid traffic in real time - stopping bots, malware, and human fraud before they drain your budget. Catch to the full episode here

This week, Dr. Kahn dives into four new research papers on omega-3 fatty acids and their impact on heart and brain health. The discussion highlights several eye-opening findings, including reduced atrial fibrillation risk and improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Dr. Kahn also explains how omega-3 intake supports brain health and why the "right" dose depends on the specific condition being addressed. Food sources, fish oil, algae-based supplements, and ahiflower are compared as practical ways to reach optimal omega-3 levels.  Additional topics in this episode include newly approved AI software for early detection of heart disease, the role of statins in patients with type 2 diabetes, the science—and hype—around NAD+ boosters, and emerging data on Prolon fasting for Crohn's disease. Dr. Kahn also reviews concerning research on heart rhythm risks associated with high-intensity endurance exercise in athletes over the age of 50. As always, the episode blends cutting-edge research with real-world clinical insight to help clarify what actually matters for long-term heart health. Thanks to The Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club — get a bottle for $1 at getfreshDRKAHN.com.  More About This Episode This episode takes a deeper look at why omega-3 blood levels matter more than simply taking a supplement. Dr. Kahn reviews large population studies linking higher omega-3 levels to lower risks of atrial fibrillation, early-onset dementia, and major cardiovascular events, including in high-risk groups such as patients on hemodialysis. The key takeaway: testing omega-3 status and personalizing intake may be far more effective than a one-size-fits-all approach.  Beyond omega-3s, Dr. Kahn explores several timely and surprising topics, including AI-enhanced CT scan technology designed to detect silent heart disease without additional radiation, real-world data on statin benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, and why costly NAD+ supplements may ultimately function as a form of vitamin B3. The episode also examines new evidence on fasting-mimicking diets for Crohn's disease and potential heart rhythm risks in high-level endurance athletes over 50. Throughout the discussion, Dr. Kahn emphasizes practical, evidence-based steps patients can review with their physicians, including omega-3 blood testing, coronary calcium scoring, and tailoring lifestyle and supplement strategies to individual risk factors.

Artificial intelligence is not a substitute for human intelligence; it is a tool to amplify human creativity and ingenuity." — Fei-Fei Li Check Out These Highlights: I love this quote.  I keep hearing how AI is going to replace so many jobs, and perhaps even humans.  I personally do not agree with this mindset and think today's conversation will be relevant for leaders navigating people and technology.  Today, my guest and I are going to explore what it means to lead with a people-first mindset in a fast-moving, tech-driven world. We will discuss practical ways to strengthen human connection, build trust, and inspire innovation while fully embracing modern technology. You will walk away with a clear, accessible guide to redefining leadership where human values and digital progress work hand in hand. About Dr. Bushra Khan: Dr. Kahn is the CEO of Leading with BK, recognized for her LEAD Intelligence Framework and a signature high-energy, evidence-based facilitation style. Dr. Khan integrates over 15 years of international leadership experience with cutting-edge research, including collaborations with Daniel Goleman's team, an emotional intelligence pioneer. Top teams from organizations like Google (global Manufacturing Tech Groups in the US, Taiwan, etc.) and the Department of National Defense trust her for clarity and candor. Her mission is to dismantle the false divide between "soft skills" and business strategy, delivering practical, emotionally intelligent strategies that move people (and performance) forward.  How to Get in Touch with Dr. Bushra Khan: Websites:  http://leadingwithbk.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leadingwithbk/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/leadingwithbk Email: hello@leadingwithbk.com Stalk me online! LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/conniewhitman   Subscribe to the Enlightenment of Change podcast on your favorite podcast streaming service or YouTube.  New episodes are posted every week. Listen to Connie explore new sales and business topics or address problems you may have. 

What's up Gamers?!What happens when the digital consciousness of a machine god meets the primordial rage of a multiversal conqueror? This week on Konsole Kombat, host John is joined by a very special guest: Zach from Senjoh World! Together, they dive deep into the digital abyss to settle a battle between the two most formidable fusion villains in fighting game history.In one corner, we have the mechanical menace from Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite: Ultron Sigma. Armed with the Reality and Space Infinity Stones, this alloyed nightmare successfully merged two realities into one and aims to convert all organic life into his mindless "Sigma Virus" drones.In the other corner, we have the embodiment of "Kombat Rage" from Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe: Dark Kahn. Born from the accidental fusion of Darkseid and Shao Kahn, this titan of fury possesses the Omega Effect and the dark sorcery of Outworld, threatening to collapse the DC and MK universes into a singular realm of chaos.Will the "Age of Ultron Sigma" begin, or will everything succumb to the will of Dark Kahn? Tune in to find out!Don't forget to subscribe and give us your thoughts in the comments below. Get out there and level up, Kombatants!

Peptides are suddenly a buzzword in the media and amongst certain wellness-minded circles, promising to help people sleep better, look better, lose weight, gain strength, reduce inflammation, and perhaps prevent disease. But without medical-grade testing to back up these claims, are they safe to use? Dr. Amanda Kahn runs a medical practice devoted to longevity medicine and joins Martha today to break down the costs, risks and science behind the peptides and enzymes she prescribes. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Dr. Kahn breaks down the newly released USDA 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines and the surprising upside-down food pyramid they present. He explains how the final report differs from last year's Advisory Committee recommendations, including changes in committee membership and the influence of advisors with financial ties to the meat and dairy industries. Looking back at the original 1980 dietary guidelines, Dr. Kahn asks an important question: how much has really changed? His takeaway remains refreshingly simple—eat food, mostly plants, not too much. Short topics this week include urinary measurements of protein intake, optimal timing for surgery in dilated aortic roots, the cardiovascular risk of lipoprotein(a), and whether the science behind the Blue Zones truly holds up. You can order a bottle of olive oil for just $1 at getfreshDRKAHN.com. To join the next group ProLon fast, order your kit as soon as possible at prolonlife.com/DRKAHN. If you want it a touch shorter or more punchy for Apple Podcasts specifically, I can trim it another 10–15%.

Is ad fraud secretly draining your marketing budget? Get the real story behind the billions lost, how it warps your data, and the smart moves you need to protect your brand's ROI and reputation. Don't let fake clicks steal your thunder!And don't forget! You can crush your marketing strategy with just a few minutes a week by signing up for the StrategyCast Newsletter. You'll receive weekly bursts of marketing tips, clips, resources, and a whole lot more. Visit https://strategycast.com/ for more details.==Let's Break It Down==04:58 Affiliate Marketing and Bot Fraud07:03 Detecting Fraud in Real Time11:02 "Fraud Techniques and Device Spoofing"13:49 Limitations of Basic Fraud Detection17:56 "Protecting Trust and Brand Value"20:22 "Fraud Impacts Attribution, Not Lifetime"23:31 Fraud Detection Requires Dedicated Teams29:14 The $140 Billion Fraud Problem==Where You Can Find Us==Website: https://strategycast.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/strategy_cast/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/strategycast==Leave a Review==Hey there, StrategyCast fans!If you've found our tips and tricks on marketing strategies helpful in growing your business, we'd be thrilled if you could take a moment to leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. Your feedback not only supports us but also helps others discover how they can elevate their business game!

Rich Kahn, CEO and Co-Founder of Anura, is driven by a mission to help businesses grow by eliminating digital ad fraud that silently siphons marketing budgets. A lifelong entrepreneur and developer, Rich is passionate about ensuring that advertising dollars reach real users—not bots, malware, or human fraud. We explore Rich's journey from launching an early digital advertising platform to uncovering widespread fraud that threatened his own business—and how building an internal solution eventually led to Anura. Rich breaks down his Ad Optimization Framework—Minimize Fraud, Optimize Conversion, Refresh Content—and explains why fraud must be addressed before any meaningful optimization can occur. He also shares how ad fraud impacts ROI, why lifetime value matters more than cost-per-click, and the conviction required to build and scale a SaaS company in a crowded market. — Improve Traffic Quality by 25% Overnight with Rich Kahn Good day, dear listeners. My name is Steve Preda, the Founder of the Summit OS Group, and the creator of the Summit OS Business Operating System. And today, my guest isa Rich Kahn, the CEO and Co-founder of Anura, an ad fraud solution that monitors traffic to identify real users versus bots, malware, and human fraud. Rich, welcome to the show.  Thanks for having me today.   Well, it’s super interesting business you have and the entrepreneurial journey. So let’s start with my favorite question. What is your personal ‘Why’, and how are you manifesting it in Anura?  My personal ‘Why’ has always been to help people. Fraud is a huge problem. And it’s no longer a question of if you have fraud, it’s a question of how much fraud you have. And I’m watching people spend millions and millions of dollars on digital marketing and getting it siphoned out by fraudsters with bogus traffic. So the ‘Why’ is that, in all the businesses that I've done, I've wanted to help people grow their business. I want to help people grow their staff. I wanted to help people grow, just in general.Share on X And in this case, with the Anura, I’m able to help them identify, wasted spend, eliminate that so they can grow their marketing campaigns and grow their company. And if they grow their company, then they have to grow their staff, and it’s a good thing for everybody. Yeah, definitely. And until we talked, I was not aware that fraud is rampant, especially in ad spend. It didn't occur to me. And I kind of wonder why this is happening. But tell me how you found this problem, and why do you want to solve this, and how did you get to this point to launch a company about it?  Well, in 2003, my wife and I launched a digital marketing firm. Think of Google, but really small. So it’s text-based ads you can target by keyword, bid price, geography, audience, like it had all these targeting criteria. We launched it in 2003. By 2004, we had a nice, stable list of clients, but we started getting some complaints about the traffic quality. Something wasn’t right. And I’m a developer, so I started looking at the code and realizing, looking at all the analytics and the data, and realized that it was bad traffic, it was fraudulent traffic. So I figured, you know what? I don't want to solve fraud. I want to go out, buy a fraud solution, bolt it onto my platform, and just continue doing my business.Share on X Kind of like buying McAfee for your laptop. You just buy and let it scan and do its thing. But in 2004, it didn't exist any fraud solutions. In fact, the first commercial available fraud solution didn’t start selling until 2008 or '09. So I was a developer, and I said, we're going to lose our business if I don't do something. So I figured it out I'd build it myself, and we did. I wrote the software. It worked great. We had to continue evolving it as fraud evolved. And it got to the point where we started having clients ask—if not beg—to use our software outside of our network. And that’s when we kind of got the idea that this might be a good tool to sell by itself, as opposed to baked into our platform. And that's where we launched it, in 2017. We ended up launching a Anura as a standalone solution.  Wow. I mean, it's definitely, if this is a big problem, it's going to affect everyone who advertises. So it could be hundreds of millions of people. How can someone even make money with fraudulent traffic? How does it help them to make money?   Well, what happens is internet advertising fraud is not illegal. There’s no law that says you can’t do it. So if you do find somebody that’s doing it, it’s really difficult to prosecute them in the U.S. But a lot of it happens overseas, so it’s even worse. There’s a lot of countries that allow all kinds of stuff. So basically, what we focus on is that their job is to try to make money. And I read an article one time from another company that was doing stats on fraud detection. They said the average fraudster—and this is why they do it—makes $5 million a year. But how?  There’s a lot of different ways. It depends if they're buying from Google, Facebook, DSPs, or affiliate marketing. But I’ll give you a simple example. One example, which is affiliate marketing. A lot of companies use affiliate marketing. I think it's a $20 or $30 billion industry at this point. It's a big market. So what happens is, right now, you or I can go to Amazon and sign up for their affiliate program, and every time we send them a new client, they'll give us 5% of what they spend. So I'm getting paid on the spend, right? So what if I sent fake users there? I’m not going to get paid for anything because they're not spending money. But what if I’m the fraudster? I use stolen credit cards to make those purchases. So if the purchase gets made and shipped, I get 5%. Affiliates usually get paid net 7. So I get paid net 7, somewhere across that month, maybe the next month, the person whose credit card was stolen says, “Hey, wait a second, I recognize charges that don't belong to me.” And then the investigation starts and takes months before it comes back to Amazon and says, “Oh, you shipped out a product to a fraudulent credit card. You're not getting paid for this. We're taking the money back.” But by then, they've already shipped the product, so they're out the hard cost of the product. They've already paid out the affiliate. The affiliate has already been paid. The affiliate can continue to do that for weeks, knowing that it’s going to take months for them to get caught. Once they get caught, they just set up another account. And what they're doing is making those affiliate margins. So if they spend a hundred dollars, they make five. If they create dozens and dozens of accounts, you can quickly see how they can make a lot of money in a short period of time. That’s just one example.  Yeah. That’s very interesting. Very interesting. So, okay, that’s really cool. So you basically help people not have the fake traffic. So whatever traffic they have, it’s real. So they pay real prices for real value. That’s got to be a significant improvement in advertising efficiency. What is the kind of improvement that you see on average happening for people?  On average, it’s 25% improvement. So 25% of the marketing dollars that they’re spending is fraudulent. Now, if they buy from like Google and Facebook, it's probably around 10%—they're on the lower side. If you buy from the programmatic space, like The Trade Desk and things like that, it’s upwards of 50%, and then everything else falls in between. All the digital types of marketing. If you're doing influencer advertising, if you're doing affiliate advertising, each one has different levels of fraud that we’ve found. But on the high side is programmatic, and on the low side is probably search and social.   Okay, so this seems like a big part of optimizing an ad, and making it perform better. So what I’d like you to share with us—and we'd talked about this in the pre-call is that you have a framework for generally optimizing digital ads. So what would that look like? And one element is fraud, but what are the other elements, and how do you go about optimizing your advertisement?  Sure. Like the heaviest hitter, in my opinion, is fraud. So you start with fraud, you look at where fraud is, and you minimize that, right? The next thing you want to focus on is conversion value. Every campaign has some level of conversion. It could be as simple as a click. It could be as simple as watching a video. It could be purchasing a product. It could be generating a lead for, let’s say, Hey, save money on my car insurance, and you fill out a lead. So what you want to do is look at where that conversion takes place. First off, you want to analyze the conversions because not all conversions are real conversions. You’ll get conversions like credit cards, fake credit cards being used, or fake information being used in fill in forms, and that’s where the fraud comes in. Once you eliminate that, now you can rely on the data that you see in your conversion value, and you start optimizing your campaigns around that conversion value. So as long as hey, this source is generating me a 20% conversion, this source is generating me 10%. Guess what? I want to stop spending on the 10%, spend more than the 20% just optimizing for the conversion value. And that's what's going to get your campaign to perform at its highest level.Share on X  So what are ways to optimize conversion beyond the fraud piece? Yeah, so once fraud’s out of the game, we’ve eliminated fraud, it’s really focusing on the data. What source you buy the traffic from, what sources they get the traffic from. Because sometimes you might buy a source of traffic like Google, and it may not come from Google. It may come from one of its syndicated partners like a CNN or a weather.com or Bloomberg, somewhere where you’re not familiar with, but if they’re getting traffic, that’s their partner network. They’re getting traffic from there. So you want to identify the sources. It could be by keyword, right? You can take a look and break it down by keyword. If you're looking at Google and maybe you have certain keywords that have a much higher performance because it's a better audience to targetShare on X and then you can have some that are much lower, then you got to decide what the cutoff is. So if you say, “Hey, anything less than a 10% conversion, I'm going to get rid of. And anything greater than 10%, I'm going to buy more of.” So that’s kind of where you focus on your conversion value. And ultimately, it’s to try to maximize your conversion while still spending your budget. Because let's say if you've got a source that's converting at 80%. It's going to be far and few between, and they're going to be expensive, and the volume of traffic is going to be light, and it's not going to be enough. Because if you've got one conversion a month, that's probably not enough to survive your company on. So you got to get somewhere in between, where you get the volume and you get the conversion value that you're looking for to give you the best possible campaign.Share on X So basically, you calculate your ROI on each type of conversion, and you get to a point where you still get a positive ROI. Is there like a rule of thumb? What is the kind of ROI do you need in order for it to generally be worth taking the risk of doing the advertising and putting in the effort?  Yeah. It’s very different from client to client. It’s got to be specific to a client. And I'll give you an example. I used to work with a company called TigerDirect. They were a huge reseller of electronics, computers, computer components, and stuff like that. And they would spend $110 to generate a $20 sale. So everybody knows that’s losing money, right? You're losing $80 on every sale you generate, or whatever the number is. If they're spending $100 to generate a sale just to get a $20 sale, why would they do that?  Well, they know once they get a client in the door, they market. They used to send weekly magazines of all the new stuff that's out in the market, the new pricing index, constant email bombardments. They would call you and say, “Hey, I saw you bought recordable CDs. We have a special on recordable CDs if you're looking for them.” They would market like crazy to their client base, and they would average over $300 per client.  So that’s the lifetime value.   Right. Their lifetime value was much greater than their cost for acquisition. And they were comfortable and in a position to spend that money to acquire the client knowing that they would make the money over time. Most companies don't operate that way. Most companies operate like GEICO—they pay $15 or $20 to get somebody to fill out a form saying they want to save money on car insurance. And they may close 15% of those leads into actual deals. And when they do the math, they’re making money every single lead that they get in, the ones that convert. And on the ones they lose, they're making enough money on the wins that the losses are outweighed, and they're still making money. So again, every company, every product—it's different. I've seen the same industries, like car insurance. Let's stick with car insurance. I've seen four or five companies where I'm looking at their conversion rates. Conversion rates are different. Their ROIs are different, their spend is different—everything's different. It's just targeting different audiences.Share on X  So if I had unlimited funding, let’s say, and I want to ramp up as fast as possible, but I wanted to make it in a smart way. Is there like a rule of thumb that your lifetime value—the profit you make on a customer—has to be 3x the amount you spend on advertising? And the lifetime is measured by the profit, not the top line, but the bottom line.  Yeah, I haven't seen a specific rule of thumb to give clients. Obviously, your lifetime value of a client needs to be more than the cost to acquire that client.  And if you want to be profitable, not every company starts out profitable. Look at Uber—they were a billion-dollar company before they went profitable. They were able to raise enough money to keep everything going, because all they cared about was client acquisition.  Yeah.  Let me get as many clients and as many drivers and riders in the door, as many drivers and riders in the door as they can possibly get so they can own the market. They had a great idea. Lyft was right behind them. They didn’t care. They were able to raise enough capital to just keep spending like crazy, knowing that in the long game, once they owned the market in all the different markets they were targeting, they were going to be profitable.Share on X So they were spending like crazy.  Doesn't that mean that there are some actors in the advertising market that inflate prices because maybe they’re venture-funded, and one out of a hundred company is going to make it unicorn? And the other 99 are going to be spending money on advertising, driving up prices. So if someone comes in and they're bootstrapping, they're going to be hard-pressed to actually make a return on their Facebook ads, because there's so much demand chasing results without appropriate expectation.  Well, if there’s enough demand, then the bootstrapper can make it work. I’ve been a bootstrapper my whole life. So if you’re in a market where there’s enough demand, it’ll work. But if you're in a situation where, let's say today, you decide to come up with a rideshare app, you're going to be hard-pressed to win riders and drivers as a new bootstrapped company. Personally, I don't think Uber would be where it is today if it were bootstrapped. A business model like that required to grow fast, and they needed the capital to do it. So there are certain industries that bootstrappers just aren't going to be able to touch, because you've got a company like Uber that was losing money while acquiring all these new clients, knowing that down the road they would own the network and they would be able to be profitable. That’s a big gamble. Yeah. But it's also all the other companies that get funding but never actually make it. And the venture capitalists are spreading their risk because they invest in ten companies, and if one blows up, that's enough.  Yeah.   So that means that there’s a lot of fake demand, basically.  Well, I’m talking about the demand from the client, not demand from the company. The company has the product, and they're trying to generate demand for their product. So when I say demand, I mean demand from the customer.  No, I mean, demand for advertising.  Oh, okay. Yeah, I see what you’re saying.  So clicks.   Yeah. So there's a limited number of people that are looking for that term. You’ve got a lot of people spending money. It’s going to make it difficult to get it unless you’re spending a lot per click.   Yeah.  So that means that maybe pay-per-click advertising is not for the faint of heart.  I wouldn't say that.  Yeah.   It's not for everybody when you're talking about every industry, right? Certain industries—I’ll give you an example. Let's say you're a roofer. Pay-per-click is going to work great for you because there are only so many roofers in a given area, and there's a high demand for roofing. You can get away with spending a couple dollars a click, where it’s not going to break the bank, and you get that phone ringing. My son, for example, owns a power washing and holiday lighting company. And he does Facebook and Google ads. He’s a small company, bootstrapped, and generates plenty of demand because of that situation. But again, if he decided he wanted to compete with Uber, he'd be lost. So it really depends on the industry, Insurance. Let's say you want to start your own Rich Kahn insurance company. Well, I’m going to be competing against Allstate, Progressive, GEICO—all these companies that are spending heavily in that sector. The only way you're going to get action is to spend more per click than they do. And if I’m spending more per click, and I don’t have the scale like they do, I’m going to lose money. Yeah. Super interesting. So let’s circle back to your framework. So we talked about fraud minimization as a way to optimize ads. We talked about conversion. What's the third leg of this stool?  For me, it’s content.   So let's say you've got fraud out of the game. You optimize by campaign and your ads are showing up number one every single time, but the copy doesn't draw. Or you don't refresh the copy often enough, then it gets stale, and people see it and think, “Eh, let me try somebody new.” So they're always looking for newer content, a way to hook the client. You really have to optimize campaign copy. So again, working with Google—that's ones out there—you have the ability to put up multiple ads, multiple creatives. Their system will automatically take titles and rotate them for you so they stay unique. And then they'll push more traffic to the ones that are getting a better conversion rate or a better click-through rate. So it's about constantly staying on top of your copy. Just like when you watch TV. You'll see the same companies advertising over and over again, but it's always a different commercial because they're trying to hook you. If they played the same commercial for the last 20 years, you'd just tune it out.  Tune it out. Yeah.   Yeah. But when you see something new, it's like, “Oh, let me watch that one.” It's kind of cool. Because the commercials have to have good copy. If it's boring, stale copy, nobody's going to pay attention.  And if it's entertaining, then it's even better, right?   Exactly. If it becomes memorable and you think, “Oh my God, you've got to see this commercial I just saw, it was amazing,” that's the kind of commercial you try to build—but it's very difficult to build.  Yeah, that’s very interesting. The creative element is very important. To catch attention and keep it, it has to be creative, curiosity-inducing, and potentially entertaining. That’s wonderful.  Yeah.  So when did you decide to go all in on Anura?  Yeah. We launched it April 1st, 2017. We spent that first year trying to figure out who we were as a business. Because I'd never sold SaaS before, so I was trying to figure out—do I have a pitch deck? How do I talk to people? What works best? How do I get the person to say they're interested and want to get on a call? There was so many things that we were struggling with that first year. I don’t know if we signed up more than one or two clients that first year. By the second year, we signed up a bunch of clients because we started to figure out what was working, who we’re talking to, the right trade shows to go to, the right Google ad campaigns to run.  And as we started getting that, we started getting our traction and we started growing the client base. So I guess we would say we launched in 2017, but really went all in in 2018. That's when we saw our first couple of clients jump on the software, fall in love with it, give us case studies and reviews, and say, “I can't believe how you changed my business. This is amazing.” Once we got into the hands of a client, and we had one or two clients that really embraced it, that's when we felt, “Okay, we're onto something special. We're all in.” That was about 2018.  And then you started winding down your consulting business and went all in on the SaaS business?  Yeah. We left the Google competitor, the really small Google competitor marketing agency. We left it up for a couple years because we had some clients that were still buying and using it. As the client attrition naturally occurred, we got to a point where we said, “Okay, it's time to shut it down.” That was also around 2018–2019. Basically, in 2018 we pulled all the resources from it and just kept it running for the clients that were still there. They'd been with us for years, so we kept it stable. We weren't going to trade shows, we weren't advertising it. Support was handled by two of us, the client support, actually the whole company was run by two of us, three of us, and we just let it run for a couple of years until the last client jumped off, and then we shut it down. Yeah. Actually, that's a great approach—to evolve from a business that maybe has a ceiling, find another opportunity, start putting more time into it as it takes off, reallocate resources, use the legacy business as a cash cow, your legacy business and then once the new business takes off, then basically cut bait. That’s very interesting. And I’ve seen this happen. I’ve done it myself as well. So what's the hardest decision you've ever had to make in your business?   I’m going over the last 22 years. The hardest decision I ever had to make was firing a best friend. And unfortunately, it actually happened twice. My two best friends—one was a partner and one was an employee. We were working together, and it just got to the point where we had to go our separate ways from a business standpoint, and that hurt the relationship. We stopped talking. It was a bad breakup. And I just ran into them about a year ago, and we picked up where we left off—bygones be bygones. It was tough back then because you have a good friend, and it's like, “Oh, I want to bring my friends into the business. So I always tell new business owners when they're starting: if you're going to start the business with friends as a partner, that's different.Share on X But don't hire your friends as employees. Because if you hire them as employees and you have to make a business decision that doesn't go well for them, they're going to pull the “friend card.” And you’re going to be stuck between either getting rid of a bad employee, and I say bad, but like an employee that you need to get rid of or lose a friend. That’s tough. Friends are hard to come by, especially good friends. Especially when you get older and your kids are out of school, you're not hanging out on the sidelines at sports or having coffee with people. As you get older, there are fewer groups you hang out in, so it's harder to find friends. So it’s not worth losing a friend over business.  Yeah, I agree. I agree. I had this experience as well, and it’s it was super painful for both of us. It did impact the relationship, even though we both put up a brave face over it, but it kind of breaks the trust.  Yeah. It’s not fun.   Yeah. So, final question I want to ask you is: what is the most important question an entrepreneur should ask themselves, in your opinion?  Am I willing to not give up? Like I said, when I started this company, it wasn’t a new concept. If it’s a new concept, it's a lot easier to say, “Man, I'm going to crush this.” Because when we started this, there were probably about a half a dozen different fraud solutions in the marketplace back in 2017. There was a handful of them that were out. They were already getting a lot of traction. I think all of them were fully funded and doing really well. It’s not the greatest time in the world to enter the fraud detection market when you have traction like that—kind of like entering the market trying to compete with Uber. But I looked at it and thought, based on everything I was doing, I think we have a better product. And once we started getting that feedback from clients who use the other products and realized we had a better product, it made me more convinced that this is the direction we want to go to.Share on X We want to turn this into its own company. We want to grow it. And for me, that question is: is this something I can do and not give up on? But if it’s something like you’re like, “Ah, if it doesn't do this, I don't know,” then don't start. Because one of the things you’ll find with most entrepreneurs, successful entrepreneurs, they don’t give up, persistence. They’re can be smart about it, but persistent.   It’s also a balance. It’s a belief. Maybe this is what you’re talking about that, do you have this conviction that this is going to work out in the end?  Yeah.  So how do you know? How do you know that you are willing to not give up? What makes you be able to make this decision? Is this a decision or is this like an ongoing question that you keep asking yourself?  For me, it's: I've got to run it through my head and feel that it's an unfillable business. And then I got to feel it in my heart. If I don’t feel it in my head and my heart, I’m not going to do it. I’ve had cut dozens and dozens of great ideas, some that I think would be phenomenal even in today’s standard, but I didn't have the resources I wanted behind them. I didn't really have the heart in those businesses, so I didn't start them. I wasn't all in. Like I said before, with this business, when we started it, I was all in with my toe. And then once I started getting feedback from clients, I jumped in. Because then I knew, it wasn’t me saying I’ve got the best solution, it was my client’s telling me I got a better solution. And then as I get client after client, so now you know, you look at seven, eight years later, I’ve got new people in the office. I started working for this new fraud company. I see they’re kind of small compared to some of the other big companies out in the marketplace. And then they’re on the phone with clients who are like ranting and raving about our software. They come back—now they're all in. And that's really what I want is I want every team member to feel that, to know that they're with the right company. It's not just for me—it's for the team too. Share on X Yeah, the team. I agree. That’s super important. Well, I love that. And this whole idea of the client feedback, reinforcing the value, and making people confident to sell it is huge. Yeah.  All right. So if people would like to reach out to learn about your solution—maybe they’re advertising, they’re spending a lot of money, and they want to save the 25% without losing any conversions, or they just want to reach out and learn more about and get to know you—where should they go and how can they reach you?   I would start with anura.io or www.anura.com . We own both. And on there, we have huge amount of resources. We publish several blogs every week. We have dozens of eBooks online. We have the world’s only comprehensive guide on ad fraud, it’s about an 80 page document. So plenty of ways to learn. And then once they want to talk to somebody, once they’re ready, and like they’ve done their research and they’re ready to talk to us, they can fill out a form and we'll reach out, or they can just pick up the phone and call us. If they want to follow me on LinkedIn, that’s my social media of choice. I post videos like this on there, some wacky videos sometimes with me and my grandkids. The best way to find me is just Rich Kahn on LinkedIn. I'm easy to find.   Awesome. Well, Rich, thank you for coming and sharing your framework—the Ad Optimization Framework. So it's content, fraud minimization, conversion, and this idea of conviction: when you are willing to not give up concept. It’s fabulous. For those of you listening, if you found this valuable, follow us on YouTube, check out our LinkedIn page, and stay tuned because every week we are going to get a wonderful contributor like Rich Kahn, the CEO of Anura. So Rich, thanks for coming and thanks for listening.  Appreciate it. Important Links: Rich's LinkedIn Rich's website

David L. Kahn is an author, oneironaut, and has been a member of the International Association for the Study of Dreams (IASD) since 2006.  He is a regular contributor to The Lucid Dreaming Experience magazine and has participated in several lucid dreaming research studies.  Much of his published work and many of his presentations focus on trauma dreams, particularly those of genocide survivors and LGBTQ+ youth.  He also contributed an entry to the Encyclopedia of Sleep and Dreams on dreams related to the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocides.  His books include The Oneironaut's Odyssey:  Discovering Ancient Wisdom Through Lucid Dreams and Storms and Rainbows:  Trauma Dreams of LGBTQ+ Youth. For more information about Dave and his work, please see Instagram pages: @boundless_dream @thelucidexplorer Or contact him directly at:  boundlessdreaming@gmail.com This podcast is available on your favorite platform, or here:https://endoftheroad.libsyn.com/episode-331-david-l-kahn-lucid-dreamsthe-oneironauts-odyssey-discovering-ancient-wisdom-through-lucid-dreams Have a blessed week!

durée : 00:58:47 - Les Grandes Traversées - par : Romain de Becdelièvre - Où s'arrêtent les voyages de Jef ? Sur le tard, il tombe amoureux de l'Afghanistan, qu'il célèbre en reportages, en film et dans son chef-d'œuvre : "Les Cavaliers". La steppe renoue avec la steppe et Jef refait une ultime fois le tour du monde, et du malheur. - réalisation : Julie Beressi - invités : Jean-Claude Zylberstein Éditeur; Dominique Bona Membre de l'Académie française; Gilles Heuré Journaliste et écrivain; Alfred de Montesquiou Réalisateur de documentaires; Olivier Weber Ecrivain-voyageur, grand reporter; Serge Linkès Maître de conférences à l'université de La Rochelle, chercheur à l'Institut des textes et manuscrits modernes, il a dirigé l'édition des deux tomes de Romans et récits, de Joseph Kessel, dans « La Pléiade »; Philippe Baudorre Professeur de littérature à l'université Bordeaux-3; François Heilbronn Professeur à Sciences Po et vice-président du Mémorial de la Shoah; Michèle Kahn Écrivaine et fondatrice à la SCAM du prix Joseph-Kessel; Marie-Eve Thérenty Professeure de littérature française et directrice du centre de recherche RIRRA21 à l'université de Montpellier 3.; Matthieu Letourneux Professeur de littérature à l'université Paris-Nanterre. Rédacteur en chef de Belphégor.; François Sureau Avocat, écrivain, poète, membre de l'Académie française; Marie-Astrid Charlier Maîtresse de conférence en littérature française du XIXe siècle à l'université Paul Valéry Montpellier-3

Dr. Kahn kicks off 2026 by reviewing recent media reports on aspirin use and dosing for the prevention of cardiovascular events in the President of the United States. Much of the coverage overlooks an important factor: the relationship between aspirin dose and body weight. Dr. Kahn examines data from multiple studies suggesting that, in some cases, only higher-dose aspirin was effective in preventing cardiovascular events. As always, listeners are encouraged to discuss aspirin use and dosing with their own medical team. Additional topics this week include the health impact of carryout meals, kidney function and cystatin C, statin use in patients with diabetes, the risks associated with tramadol, cold drink–induced atrial fibrillation, and recent health reports involving Chevy Chase and Jelly Roll. Dr. Kahn also invites listeners to join an upcoming group 5-day PROLON Fasting Mimicking Diet, supported by dietitians and health educators. Order your PROLON kit now at prolonlife.com/drkahn to be ready to participate.