Podcasts about Lancet

The FAME 3 trial 5-year results, TAVR at 5 years, pacers after TAVR, and mavacamten not a wonder drug are the topics John Mandrola, MD, discusses in this week's podcast. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. To read a partial transcript or to comment, visit: https://www.medscape.com/twic I FAME 3 at Five Years Stents as Good as Surgery for Triple-Vessel Disease https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/noninvasive-stents-good-surgery-triple-vessel-disease-2025a10007l4 Main trial NEJM https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2112299 Circulation 3-years https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.065770 5-year results Lancet 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00505-7 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673625005057 II TAVR in Low-Risk Patients at 5 years 5-Year TAVR, Surgery Outcomes Similar in Low-Risk Patients https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/5-year-tavr-surgery-outcomes-similar-low-risk-patients-2025a10007zl EVOLUT Low-Risk 5 years https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.03.004 EVOLUT Editorial – We're Halfway There https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.03.428 PARTNER 3 Low-Risk https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2307447 NOTION at 5 years https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036606 III The Matter of Pacemakers After TAVI JACC IV Study Badertscher https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jcin.2025.03.028 Assessing the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals   IV Mavacamten Looks to Have Specific Indications EXPLORER HCM 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31792-X External Link VALOR HCM https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2809050 BMS Press Release https://news.bms.com/news/details/2025/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Provides-Update-on-Phase-3-ODYSSEY-HCM-Trial/ FINAL THOUGHTS PRAGUE 25 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e056522 You may also like: The Bob Harrington Show with the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine, Robert A. Harrington, MD. https://www.medscape.com/author/bob-harrington Questions or feedback, please contact news@medscape.net

Measles: It's Back, It's Contagious, and You Probably Haven't Seen It Before In this episode, Kevin and Dr. Lisa Wolf dig into the return of a disease we thought had been eradicated in 2000. In case you missed it—we're in the middle of a national measles outbreak, and chances are high you've never actually seen a real case. Measles is back, and we need to be on high alert, as it remains one of the most contagious diseases in the world. What happens when a patient with a suspicious rash sits in your waiting room for hours? How long does measles hang in the air? (Spoiler: it's longer than you think.) From triage missteps to public health policies, this episode walks through how to identify, isolate, and respond to highly contagious diseases—especially when you've never seen them in real life. We also bust the autism myth (again), talk about vaccine hesitancy, and explore what your ED should be doing to prepare right now. Measles Resources Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, September 6). Measles signs and symptoms. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/signs-symptoms/index.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, September 6). Photos of measles. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/signs-symptoms/photos.html Child Vaccination Schedule https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolescent-age.html Vaccinations and Autism Eggertson, L. (2010). Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(4), E199–E200. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-3179 Hviid, A., Hansen, J. V., Frisch, M., & Melbye, M. (2019). Measles, mumps, rubella vaccination and autism: A nationwide cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 170(8), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2101 Tanne, J. H. (2002). MMR vaccine is not linked with autism, says Danish study. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 325(7373), 1134. Immune Memory Loss & Measles Cohen, J. (2019, May 1). How measles causes the body to ‘forget' past infections by other microbes. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/how-measles-causes-body-forget-past-infections-other-microbes

Listen as we discuss the highly-awaited ESOPEC trial, which examines treatment regimens for esophageal and EGJ adenocarcinoma. Wildly impress your thoracic attendings or peers with your nuanced knowledge! FLOT who? You'll know. Pull out the paper and listen along! Learning Objectives: -Discuss the patient population in the ESOPEC trial -Discuss the main differences between the ESOPEC trial and the CROSS trial -Describe the main drawbacks between FLOT and the CROSS regimen. Hosts: Chloe Hanson MD, Brian Louie MD, and Peter White MD   Referenced Material https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2409408 Hoeppner J, Brunner T, Schmoor C, Bronsert P, Kulemann B, Claus R, Utzolino S, Izbicki JR, Gockel I, Gerdes B, Ghadimi M, Reichert B, Lock JF, Bruns C, Reitsamer E, Schmeding M, Benedix F, Keck T, Folprecht G, Thuss-Patience P, Neumann UP, Pascher A, Imhof D, Daum S, Strieder T, Krautz C, Zimmermann S, Werner J, Mahlberg R, Illerhaus G, Grimminger P, Lordick F. Perioperative Chemotherapy or Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2025 Jan 23;392(4):323-335. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2409408. PMID: 39842010. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1112088 van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BP, Richel DJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Hospers GA, Bonenkamp JJ, Cuesta MA, Blaisse RJ, Busch OR, ten Kate FJ, Creemers GJ, Punt CJ, Plukker JT, Verheul HM, Spillenaar Bilgen EJ, van Dekken H, van der Sangen MJ, Rozema T, Biermann K, Beukema JC, Piet AH, van Rij CM, Reinders JG, Tilanus HW, van der Gaast A; CROSS Group. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 May 31;366(22):2074-84. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112088. PMID: 22646630. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32557-1/abstract Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, Goetze TO, Meiler J, Kasper S, Kopp HG, Mayer F, Haag GM, Luley K, Lindig U, Schmiegel W, Pohl M, Stoehlmacher J, Folprecht G, Probst S, Prasnikar N, Fischbach W, Mahlberg R, Trojan J, Koenigsmann M, Martens UM, Thuss-Patience P, Egger M, Block A, Heinemann V, Illerhaus G, Moehler M, Schenk M, Kullmann F, Behringer DM, Heike M, Pink D, Teschendorf C, Löhr C, Bernhard H, Schuch G, Rethwisch V, von Weikersthal LF, Hartmann JT, Kneba M, Daum S, Schulmann K, Weniger J, Belle S, Gaiser T, Oduncu FS, Güntner M, Hozaeel W, Reichart A, Jäger E, Kraus T, Mönig S, Bechstein WO, Schuler M, Schmalenberg H, Hofheinz RD; FLOT4-AIO Investigators. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1948-1957. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1. Epub 2019 Apr 11. PMID: 30982686. ***Fellowship Application Link: https://forms.gle/PQgAvGjHrYUqAqTJ9 Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more. If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://app.behindtheknife.org/listen

In 2025, Creating Dementia Solutions is looking deeper into what The Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention and care has indicated are ways people can reduce their risk of dementia.Lancet includes addressing depression as one of those potential factors which could help a person reduce dementia risk. But, is it really depression a person is contending with? Creating Dementia Solutions asked Dr. Sean Field, clinical director at Summit Pointe, for some guidance.Episode ResourcesThe Lancet Commission Risk Factors for DementiaMiles for Memories websiteMiles for Memories technologySherii Sherban talks to Community Matters about MFM technologyMore Creating Dementia Solutions episodes ABOUT MILES FOR MEMORIESMiles For Memories is a Calhoun County, Michigan organization created in 2013 to raise awareness and funds for Alzheimer's Disease. Later in 2014, the vision was expanded to include all types of dementia. MFM raises money each year through sponsorships, community events, and grants to gather funds to create local programming for both the person living with dementia and the caregiver. Along with local efforts, 20% of the funds to prevention-related dementia research. Miles for Memories is a committee of 70-plus volunteers and are always looking for more to get involved.

The episode kicks off with breaking economic news: while Canada's overall inflation slowed to 2.3% in March, food inflation surged to a staggering 3.2%—a monthly jump not seen since 1983. Sylvain attributes the spike to Ottawa's counter-tariffs, rising ingredient costs, and shifting sourcing strategies as Canadian grocers de-Americanize their supply chains. This backdrop leads into a discussion on recent Caddle research indicating that 61% of Canadians are willing to pay more for local products—an unprecedented level of national loyalty that presents both opportunity and urgency for domestic producers.Listeners also get a sneak peek at the upcoming release of the Canadian Food Sentiment Index, sponsored by MNP, which shows growing trust in Canada's food industry. Michael and Sylvain then pivot to the controversial topic of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, raising critical questions about childhood obesity, pharmaceutical influence, and the implications for food industry giants like Nestlé and Mondelez.The second half of the episode features Elysabeth Alfano, CEO of VegTech Invest and host of two sustainability-focused podcasts. Elysabeth unpacks how her ETF invests in publicly traded companies that are accelerating food systems transformation—emphasizing impact, liquidity, and innovation over startup hype. She shares candid takes on the realities of lab-grown meat, the risks of insect protein, and why countries like Singapore and Israel are leading the charge in food security and innovation.Elysabeth also weighs in on the role of policy, pointing to rising geopolitical instability and trade tensions—especially in the U.S.—as a catalyst for investment in food innovation. From precision fermentation to biosecurity risks, she outlines why now is the time for bold moves in food tech and ESG investing.With both news and expert insights, this episode offers a comprehensive look at the forces reshaping what we grow, invest in, and consume.About Elysabeth Elysabeth Alfano is the CEO of  VegTech™ Invest , the Advisor to a publicly traded Food Innovation ETF.  Run by sector experts, VegTech™ Invest drives capital to those companies innovating for a resilient, sustainable and less damaging food supply system through its educational tools and financial product. It, thus, positively impacts Climate Change and biodiversity loss.Elysabeth is an expert in investing in food systems transformation and speaks internationally on the intersection of investing, sustainability, and our global food supply system. She has spoken at the U.N. Global Leaders Compact Summit, the United Nations Climate Change Summit, SXSW, COP27 and COP28, Yale University and Northwestern University, several Bloomberg Intelligence events and has done a myriad of TV interviews including Bloomberg TV and Ameritrade TV. Elysabeth began her career with Kellogg Company working on Special K and Frosted Mini-Wheats before acting as Chief Investment Officer for a small family office. A graduate of Northwestern University and the Thunderbird School of Global Management, Elysabeth consults and advises C-Suite Executives on the sustainable food industry landscape, direction and whitespaces.  Lastly, Elysabeth hosts the  Plantbased Business Hour , a podcast which features the CEOs and business leaders in the industry.  The Plantbased Business Hour is considered “The Gold Standard” for those who want to understand, participate in, and capitalize on the growing Plant-based Innovation sector. She is the voice of sustainability in the invment community hosting the Upside & Impact: Investing for Change on Advisorpedia.Elysabeth contributes to ESG Clarity, WGN Radio, Vegconomist Magazine, CAIA, ETFCentral.com Advisorpedia and FinTechTV on a regular basis. The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

What's described as one of the most comprehensive global studies of the rise in unhealthy weights, published in the journal The Lancet, makes for grim reading. 这项研究被称为针对非健康体重人数上升趋势的最全面的研究之一，这项被发表在《柳叶刀》杂志上的研究读起来令人颇为悲观。 The proportion of people who are overweight or obese has more than doubled in the past 30 years, but it's predicted that by 2050, this will include well over half of all adults and a third of children and adolescents. 超重或肥胖的人口比例在过去的三十年中增加了一倍多，不过预测称到 2050 年，超过一半的成年人和三分之一的儿童和青少年都将步入超重或肥胖的行列。 Obesity rates are surging right now. By the end of the decade, more people are forecast to be classed as obese than overweight. The picture is wildly uneven across the globe, with some of the biggest increases seen in lower- and middle-income countries. 肥胖率正在激增。到 2020 年代末，预计将有更多的人被划分为肥胖而非超重。全球各地的肥胖率变化情况大不相同，最大的肥胖率增幅将出现在低收入和中等收入国家。 But the study doesn't take into account the impact that new weight loss medications might have. And experts say if governments take urgent action now, there's still time to prevent what they describe as "a profound tragedy". 不过，这一研究并未把新减肥药可能产生的影响考虑在内。专家表示，如果各国政府现在采取紧急措施，那么依然来得及防止 “一场重大悲剧” 的发生。

Welcome to the Hot Topics podcast from NB Medical with Dr Neal Tucker. In this episode, we are joined by Dr Stephen Bradley, lead author of a new paper published in the BJGP looking at rates of CXR use in general practice and how this influences lung cancer stage at diagnosis and mortality. He discusses the findings of his research and how this might influence our practice. In other research, we look at a new paper in the BMJ on orthostatic HYPERtension - yes, you read that correctly - does treatment help, and does it really matter in the first place? And from the Lancet, research looking at the role of urodynamic studies in women with refractory overactive bladder - does it improve outcomes, or should it be stopped?ReferencesBMJ Orthostatic hypertension and BP treatmentBMJ OH editorialLancet Refractory overactive bladder & urodynamic studiesBJGP CXR in GP & lung cancer staging and mortalitywww.nbmedical.com/podcast

Gavin, Richard, and Jessamy reunite for another bonus episode, covering the first three months or so of health in the US under Trump. What do the appointments tell us about the administration's agenda? How can institutions stand up to cuts and intimidation? We also look at gender justice in global health as laid out by the excellent new Commission in The Lancet, and highlight that the world's impressive gains on maternal and newborn mortality are slowing - what more needs to be done?You can read "Achieving gender justice for global health equity: the Lancet Commission on gender and global health" here:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00488-X/fulltext?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_lancetgenderhealth25_lancetSend us your feedback!Read all of our content at https://www.thelancet.com/?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_generic_lancetCheck out all the podcasts from The Lancet Group:https://www.thelancet.com/multimedia/podcasts?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_generic_lancetContinue this conversation on social!Follow us today at...https://thelancet.bsky.social/https://instagram.com/thelancetgrouphttps://facebook.com/thelancetmedicaljournalhttps://linkedIn.com/company/the-lancethttps://youtube.com/thelancettv

In this power-packed episode of The Food Professor Podcast, hosts Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois bring listeners up to speed on one of the most complex and fast-moving stories in the global food and agriculture sector: the unfolding international tariff war. Appropriately titled “The Global Tariff War Edition,” this episode features a timely and incisive interview with Mark Warner, Managing Director at MAAW Law and one of North America's leading experts on trade, investment, and competition law.The conversation kicks off with Michael and Sylvain diving into the latest developments in U.S.–China trade tensions, which have seen tariffs skyrocket to 125% on inbound U.S. goods into China. They explore the ripple effects on key commodities like soybeans and canola, discuss the surprising resilience of commodity markets, and examine why Canada isn't positioned to step in as a major alternative supplier.The hosts also explore cultural signals from the food world, including the increasing trend of Americans packing lunches and the declining use of doggy bags in restaurants—signs Sylvain suggests may point to growing economic insecurity and workplace anxiety.In the second half of the show, Michael and Sylvain sit down with Mark Warner, who brings deep legal and historical context to the tariff debate. Warner unpacks how the Trump administration is using the rarely-invoked International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to sidestep traditional trade channels. He outlines the risks and potential rewards for Canadian agri-food exporters navigating this new landscape, and why subtle diplomacy—not headline-grabbing bravado—may serve Canada better in the long run. From trade agreements and geopolitical strategy to supply management and softwood lumber, Warner's nuanced take is essential listening for anyone working in, or watching, the agri-food space.And there's also a moment of celebration: Dr. Sylvain Charlebois shares his recent honour—receiving the prestigious Charles III Coronation Medal from the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. In a heartfelt reflection, he dedicates the medal to his wife, Janelle, recognizing her essential support in his research and public policy work. It's a well-deserved acknowledgment of Sylvain's national impact on food policy and scholarship.With sharp insight, humour, and a dash of royal recognition, this episode offers listeners a blend of timely news and expert analysis that defines The Food Professor Podcast.Tune into Bite Sized!Corus Entertainment is excited to add a brand-new topical program to its Talk Radio lineup on April 12called Bite Sized, which explores the business of food in the country. 640 Toronto Saturdays at 2 p.m. ET980 CFPL Sundays at 9 a.m. ET680 CJOB Sundays at 2 p.m. CST770 QR Calgary Sundays at 3 p.m. MST880 CHED Sundays at 3 p.m. MST730 CKNW Sundays at 1 p.m. PSTAbout MarkMark is an Ontario and New York attorney who has practiced trade, investment and competition law in Toronto, New York, Washington, D.C and Brussels and as counsel to the OECD in Paris.  He advises natural resource clients through Pilot Law LLP and fintech and financial Services clients through Atlantis International. Mark has also recently been appointed as a Fellow of the US Canada Institute in Washington, D.C.Mark is a former Legal Director of the Ontario Ministries of Economic Development & Trade, Research & Innovation and Consumer Services. He led Ontario's legal team for trade negotiations (including the Canada-EU Trade Agreement and the Canada-U.S. Agreement on Government Procurement), trade disputes (including the Green Energy Act and softwood lumber) and various NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-state disputes and for the insolvency / restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler.Mark was also co-author of the Second Edition of a leading Canadian trade law treatise (with the Hon. William C. Graham and Professors Jean-Gabriel Castel and Armand de Mestral). He has been listed in the Euromoney / International Financial Law Review Guide to the World's Leading Competition lawyers and in 2015 was elected a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.Mark earned a BA (Joint Honours) from McGill, an MA in Economics from the University of Toronto, a JD from Osgoode Hall Law School and an LLM from Georgetown University Law Centre. The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

Send us a Text Message (please include your email so we can respond!)Episode 62! We talk briefly about two of the analyses that dropped with the ISICEM conference and then talk in depth about SESAR or "Inhaled Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome" by Jabudon et al in JAMA 2025. Then was answer a question on sleep in the ICU. Eddie did misspeak when he said one of the dexmedetomidine articles was in Lancet Respiratory medicine, rather, it was published in eClinical Medicine part of the Lancet network.SESAR (JAMA): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2831857SESAR (pubmed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40098564/OVISS (pubmed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40098600/Nocturnal dexmedetomidine (pubmed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29498534/Nocturnal dexmedetomidine cardiac surgery (pubmed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36590787/If you enjoy the show be sure to like and subscribe, leave that 5 star review! Be sure to follow us on the social @icucast for the associated figures, comments, and other content not available in the audio format! Email us at icuedandtoddcast@gmail.com with any questions or suggestions! Thank you Mike Gannon for the intro and exit music!

This episode of The Food Professor Podcast brings together global trade drama and local wine opportunity. In the opening news segment, Michael and Sylvain react to the latest trade bombshell from Donald Trump: sweeping new tariffs aimed at dozens of countries, with Canada & Mexico left off—for now. They dig into how this could reshape the Canadian food sector, focusing on dairy and the persistent challenges of supply management. Sylvain calls out the inefficiencies of Canada's quota system and urges a national strategy, comparing our lack of vision to New Zealand's Fonterra success. The conversation also covers the real reasons behind “Buy Canadian” sentiment—whether driven by tariffs or values—and highlights the implications of avian flu outbreaks on Canadian poultry supplies.In the second half, Michael and Sylvain welcome Michelle Wasylyshen, President and CEO of Ontario Craft Wineries. With a public affairs background spanning government, industry, and advocacy, Michelle brings a sharp perspective on the role of VQA (Vintners Quality Alliance) wines in the current climate. She explains how VQA signifies wines that are 100% Ontario-grown, produced, and bottled, and why that matters for consumers and the local economy.Michelle details how the removal of U.S. wines from LCBO shelves has created a rare and significant opening for Ontario wine producers. Early data already shows a 30% jump in VQA sales, with some members seeing growth as high as 70–80%. Her team is capitalizing with cheeky, targeted campaigns like “Screw the Tariffs, Pop the Cork,” and partnering with groups like Restaurants Canada and Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters to amplify the message.She also addresses a long-standing pain point: interprovincial trade. Michelle shares the absurd reality that it's currently easier to sell Ontario wine to Sweden or Denmark than to Quebec. She expresses cautious optimism that the current tariff climate might finally create the political will to tear down these barriers.On the topic of consumption trends, Michelle acknowledges the growing “sober-curious” movement but remains confident that Ontario wines, especially given their quality and local value, remain a compelling choice. She concludes with policy priorities including sustained shelf presence at the LCBO, education on VQA labels, and increasing restaurant availability of local wines.The episode wraps with lighter banter on the possible revival of Hooters and a shoutout to Quebec-based food brand Mid-Day Squares, capping off a wide-ranging conversation rooted in both disruption and opportunity. The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

New research published in the Lancet finds that obesity related deaths are on the rise and the obesity epidemic continues to skyrocket with no end in sight.

Autoimmune conditions are common, and people may be affected by more than one. In this episode of the Clinical Update podcast, the MIMS Learning editors discuss tips on identifying key symptoms and the importance of timely referral.Conditions discussed include type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, coeliac disease and the blistering skin condition bullous pemphigoid. Learn about the ‘4 Ts' that could suggest type 1 diabetes in children, the three 3 key symptoms that should prompt timely referral for suspected rheumatoid arthritis, and possible variations in presentations of psoriasis. Also covered are the non-classical symptoms associated with undiagnosed coeliac disease, and how bullous pemphigoid may present in older peopleYou can access the website version of this podcast on MIMS Learning to make notes for your appraisal. MIMS Learning offers hundreds of hours of CPD for healthcare professionals, along with a handy CPD organiser.Please note: this podcast is presented by medical editors and discusses educational content written or presented by doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals on the MIMS Learning website and at live events.Further learning on MIMS LearningThe presentation and management of type 1 diabetes in young peopleRheumatoid arthritis: clinical reviewPsoriasis in primary care: clinical reviewCoeliac disease: clinical reviewBullous pemphigoid: clinical reviewReferenceConrad N, Misra S, Verbakel J et al. Incidence, prevalence and co-occurrence of autoimmune disorders over time and by age, sex and socioeconomic status: a population-based cohort study of 22 million individuals in the UK. The Lancet 2023; 401: 10391, 1878-1890. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Save 20% on all Nuzest Products WORLDWIDE with the code MIKKIPEDIA at www.nuzest.co.nz, www.nuzest.com.au or www.nuzest.comThis week on the podcast, Mikki speaks to Nina Teicholz, Ph.D.—science journalist, bestselling author of The Big Fat Surprise, and Executive Director of The Nutrition Coalition.In this conversation, Nina sheds light on one of the most under-acknowledged crises in public health: the fragile scientific foundation of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. In essence, nutrition science continues to shape national policy despite being built on weak, inconsistent, and sometimes fundamentally flawed evidence.They discuss a recent paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found the systematic reviews used to support the guidelines to be of “critically low quality”. Nina breaks down why this matters, how key types of research have been excluded, and why the process lacks transparency and rigour. They explore how industry influence, institutional bias, and intellectual legacy all contribute to a status quo that continues to recommend reductions in red meat and saturated fat—despite the absence of robust evidence to support these claims.Nina also explains how these guidelines, which legally shape everything from school lunches to military rations, may be doing more harm than good when it comes to public health—particularly in the face of rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.If you've ever wondered why nutrition policy seems out of sync with both emerging science and common sense—or what it would take to fix it—this is an episode not to miss.Nina Teicholz Ph.D. is a science journalist and author of the New York Times bestseller, The Big Fat Surprise. She's been a pioneer in challenging the conventional wisdom on saturated fats, vegetable (seed) oils, the health halo around the Mediterranean diet, and the reliability of the U.S. national dietary guidelines. Her work has been favorably reviewed by top medical journals, including the Lancet, and her own writing has been published in academic journals such as the BMJ, Nutrients and a journal of the National Academy of Sciences as well as media outlets such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic and Economist. Teicholz has also appeared on most major TV networks and many podcasts, from NPR to Joe Rogan. She is a graduate of Stanford and Oxford Universities, and in 2024, she received a Ph.D. in nutrition focused on evidence-based nutrition policy. For years, she ran a non-profit called the Nutrition Coalition aimed at updating the US dietary guidelines with the current science. Her work can now be found in a column on Substack called “Unsettled Science.”Teicholz has no commercial ties and has never received support from any industry for her work. Curranz Supplement: Use code MIKKIPEDIA to get 20% off your first order - go to www.curranz.co.nz  or www.curranz.co.uk to order yours Contact Mikki:https://mikkiwilliden.com/https://www.facebook.com/mikkiwillidennutritionhttps://www.instagram.com/mikkiwilliden/https://linktr.ee/mikkiwilliden

Medical guidelines on weight may be changing!  That's mostly a good thing but may impact you more than you think. In this episode, I'm reviewing the proposed changes by the Lancet and American organizations that include: it no longer being about just BMI staging and categories for obesity interventions based off staging/categories In my past 6 years as an Obesity Medicine MD, this is the biggest change I've seen coming that could have good implications if it's handled well.  If you are struggling with your weight and aren't sure where to turn, this episode if for you! We will be closing doors for applications for the Healthy Me Reset soon! If you'd like to work with Dr. Emily on your own Healthy Me Reset, head to www.emilyvinzantmd.com to apply TODAY!  

Featuring the latest news on continuing mitigation efforts, global updates and adverse effects reports. Top News, WHO launhes pandemic probe into causes, a new published Lancet article highlights good news about natural immunity, and Pfizer and Moderna expect revies to continue to fall due to lower vaccine demands.

In this episode, Dr. Michele Matarazzo interviews Prof. Tom Foltynie about the recently published phase 3 clinical trial of exenatide as a disease-modifying therapy for Parkinson's disease in The Lancet. While the findings were disappointing, ongoing post-hoc analyses aim to understand the discrepancy with previous phase 2 results and explore how they might shape the future of exenatide and other GLP-1 agonists in neurodegenerative disorders. Read the article.

In this episode of PICU DOC on Call, Dr. Rahul Damania and Dr. Pradip Kamat discuss the resurgence of measles in the United States. They explore the virus's pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnostic methods, treatment options, and complications. They emphasize the critical role of vaccination in preventing measles outbreaks and address the historical context and public health challenges related to vaccine hesitancy. The speakers highlight the severe complications of measles, especially in immunocompromised patients, and advocate for robust vaccination efforts to protect vulnerable populations and prevent the spread of this preventable disease. Tune in to hear more!Show Highlights:Resurgence of measles in the United StatesHistorical context of measles outbreaks and vaccination impactCurrent statistics and recent cases of measlesPathophysiology of the measles virusClinical features and progression of measles infectionDiagnostic approaches for confirming measlesDifferential diagnosis considerations for fever and rashTreatment options and the role of vaccinationComplications associated with measles, including severe outcomesPublic health challenges related to vaccine hesitancy and advocacy for immunizationResources:CDC Measles Info PageWHO Measles Global SurveillanceReferences:Fuhrman & Zimmerman. Textbook of Pediatric Critical Care, Ch. 52Long S et al. Principles and Practice of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Ch. 227Moss WJ. Measles. Lancet. 2017;390(10111):2490-2502Paules CI, Marston HD, Fauci AS. NEJM. 2019;380(23):2185-2187

The Lancet 2002;360:743-751Background: The TACTICS-TIMI 18 trial showed that an early invasive strategy in beneficial in selected patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). These positive findings contrasted the findings from some earlier studies.Cardiology Trial's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomized trial sought to compare invasive vs conservative strategy in patients with unstable angina or NSTEMI, similar to the trial question of TACTICS-TIMI 18.Patients: Eligible patients had suspected cardiac chest pain at rest with at least one of the following: Evidence of ischemia on electrocardiogram (ST depression, transient ST elevation, old left bundle branch block, or T wave inversion), pathologic Q waves suggesting previous myocardial infarction, or documented coronary artery disease on prior coronary angiogram.Patients were excluded if they had evolving myocardial infarction in which reperfusion therapy was indicated. Patients were also excluded if creatine kinase or creatine kinase MB concentrations were twice the upper limit of normal before randomization, if they had myocardial infarction within a month, had percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the previous 12 months, or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at any time.Baseline characteristics: The trial randomized 1,810 patients – 895 randomized to the invasive strategy and 915 randomized to conservative strategy. Patients were recruited from 45 hospitals in England and Scotland.The average age of patients was 63 years and 62% were men. Approximately 35% had hypertension on drugs, 13% had diabetes and 28% had prior myocardial infarction.The majority (92%) of the patients were enrolled because they met the criteria for evidence of ischemia on electrocardiogram.Procedures: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo invasive vs conservative strategy.In the conservative arm, patients received aspirin and enoxaparin 1mg/kg subcutaneously twice a day for 2-8 days. Beta-blockers, other antiplatelets and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors could also be used. Coronary angiography could be performed if patients had anginal symptoms at rest or with minimal exertion despite appropriate therapy or if they had ischemia on stress testing.Patients in the invasive strategy arm received similar medical therapy to the conservative arm. Coronary angiogram was to be performed as soon as possible after randomization and ideally within 72 hours. Revascularization was recommended for lesions of at least 70% stenosis or 50% or more if left main.Endpoints: The trial had two co-primary outcomes. The first was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or refractory angina at 4 months. The second was a composite of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 1 year.Analysis was performed based on the intention-to-treat principle. The estimated sample size to provide 80% power at 5% alpha, was 1,770 patients. This assumed that 12% of the patients in the conservative arm would experience the outcome of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction at 1-year, and that the invasive strategy would result in 33% relative risk reduction in this outcome.Results: In the invasive strategy, 97% of the patients underwent coronary angiogram at a median of 2 days after randomization, and 55.3% underwent PCI or CABG. In the conservative arm, 10.3% had revascularization during the index admission, and 17.3% had revascularization at 1-year. The median follow time was 2 years and 97% of the patients had at least 1-year of follow up.The first primary composite outcome of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or refractory angina at 4 months was lower with the invasive strategy (9.6% vs 14.5%, HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51 – 0.85; p= 0.001). The second primary composite outcome of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 1 year was not significantly different between both groups (7.6% with invasive vs 8.3% with conservative, HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.67 – 1.25; p= 0.58). At 1-year, 4.6% patients died in the invasive arm compared to 3.9% in the conservative arm, and this was not statistically significant. Myocardial infarction at 1-year occurred in 3.8% of the patients in the invasive arm compared to 4.8% in the conservative arm, and this was not statistically significant as well.All bleeding occurred in 8.2% in the invasive arm and 3.5% in the conservative arm.Subgroup analysis showed that men benefited from an invasive strategy while women did not (p for interaction= 0.011). The endpoint of death or myocardial infarction at 1-year, in women, was 5.1% in the conservative arm and 8.6% in the invasive arm, while in men, the incidence of this endpoint was 10.1% in the conservative arm and 7.0% in the invasive arm.Conclusion: In patients with unstable angina or NSTEMI, an invasive strategy compared to conservative strategy, reduced refractory angina but not myocardial infarction or death at 1-year.The reduction in angina is a subjective endpoint, prone to bias and faith healing, as we have previously discussed in other trials of PCI. The reduction in this endpoint alone should not justify widespread adoption of invasive strategy for unstable angina or NSTEMI.A key distinction between this trial and TACTICS-TIMI 18—which demonstrated a reduction in myocardial infarction with an invasive approach—is that this study included patients with smaller myocardial infarctions. Only 41% of participants had ST depression or transient ST elevation, and patients were excluded if creatine kinase or creatine kinase MB levels were more than twice the upper limit of normal before randomization. This highlights the heterogeneity among patients with unstable angina and NSTEMI, where baseline risk and the extent of myocardial necrosis influence treatment effects. We encourage you to read again the subgroup interactions of TACTICS-TIMI 18.Additionally, in the current era, high-sensitivity troponin assays enable the detection of smaller myocardial infarctions, potentially limiting the applicability of older trial results to all present NSTEMI patients.Cardiology Trial's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Cardiology Trial's Substack at cardiologytrials.substack.com/subscribe

In the latest episode of The Food Professor Podcast, we dive into a wide range of topics, from international trade tensions to the evolving role of social media in the culinary world. We kick off the episode with the announcement that Canada will be the country of honour at the SIAL Food Innovation Show, reflecting on the importance of celebrating Canadian food and innovation during shifting global dynamics.We then turn our attention to the pork industry in Canada, discussing recent geopolitical issues that have led to uncertainty, including tensions with China and auto tariffs from the United States. Sylvain shares insights from his recent talk at the Ontario Pork Convention, where industry stakeholders expressed concerns over market volatility and the potential impact of reduced Chinese pork imports. He discusses how pork producers hope to leverage domestic barbecue season to boost sales, given the rising costs of beef and poultry.Michael and Sylvain also reflect on the political landscape in Canada as an election approaches, discussing how the changing dynamics between the Liberals and Conservatives could impact the agriculture and food sectors. They touch on recent poll swings and analyze the political strategies shaping the campaigns, particularly how geopolitical leadership and dealing with major global players like Trump and China have become central issues.The conversation shifts to business strategy as they discuss Unilever's management challenges with the Ben & Jerry brand, examining how corporate culture clashes between activism and profitability affect the company's public image. The hosts debate whether it was ever a good idea for Unilever to acquire such a distinctively activist brand and speculate on how the unfolding lawsuits might play out.We also discuss the Loblaw body cam pilot project, aimed at enhancing security amid rising organized retail crime. Michael explains the strategic reasons behind implementing body cams, emphasizing the dual purpose of evidence collection and deterrence. Sylvain shares his perspective on the ethical considerations and how other retailers might respond if the initiative proves successful.Finally, the episode's highlight features a captivating interview with Chef Tuệ Nguyễn, celebrated chef, cultural storyteller, and viral content creator. Tuệ, the visionary behind ĐiĐi in Los Angeles and the cookbook Ði Ăn, shares her journey from Vietnam to LA, building her culinary brand and amassing over 1.3 million followers. She discusses authenticity and creativity at the heart of her success and how social media has played a crucial role in driving her restaurant's popularity.This episode delivers a balanced blend of current food industry insights, retail crime analysis, and an inspiring chef's story, making it a must-listen for food enthusiasts and industry professionals.RC Showhttps://www.rcshow.com/https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/di-an-the-salty-sour-sweet-and-spicy-flavors-of-vietnamese-cooking-with-twaydabae-a-cookbook/9781668003800.html The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

In this episode, we dive into the early therapies and how our understanding of vascular physiology drastically changed the management of pulmonary hypertension. Intro 0:12 In this episode 0:18 Recap of part 1 & 2 0:31 What part 3 is about 2:31 WHO conference in 1975: Treating pulmonary hypertension 3:48 The Discovery of Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Part 1 5:20 Epoprostenol 6:18 Prostacyclin 10:37 Endothelin antagonists 11:41 Phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors 14:08 Interaction of nerves and blood vessels 15:06 The Soups VS the Sparks 17:36 A dreamed experiment 19:06 Acetylcholine 23:23  Enter “the calabar bean” 24:45 Acetylcholine and vasodilation: 1976 26:01 Rabbit aorta 27:45 Nitric oxide 29:38 Why are we using nitric oxide to treat pulmonary hypertension? 31:31 Tachyphylaxis 33:48 TNT factories 35:09 Nitrous oxide and tachyphylaxis 36:52 Pfizer in the 1980s 38:06 Understanding the trigger of pulmonary hypertension 40:53 PDE5 and nitric oxide and pulmonary hypertension 43:07 The end of the ripping yarns 44:20 Coming up in part 4 46:17 Thanks for listening 47:29 We'd love to hear from you! Send your comments/questions to Dr. Brown at rheuminationspodcast@healio.com. Follow us on Twitter @HRheuminations @AdamJBrownMD @HealioRheum. References: Bernard C. C R Soc Biol. 1851;3:163-164. Furchgott RF, et al. Nature. 1980;doi:10.1038/288373a0. Galiè N, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050010. Ghofrani HA, et al. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;doi:10.1038/nrd2030. Giordano D, et al. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2001;doi:10.1016/s0167-4889(01)00086-6. Guthrie F. Q J Chem Soc. 1859;doi:10.1039/QJ8591100245. Higenbottam T, et al. Lancet. 1984;doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(84)91452-1. Marsh N, et al. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2000;doi:10.1046/j.1440-1681.2000.03240.x. Montastruc JL, et al. Clin Auton Res. 1996;doi:10.1007/BF02281906. Nejad SH, et al. Future Cardiol. 2024;doi:10.1080/14796678.2024.2367390. Tansey EM. C R Biol. 2006;doi:10.10116/j.crvi.2006.03.012. Warren JV. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 1988;99:10-6. Disclosures: Brown reports no relevant financial disclosures.

In this World Shared Practice Forum Podcast, Dr. Graeme MacLaren shares his expert insight on the outcomes of central versus peripheral cannulation techniques for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in pediatric patients with refractory septic shock as published in the February issue of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. The discussion focuses on the implications of ECMO modality choices, the conditions affecting cannulation strategy, and how institutional resources can impact patient outcomes. LEARNING OBJECTIVES - Differentiate between central and peripheral venoarterial ECMO strategies in pediatric septic shock - Analyze key papers in the literature to provide context for decision-making around ECMO deployment in refractory septic shock - Identify factors influencing the success and outcome of ECMO in refractory pediatric septic shock cases - Apply considerations for patient selection and institutional resource availability in ECMO planning AUTHORS Graeme MacLaren, MBBS, MSc, FRACP, FCICM, FCCM, FELSO Director of Cardiothoracic Intensive Care, National University Hospital, Singapore Clinical Director of ECMO, National University Heart Centre, Singapore Adjunct Professor, Department of Surgery, National University of Singapore Past President, Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Jeffery Burns, MD, MPH Emeritus Chief Division of Critical Care Medicine Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Boston Children's Hospital Professor of Anesthesia Harvard Medical School DATE Initial publication date: March 24, 2025. ARTICLES REFERENCED 1) MacLaren, Graeme MBBS, MSc, FELSO, FCCM. Cannulation Strategies for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Children With Refractory Septic Shock. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine ():10.1097/PCC.0000000000003707, February 10, 2025. | DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000003707 2) Totapally A, Stark R, Danko M, et al. Central or Peripheral Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Pediatric Sepsis: Outcomes Comparison in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Dataset, 2000-2021. Pediatr Crit Care Med. Published online January 23, 2025. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000003692 3) Schlapbach LJ, Chiletti R, Straney L, et al. Defining benefit threshold for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in children with sepsis-a binational multicenter cohort study. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):429. Published 2019 Dec 30. doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2685-1 4) Bréchot N, Hajage D, Kimmoun A, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to rescue sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock: a retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study. Lancet. 2020;396(10250):545-552. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30733-9 TRANSCRIPT https://cdn.bfldr.com/D6LGWP8S/at/84gbxthfmhvp7v9fsnjb87mh/0320425_WSP_MacLaren_Transcript.pdf Please visit: http://www.openpediatrics.org OPENPediatrics™ is an interactive digital learning platform for healthcare clinicians sponsored by Boston Children's Hospital and in collaboration with the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. It is designed to promote the exchange of knowledge between healthcare providers around the world caring for critically ill children in all resource settings. The content includes internationally recognized experts teaching the full range of topics on the care of critically ill children. All content is peer-reviewed and open-access thus at no expense to the user. CITATION MacLaren G, Burns JP. Pediatric ECMO Cannulation Strategies in Refractory Septic Shock. 03/2025. OPENPediatrics. https://soundcloud.com/openpediatrics/pediatric-ecmo-cannulation-strategies-in-refractory-septic-shock-by-g-maclaren-openpediatrics.

Rob Mac Sweeney discusses the ACIOS study with Tim Baker, the study lead. ACIOS is a point prevalence study describing the burden of critical illness in Africa. It was published in the Lancet in March, 2025.

In this episode of The Food Professor Podcast, hosts Michael LeBlanc and Sylvain Charlebois take on some of the hottest topics, shaking up the Canadian food industry. There's plenty to discuss, from McDonald's latest attempt to crack the plant-based market with a new veggie burger to the disruptive impact of China's tariffs on Canadian seafood and agricultural products.Kicking off the episode, Michael and Sylvain dissect McDonald's surprising re-entry into the plant-based space after previous failures. They debate whether the new veggie burger will finally resonate with consumers or if it's another attempt destined to fizzle out. As one of Canada's biggest beef buyers, McDonald's faces a delicate balance between satisfying traditional customers and appealing to the growing demand for plant-based alternatives.Next, they turn their attention to China's tariffs on Canadian seafood and other agricultural exports, which pressure producers and create economic uncertainty. The hosts discuss how Canada's food export strategy is being tested and why policymakers seem more focused on protecting the automotive sector than agriculture despite the latter's massive economic footprint.Amid these challenges, the episode spotlights new leadership in agriculture. Canada has a new federal Minister of Agriculture, Kody Blois from Nova Scotia, and Ontario has appointed Trevor Jones as its new Minister of Agriculture. Sylvain shares insights on how Blois's background as chair of the Agriculture Committee could bring a pragmatic approach to the role. At the same time, Jones's rural roots could positively shape Ontario's agricultural landscape. The hosts debate what priorities these ministers should address first, especially given the ongoing trade disputes and the economic pressure on Canadian farmers.In the second half of the episode, the hosts welcome Michel Gagné, CEO of WeCook, to the show. Michel shares his journey from managing primary Cargill and Maple Leaf food operations to leading one of Canada's top fresh meal delivery services. He discusses how WeCook differentiates itself by offering fully prepared, high-quality meals rather than meal kits, making busy weeknight dinners simple and convenient.WeCook's strategy includes local sourcing and a commitment to freshness, with meals made daily and delivered to customers within just a few days. Michel also discusses challenges like price volatility in ingredients—especially chicken—and how the company has become profitable while maintaining its quality standards. He highlights the importance of brand partnerships, like working with chef Gabrielle Drapeau and ambassador P.K. Subban, to build credibility and expand into new markets. The episode concludes with Michael and Sylvain reflecting on how the food industry can innovate in the face of global trade issues, shifting consumer preferences, and evolving political landscapes. Whether you're interested in food policy, fresh meal innovation, or how Canadian companies adapt to the times, this episode delivers fresh insights with every bite.https://www.spraguefoods.com/  The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

First, we talk to The Indian Express' Divya A about  Ranjini Srinivasan, an Indian PhD scholar from Columbia University in the US,  whose F-1 student visa was revoked for allegedly advocating for violence and terrorism and supporting Hamas. Fearing action by the authorities, she chose to self-deport and return home.Next, The Indian Express' Anonna Dutt talks about CAR T- cell therapy or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, which is a novel treatment method for cancer. She shares how the clinical trial results of India's CAR T-cell therapy were published in the Lancet and more. (11:24)Lastly, we speak about Israel's biggest assault on the Gaza Strip since the ceasefire on 19th January. (19:28)Produced and hosted by Niharika Nanda and Shashank BhargavaEdited and mixed by Suresh Pawar

The widespread infection of roughly four million virtual characters all started with a giant snake demon. In 2005, the massively multiplayer online video game World Of Warcraft introduced a special event raid, where groups of players could team up to fight a giant snake demon named Hakkar the Soulflayer. Hakkar would cast a spell called “Corrupted Blood” on players, which would slowly whittle down their health.The effect of the spell was only supposed to last inside the raid arena—when players returned to the main world of the game, the spell would dissipate. But thanks to a software glitch, that wasn't the case if the player had a pet companion. When the pets returned to the main world, they started infecting players and non-playable characters with the Corrupted Blood spell. If the player wasn't powerful enough to heal themselves, they would die and erupt in a fountain of blood before turning into a skeleton.What followed was a virtual pandemic that startlingly resembled today's COVID-19 pandemic, from the spread, human behavior, and cultural response. Blizzard, the developer of the game, wanted players to social distance. Some players listened, but others flouted the rules, traveling freely and spreading the disease with them. Conspiracy theories formed about how the virus was engineered by Blizzard on purpose, and others placed blame on players with pets as the cause of the outbreak, mirroring the racist anti-Asian attacks and rhetoric surrounding COVID-19 today. Coincidentally, two epidemiologists, Nina Fefferman and Eric Lofgren, were there to witness the World Of Warcraft outbreak unfold. They studied and used the incident to model human behavior in response to a pandemic. Their findings were published in The Lancet in 2007. Many of their observations came to pass in 2020 when COVID-19 appeared. Today, we're revisiting a 2021 conversation that SciFri producer Dee Peterschmidt had with Eric Molinsky, host of the podcast Imaginary Worlds, who reported this story for his show. He talks about the epidemiologists who studied the outbreak and how it prepared them for the public responses to COVID-19.Universe of Art is hosted and produced by Dee Peterschmidt, who also wrote the music. Our show art is illustrated by Abelle Hayford. And support for Science Friday's science and arts coverage comes from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.Do you have science-inspired art you'd like to share with us for a future episode? Send us an email or a voice memo touniverse@sciencefriday.com.

Famed virologist Dr. Paul Offit describes his encounters with RFK, Jr., vaccine misinformation, trust in medicine, and what he fears most. REFERENCES: Dr. Paul Offit's Books: Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All The Cutter Incident(about a polio vaccine gone wrong) Historical Vaccine References: The Cutter Incident (1950s polio vaccine failure) The history of polio, iron lungs, and the development of the Salk and Sabin vaccines. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The impact of vaccines on childhood diseases like diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella, and rotavirus. Andrew Wakefield and Vaccine-Autism Misinformation: Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper (later retracted) linking MMR vaccines to autism. The role of The Lancet and editor Richard Horton. The legal and financial conflicts of interest that led to Wakefield's discrediting. Anti-Vaccine Movement History: The Anti-Vaccination League (1800s opposition to smallpox vaccine). NBC's DPT Vaccine Roulette (1980s), which fueled fears about the whooping cough vaccine. RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine activism and misinformation campaigns. The impact of anti-vaccine movements in places like Samoa, leading to deadly measles outbreaks. Current Vaccine Issues and Policy Changes: RFK Jr.'s role in the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and vaccine policy. The cancellation of the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting.

On today's episode we're focusing on hip preservation with Dr. Andrea Spiker. We have some great articles for you that contribute well to our conversation on femoroacetabular impingement or “FAI”, hip dysplasia and the arthroscopic and open surgical treatments for these conditions. As always, links to all of the papers that we discuss on this show can be found on our podcast website – www.thesportsdocspod.comWe'll start off our discussion today with an article from the June 2018 issue of The Lancet titled “Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.” This multicenter RCT included 348 patients across 28 hospitals in the UK and compared conservative treatment with physical therapy to surgical treatment with hip arthroscopy. The authors reported that while both groups improved after treatment, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI demonstrated significantly greater improvement in hip-related quality of life compared to patients who had nonsurgical treatment. Then, from the September issue of AJSM this year, we review an article titled “Progression of Osteoarthritis at Long-term Follow-up in Patients Treated for Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement with Hip Arthroscopy Compared with Nonsurgically Treated Patients.” Aaron Krych and team at the Mayo Clinic reported significantly less progression of arthritic changes in surgical patients compared to non-op. Seven percent of patients in the surgical group ultimately underwent a total hip replacement compared to 12% in the non-op group. Risk factors for failure of non-op treatment included male sex, presence of a CAM morphology, increased age and initial arthritic joint changes at diagnosis.  We are joined today by Dr. Andrea Spiker, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is dual fellowship trained in sports medicine and hip preservation. She is a team physician for UW Badger Athletics and provides head orthopedic coverage for the UW Men's and Women's Basketball teams. She is also the Program Director of the UW Orthopedic Surgery Sports Medicine Fellowship Program. Dr. Spiker is an active member in numerous orthopedic societies including AAOS, AOSSM and AANA, and has published extensively on the topic of hip preservation, so we're very excited to hear all that she has to share on this topic today.

In this episode of The Food Professor podcast, hosts Michael LeBlanc and Sylvain Charlebois tackle pressing issues in Canada's food industry before interviewing Mark Cunningham, President and Chief Operating Officer of Smoke's Poutinerie.The episode begins with the hosts discussing Loblaw's decision to place "T" labels on products affected by tariffs. While Charlebois appreciates the transparency effort, he questions whether the approach is too simplistic, explaining that tariffs impact entire product categories beyond individual items. The hosts explore how Canadian retailers rapidly " de-Americanize" their product offerings in response to US-Canada trade tensions.They examine how companies like Moosehead leverage the political climate for marketing with initiatives like their "Presidential Pack" of 1,461 beers (one for each day left of Trump's presidency) before analyzing China's retaliatory tariffs on Canadian canola and seafood. Charlebois criticizes Canada's geopolitical approach, noting how China strategically targeted farmers rather than the automotive sector following Canada's 100% tariff on Chinese EVs.In the featured interview, Mark Cunningham shares insights about Smokes Poutinerie, the Canadian poutine restaurant franchise with over 100 locations across Canada, including 45+ traditional franchise locations and numerous non-traditional sites in colleges, airports, and arenas. Cunningham discusses how the company honours its late founder, Ryan Smolkin (who maintains the title of "Chief Entertainment Officer"), by staying true to authentic Quebec ingredients while packaging poutine with distinctive Canadian flair through their red and black plaid branding and 80s pop culture references.Cunningham details their business model's evolution, including adapting to a delivery-focused environment (now representing 35% of sales), managing food costs amid inflation, and their creative approach to menu innovation. He explains how they position themselves as "brand disruptors" in the quick-service restaurant space, using provocative marketing campaigns that often playfully target larger competitors. Cunningham also highlights their World Poutine Eating Championship, which has grown to become North America's second-largest eating competition.The hosts reflect on the food industry's resilience five years after COVID, with Charlebois noting how the pandemic forced companies to reconsider supply chain management and communication strategies. Additional topics covered include RFK Jr.'s meeting with food executives about banning artificial dyes, EU retaliatory tariffs against the US, and Charlebois receiving a King Charles Coronation medal honouring his contributions to the food industry in Canada and globally. The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

Ucrania aceptó la propuesta de EE. UU de un alto al fuego de 30 días con Rusia, tras la reunión de ambas delegaciones en Arabia Saudita. A cambio, Washington restableció la ayuda militar a Kiev. Ahora Moscú tiene la pelota de su lado ¿Aceptará el Kremlin un acuerdo?Tras haber sido detenido en Manila, el expresidente de Filipinas, Rodrigo Duterte, fue trasladado a La Haya para enfrentar su juicio por crímenes de lesa humanidad ante la Corte Penal Internacional. Además… El presidente de Estados Unidos dobló la apuesta y le impuso 50% de aranceles al acero y aluminio de Canadá como respuesta a las tarifas que intentó implementar Ontario; para evitar que a México le apliquen la misma que a Canadá, Marcelo Ebrard anda en Washington negociando; La FGR dijo que no es creíble que las autoridades no supieran sobre las fosas en Teuchitlán; El mexicano Iván Espinosa fue anunciado como el próximo CEO global de Nissan; Un grupo de ciberdelincuentes propalestinos se atribuyó el ataque a X de este lunes; Y Inició el juicio contra los doctores de Diego Armando Maradona.Y para #ElVasoMedioLleno…Un estudio publicado en Lancet sugiere que una inyección anual de lenacapavir podría prevenir la infección de VIH.Para enterarte de más noticias como estas, síguenos en redes sociales. Estamos en todas las plataformas como @telokwento. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 00:05:23 - Avec sciences - par : Alexandre Morales - Une nouvelle publication dans The Lancet soutient qu'à travers le monde, l'obésité et le surpoids ont doublé en 30 ans. En 2050, 60 % de la population mondiale devrait être touchée.

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook:https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Kristen Ghodsee is an award-winning author and professor and chair of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. She also serves as a member on the graduate groups of Anthropology and Comparative Literature. Dr. Ghodsee's articles and essays have been translated into over twenty-five languages and have appeared in publications such as Dissent, Foreign Affairs, Jacobin, The Baffler, The New Republic, Quartz, NBC Think, The Lancet, Project Syndicate, Le Monde Diplomatique, Die Tageszeitung, The Washington Post, and the New York Times. She is the author of 12 books, including Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence. In this episode, we focus on Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism. We start by talking about the premise of the book, and discuss what state socialism is. We then talk about the lives of women in socialist countries, how state socialist countries failed women, the transition to capitalism, work and the economic situation of women, motherhood and gender roles, women in leadership positions, and women's sex lives. Dr. Ghodsee responds to some criticisms of her book. Finally, we talk about the current state and future of capitalism.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, STARRY, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, BENJAMIN GELBART, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, AND TED FARRIS!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, NICK GOLDEN,AND CHRISTINE GLASS!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Professor David Taylor is Director of Pharmacy and Pathology at the Maudsley Hospital and Professor of Psychopharmacology at KCL. David is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology. Professor Taylor has been the lead author of the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines since their inception in 1993. David has also authored over 375 clinical papers in journals such as the Lancet, BMJ, JAMA Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry and Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Today we discuss: - What the science says about the effectiveness of anti-depressants.- Evidence based principles for prescribing anti-depressants safely. - Common side effects and withdrawal symptoms. - Do anti-depressants work via so called "emotional numbing" effects?- The use of anti-depressants for other conditions such as OCD and PTSD. - Emerging treatments for depression such as ketamine and psilocybin. - New treatments for psychosis such as KarXT (Cobenfy). Interviewed by Dr. Alex Curmi. Dr. Alex is a consultant psychiatrist and a UKCP registered psychotherapist in-training.If you would like to invite Alex to speak at your organisation please email alexcurmitherapy@gmail.com with "Speaking Enquiry" in the subject line.Alex is not currently taking on new psychotherapy clients, if you are interested in working with Alex for focused behaviour change coaching , you can email - alexcurmitherapy@gmail.com with "Coaching" in the subject line.Give feedback here - thinkingmindpodcast@gmail.com - Follow us here: Twitter @thinkingmindpod Instagram @thinkingmindpodcast Tiktok - @thinking.mind.podcast 

On today's Spotlight, we ask why runners are racing faster than ever? The same could also be said of cyclists, and we use an intriguing article by Amby Burfoot to explore and discuss the possible contributors, ranging from super shoes to the "Bannister effect". It leads us back to ground we've covered before (shoe tech, carbs), some areas we have yet to cover in detail (bicarbonate), and down some dark alleys that may contain the future (and possibly present) of doping methods.We also talk about technology in sport, and about which sports have seen the biggest, fastest leaps as a result of innovation, taking a quick tour of some other devices that have 'recalibrated' sporting performances and human limits.Finally, we discuss some of the science and performances in the Zwift Academy 2025, the latest iteration of a competition to identify and recruit aspirant cyclists into two professional cycling teams. We explore the tests used on the show, their value, and how hugely confounded the talent prediction is, even in a sport as measurable as cycling.Show notesAs mentioned, Discourse is where it all goes down, and here's where you click to become a member for a small monthly donation. Sign up as a Patron, and you'll have access to this community, and all the fascinating insights shared by fellow listenersLinksSean Ingle's article on that four-minute mile projectionAmby Burfoot's intriguing thought experiment canvassing opinion on what is driving faster running performancesThe paper mentioned on the show describing novel drugs to "manage classical heme disorders" - not a huge leap to performance enhancement, but the molecular switch approach to doping may be a concernThe podcast we once did on technology in sport - includes klapskates, swimsuits, and bicyclesThe BBC article on the increasing prevalence of obesity and overweightThe Lancet study described in the BBC articleThe first episode of the 2025 Zwift Academy, the rest can be found on the same channelSome normative power output from elite men, and elite women's cycling. Compare yourself to the pros. I'll put the summary tables up on Discourse for members Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

While it is proven to be lifesaving in carbon monoxide poisoning, is there any evidence that hyperbaric oxygen therapy helps with cerebral palsy, autism, long covid, migraines and many other conditions? Can HBOT be both a valid medical therapy and a pseudoscience? Guest co-host Pedro Mendes joins Dr. Chris Labos to parse out fact from fiction. Bonus points if you know the one condition where hyperbaric oxygen therapy is strictly contra-indicated.   Become a supporter of our show today either on Patreon or through PayPal! Thank you! http://www.patreon.com/thebodyofevidence/ https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=9QZET78JZWCZE   Email us your questions at thebodyofevidence@gmail.com.   Editor:    Robyn Flynn Theme music: “Fall of the Ocean Queen“ by Joseph Hackl Rod of Asclepius designed by Kamil J. Przybos Chris' book, Does Coffee Cause Cancer?: https://ecwpress.com/products/does-coffee-cause-cancer   Obviously, Chris not your doctor (probably). This podcast is not medical advice for you; it is what we call information. References:   Hyperbaric oxygen therapy – Health Canada https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/your-health/medical-information/hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy.html   Chris' article on hyperbaric oxygen therapy: https://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/article560792.html   Recent child's death https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/clinic-death-raises-questions-about-oxygen-therapy-2025a10003wa?ecd=wnl_tp10_daily_250216_MSCPEDIT_etid7230220&uac=207389HY&impID=7230220   Trauma Bouachour G, Cronier P, Gouello JP, Toulemonde JL, Talha A, Alquier P. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the management of crush injuries: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Trauma. 1996 Aug;41(2):333-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199608000-00023. PMID: 8760546.   Burns Brannen AL, Still J, Haynes M, Orlet H, Rosenblum F, Law E, Thompson WO. A randomized prospective trial of hyperbaric oxygen in a referral burn center population. Am Surg. 1997 Mar;63(3):205-8. PMID: 9036884.   Radiation injury Lin ZC, Bennett MH, Hawkins GC, Azzopardi CP, Feldmeier J, Smee R, Milross C. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late radiation tissue injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 15;8(8):CD005005. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005005.pub5. PMID: 37585677; PMCID: PMC10426260.   Chronic wounds: Kranke P, Bennett MH, Martyn-St James M, Schnabel A, Debus SE, Weibel S. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 24;2015(6):CD004123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004123.pub4. PMID: 26106870; PMCID: PMC7055586.   Cerebral palsy Collet JP, Vanasse M, Marois P, Amar M, Goldberg J, Lambert J, Lassonde M, Hardy P, Fortin J, Tremblay SD, Montgomery D, Lacroix J, Robinson A, Majnemer A. Hyperbaric oxygen for children with cerebral palsy: a randomised multicentre trial. HBO-CP Research Group. Lancet. 2001 Feb 24;357(9256):582-6. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04054-x. PMID: 11558483.  

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

In 2021, 180 million Indians were either overweight or obese, second only to China. The report estimates that for India, the figure will rise to 450 million in 2050, marking a rise of 150%.  

En cette journée mondiale de lutte contre l'obésité, une étude alerte sur des perspectives inquiétantes. Publiées dans « The Lancet », ces projections annoncent que d'ici 2050, 60% des adultes et un tiers des enfants seront en situation de surpoids ou d'obésité sur la planète si rien ne change. Comment expliquer ce fléau ? Quelles conséquences ? Pourquoi la question de savoir si l'obésité est une maladie alimente-t-elle le débat ? Quels remèdes ? Pour en débattre :- Anne-Sophie Joly, fondatrice du Collectif National des Associations d'Obèses (CNAO), autrice du livre «Je n'ai pas choisi d'être gros.se», éditions Solar- Jean-François Amadieu, sociologue et professeur à l'Université Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne, président du réseau national pour l'égalité des chances et auteur du livre «La Société du paraître : les beaux, les jeunes et les autres», éditions Odile Jacob- Olivier Ziegler, professeur émérite de nutrition à l'Université de Lorraine, médecin au centre spécialisé de l'obésité de l'Hôpital de Nancy.

durée : 00:33:43 - La Terre au carré - par : Mathieu Vidard - On estime qu'il y a un million de morts par an directement dus à des bactéries résistantes. Selon une étude de "The Lancet", 39 millions de morts d'ici à 2050 seront directement imputables à une bactérie antibiorésistante. Face à ce problème, l'anthropologue Charlotte Brives propose une solution. - invités : Charlotte Brives - Charlotte Brives : Anthropologue des sciences et de la santé, et chargée de recherche CNRS au Centre Emile Durkheim, de l'Université de Bordeaux. - réalisé par : Jérôme BOULET

En cette journée mondiale de lutte contre l'obésité, une étude alerte sur des perspectives inquiétantes. Publiées dans « The Lancet », ces projections annoncent que d'ici 2050, 60% des adultes et un tiers des enfants seront en situation de surpoids ou d'obésité sur la planète si rien ne change. Comment expliquer ce fléau ? Quelles conséquences ? Pourquoi la question de savoir si l'obésité est une maladie alimente-t-elle le débat ? Quels remèdes ? Pour en débattre :- Anne-Sophie Joly, fondatrice du Collectif National des Associations d'Obèses (CNAO), autrice du livre Je n'ai pas choisi d'être gros.se, éditions Solar- Jean-François Amadieu, sociologue et professeur à l'Université Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne, président du réseau national pour l'égalité des chances et auteur du livre La Société du paraître : les beaux, les jeunes et les autres, éditions Odile Jacob- Olivier Ziegler, professeur émérite de nutrition à l'Université de Lorraine, médecin au centre spécialisé de l'obésité de l'Hôpital de Nancy.

Last episode we described the literature showing no survival benefit to patients with the AutoPulse device. Fear not, I wasn't ignoring the LUCAS, I just felt it deserved it's own episode. We'll cover the LINC and PARAMEDIC randomized controlled trials and the secondary analysis of LINC in shockable rhythms. I switched to a new production process using a new mic (Rode NT1) and started using ecamm to record. Yes, I know there is a bit of AV dysynchrony.. I'm working on it. I still have a lot to learn about ecamm but am optimistic about it. Citations on LUCAS device:1. Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, Östlund O, Silfverstolpe J, Lichtveld RA, Boomars R, Ahlstedt B, Skoog G, Kastberg R, et al.: Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultaneous Defibrillation vs Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The LINC Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2014;January 1;311(1):53–61.2. Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, Lamb SE, Slowther A-M, Woollard M, Carson A, et al.: Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2015;385(9972):947–55.3. Hardig BM, Lindgren E, Östlund O, Herlitz J, Karlsten R, Rubertsson S: Outcome among VF/VT patients in the LINC (LUCAS IN cardiac arrest) trial—A randomised, controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2017;June;115:155–62. Citations on Jeff's Tamiflu Rant1. Jefferson T, Jones M, Doshi P, Spencer EA, Onakpoya I, Heneghan CJ: Oseltamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments. BMJ. 2014;348:g2545.2. Jefferson T, Jones MA, Doshi P, Del Mar CB, Hama R, Thompson MJ, Onakpoya I, Heneghan CJ: Risk of bias in industry-funded oseltamivir trials: comparison of core reports versus full clinical study reports. BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e005253.3. Jefferson T: The Tamiflu Story: Why We Need Access To All Data From Clinical Trials. Open Knowledge Foundation Blog. FAST25 | May 19-21, 2025 | Lexington, KY

Send us a textIn this episode of The Incubator's Journal Club, hosts Ben and Daphna open with exciting announcements, including details on the upcoming Delphi Neonatal Innovation Conference and new video content for their “Beyond the Beeps” series on YouTube. They also share updates on the Board Review Podcast, geared toward both board preparation and ongoing learning in neonatology.The team's first paper discussion highlights the ECLA trial from The Lancet, which examines higher versus lower CPAP levels for extubating extremely preterm infants. Ben and Daphna explore how higher CPAP may decrease extubation failure and the implications for clinical practice. Next, they review a large population-based study on intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), underscoring the persistently high rates of IVH in very preterm infants and emphasizing its impact on neurodevelopmental outcomes.They then welcome guest speaker Dr. Tim Barr from the University of Utah, who introduces the concept of end-tidal carbon monoxide monitoring as a noninvasive tool for detecting hemolysis and guiding bilirubin management. Dr. Barr explains how this method may help clinicians identify and treat high-risk neonates earlier. The discussion closes with a look at recent data on early hydrocortisone use in neonatal shock and a paper examining discrepancies between parental and medical classifications of neurodevelopmental impairment. Through in-depth research reviews and expert commentary, this episode showcases The Incubator's commitment to advancing neonatal care. As always, feel free to send us questions, comments, or suggestions to our email: nicupodcast@gmail.com. You can also contact the show through Instagram or Twitter, @nicupodcast. Or contact Ben and Daphna directly via their Twitter profiles: @drnicu and @doctordaphnamd. The papers discussed in today's episode are listed and timestamped on the webpage linked below. Enjoy!

Dr. Vikram Karnik talks with Dr. Lorraine V. Kalia about the potential role of GLP-1 receptor agonists in neurodegenerative diseases, the current state of research, preclinical evidence, and future directions for GLP-1 agonists. Read the related article in The Lancet. Disclosures can be found at Neurology.org.  

Corée du Sud, Italie, Russie, États-Unis... partout autour du globe, la baisse de la natalité inquiète. Selon une étude publiée dans le magazine scientifique The Lancet, le taux de fécondité a été divisé par 2 depuis 1950 passant de 4,8 enfants par femme à 2,2 en 2021. Une chute qui devrait s'accentuer au point d'entraîner une décroissance démographique. En 2100, les chercheurs estiment que sur les 204 pays étudiés, 97% seront en dessous du taux de renouvellement de la population. Seule l'Afrique subsaharienne devrait rester une région dynamique en termes de natalité. Besoins de santé, accessibilité des transports, immigration... le changement démographique déjà amorcé affecte de nombreux domaines. Alors que les pays rivalisent de politiques visant à limiter la baisse des naissances, qu'en est-il de leur efficacité ? Faut-il vraiment s'inquiéter d'un futur sans enfant ou, au contraire, en saisir les opportunités ?  Cette émission est une rediffusion du 14 novembre 2024. Avec• David Duhamel, économiste, enseignant à Sciences Po Paris. Auteur de Un Monde sans enfants - le pire arrive... mais le meilleur peut suivre (Buchet.Chastel, 2024)• Parfait Eloundou-Enyegue, démographe, professeur de Sociologie et de Démographie à l'Université de CORNELL aux États-Unis.  En fin d'émission, la rubrique Mondoblog chez les voisins avec Inès Emprin.  Le blogueur ivoirien, Yves-Landry Kouamé, partage son scepticisme vis-à-vis de la COP29.  Umbo Salama, un blogueur congolais, s'agace des « nionsologues », ces personnes qui se prétendent expertes sur tout sujet.  Programmation musicale :► IFA - Oxlade, Fally Ipupa► Nturimwiza - B-Threy.

There is a significant impact of food on brain health and overall well-being, with great importance placed on nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory foods. Unfortunately, nutrient levels of modern crops are declining, but regenerative agriculture is helping to restore food quality. Specific brain-boosting foods such as leafy greens, small cold-water fish, and polyphenol-rich plants have an ability to reduce neuroinflammation, protect against cognitive decline, and enhance mental clarity. And, ultimately, identifying whole food sources of essential nutrients will support your entire body. In this episode, I discuss, along with Dr. Jeff Bland and Dr. William Li, practical tips on choosing the most nutrient-dense foods and how to harness their benefits for overall health. Dr. Jeff Bland is the founder of Big Bold Health, a company on a mission to transform the way people think about one of nature's greatest innovations—the immune system. Through Big Bold Health, Dr. Bland is advocating for the power of Immuno-Rejuvenation to enhance immunity at a global level, often through the rediscovery of ancient food crops and superfoods. To get there, he is building a network of small farms and suppliers throughout the US that take a clear stance on regenerative agriculture, environmental stewardship, and planetary health. Dr. Bland's career in health spans more than 40 years. A nutritional biochemist by training, he began in academia as a university professor. He then spent three decades in the natural products industry, working alongside other pioneers. A lifelong educator, Dr. Bland has traveled the world many times over in his role as the “father of functional medicine.” In 1991, he and his wife, Susan, founded The Institute for Functional Medicine. In 2012, he founded another educational nonprofit called the Personalized Lifestyle Medicine Institute. Dr. Bland is the author of The Disease Delusion: Conquering the Causes of Chronic Illness for a Healthier, Longer, and Happier Life, as well as countless additional books and research papers. Dr. William Li is a world-renowned physician, scientist, speaker, and author of Eat to Beat Disease: The New Science of How Your Body Can Heal Itself. He is best known for leading the Angiogenesis Foundation. His groundbreaking work has impacted more than 70 diseases including cancer, diabetes, blindness, heart disease, and obesity. His TED Talk, Can We Eat to Starve Cancer? has garnered more than 11 million views, and he has appeared on The Dr. Oz Show, Martha Stewart Live, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Voice of America, and has presented at the Vatican's Unite to Cure conference. An author of over 100 scientific publications in leading journals such as Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and more, Dr. Li has served on the faculties of Harvard, Tufts, and Dartmouth Medical School. Find Dr. Li's Eat To Beat Disease Masterclass at drwilliamli.com/masterclass and get a copy of his book, Eat To Beat Disease at drwilliamli.com/book-li/. Full length episodes can be found here: Nourish Your Brain with These Powerful Superfoods https://drhyman.com/blogs/content/podcast-ep909?_pos=1&_sid=652901034&_ss=r How The Most Important Superfood You've Never Heard About Will Rejuvenate Your Immune System https://drhyman.com/blogs/content/podcast-ep176?_pos=10&_sid=652901034&_ss=r Cancer Can't Stand This Diet: Dr. William Li's Anti-Cancer Nutrition Breakthroughs https://drhyman.com/blogs/content/podcast-ep890?_pos=4&_sid=ec054bdd0&_ss=r This episode is brought to you by BIOptimizers. Head to bioptimizers.com/hyman and use code HYMAN10 to save 10%.

The Lancet this week features a paper calling for a financially sustainable network of influenza labs and experts across Europe. Marion Koopmans was one of the 32 expert signatures, and she describes how Europe needs to learn some lessons from the model developed previously in the US. The ongoing worries around avian H5N1 would be a great example of why funding for that sort of frontline strategic science needs not to be reliant on ad-hoc, potentially political, funding grants.This weekend, a conference is taking place in Asilomar, CA, to mark 50 years since the 1975 conference there at which scientists developed some rules and guidelines around the future practice of genetic science. The historic Asilomar conference is celebrated by many as the moment scientists first demonstrated that they could spot risks, and self-regulate their activities, around novel and disruptive technologies. Author and scientist Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester, and Shobita Parthasarathy of the University of Michigan discuss how perhaps other perspectives on the Asilomar legacy should be considered.Presenter: Roland Pease Producer: Alex Mansfield Production Coordinator: Jana Bennett-Holesworth(Image: Herbert Boyer (UCSF) and Paul Berg (Stanford) at a conference at Asilomar, February 26, 1975. Credit: Peter Breining/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

Worst hit is sub-saharan Africa where nine percent have access to medical oxygen, then comes South Asia where, of 32 million people who annually need oxygen, only 22 percent get it.  

The alleged link between vaccines and autism was first published in 1998, in a since-retracted study in medical journal The Lancet. The claim has been repeatedly disproven: there is no evidence that vaccines and autism are related. But by the mid-2000s, the myth was out there, and its power was growing, fueled by distrust of government, misinformation, and high-profile boosters like Jim Carrey and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In this episode: the roots of the modern anti-vaccine movement, and of the fears that still fuel it – from a botched polio vaccine, to the discredited autism study, to today.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Recent research has sparked a significant conversation about the health implications of alcohol consumption. A comprehensive study featured in The Lancet, one of the world's leading medical journals, has concluded that there is no safe level of alcohol use. This study, which analyzed data from 195 countries, challenges the long-standing belief that moderate alcohol consumption could be beneficial or at least harmless. Instead, it underscores that any amount of alcohol increases the risk of health problems, including a range of diseases from cancer to liver issues. This finding is a wake-up call for anyone who has considered alcohol consumption as part of a healthy lifestyle.Ready to quit drinking? Imagine, no more hangovers! Find out how and get a free copy of my bestselling book:Free quit drinking webinar - https://www.stopdrinkingexpert.com/Not a replacement for professional medical advice.#sober #stopdrinking #soberlife #alcoholfree #quitdrinkingSupport the show

Negotiators have reached a ceasefire deal, with a path to ending Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza. It is set to begin on Jan. 19.The war in Gaza began after Hamas' attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. About 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage. In response, Israel launched a military offensive in Gaza.Gaza's health ministry says more than 46,500 people have been killed during the war. A new, peer-reviewed study in The Lancet suggests that the death toll could be 40 percent higher than that tally. Israel says 94 of the hostages remain in Gaza, of whom 34 are presumed dead. We talk about what this deal means for both sides and for the future of the Middle East.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy