Podcasts about Massachusetts General Hospital

Last time we talked about kidney xenotransplantation, we were joined by Towana Loony and Tim Andrews, who shared their personal experiences with receiving a xenotransplant. Today, two doctors who helped propel xenotransplantation forward, Dr. Vineeta Kumar and Dr. Leonardo Riella, are here to explain the science and what comes next. This episode is supported by eGenesis and United Therapeutics In this episode we heard from:  Vineeta Kumar is the lead nephrologist for UAB's Living Kidney Donor and Incompatible Kidney Transplant programs. She is an expert in kidney transplantation, living kidney donation, incompatible kidney transplant, kidney paired donation and cardiovascular outcomes after kidney transplantation. Kumar also engages in research in the prevention, treatment and prognosis of antibody mediated rejection. She has been named a "Top Doctor" by U.S. News & World Report each year since 2012. She has been lead facilitator of the UAB Schwartz Rounds since 2009, a program that brings together nurses, physicians, social workers, and other providers to discuss delivery of compassionate care. She was awarded the Brewer-Heslin Endowed Award for Professionalism in Medicine for the highly skilled and compassionate medical care she provides to her patients. Kumar was recently named "Best Educator" by the 2018, 2019 and 2020 UAB Medical School classes. She has previously served on the Education Committee for the American Society of Transplantation. Leonardo V. Riella, M.D., Ph.D. is the Harold and Ellen Danser Endowed Chair in Transplant Surgery at Harvard Medical School and the Medical Director of Kidney Transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital. His research focuses on mechanisms of immune regulation and the development of novel therapies to promote transplant tolerance. In addressing kidney disease recurrence post-transplantation, he founded and leads the TANGO Consortium, the largest global effort dedicated to studying glomerular disease recurrence. In March 2024, Dr. Riella led the world's first successful kidney xenotransplant from a gene-edited pig into a living human. He now leads the first FDA-approved pilot study in kidney xenotransplantation and is conducting high-dimensional immune profiling studies to characterize the human xeno-immune response and guide immunosuppressive strategies. Find out more about Dr. Riella's research here.     Additional Resources Xenotransplantation Information   Do you have comments, questions, or suggestions? Email us at NKFpodcast@kidney.org. Also, make sure to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts.

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce and Nicola Lindson discuss emerging evidence in e-cigarette research and interview Jodi Gilman, Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Associate Professor Jamie Hartmann-Boyce and Associate Professor Nicola Lindson discuss the new evidence in e-cigarette research and interview Dr Jodi Gilman, Associate Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. In the February 2026 podcast Jodi Gilman talks about their secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial looking at cannabis use and nicotine vaping cessation outcomes among adolescents and young adults. Participants were 16 to 25 and reported vaping nicotine regularly and did not smoke tobacco. The full study assessed the efficacy of varenicline for nicotine vaping cessation. For more detail on the parent trial listen to the interview with Eden Evins in the April 2025 podcast. Jodi Gilman discusses the finding that, among adolescents and young adults attempting to reduce or stop nicotine vaping, baseline cannabis use was not associated with nicotine vaping abstinence. Varenicline was helpful for nicotine vaping cessation regardless of cannabis use. This finding indicates that co-use of cannabis may not be a barrier to successful nicotine vaping cessation treatment. This podcast is a companion to the electronic cigarettes Cochrane living systematic review and Interventions for quitting vaping review and shares the evidence from the monthly searches. Reference for the paper by Gilman discussed in this podcast, January 2026 search: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.47799. Parent study by Evins: 10.1001/jama.2025.3810. Our searches for the EC for smoking cessation review carried out on 1st February 2026 found: 4 linked reports (10.1016/j.cct.2026.108215; 1; 0.1111/add.70294; 10.1007/s11606-024-08797-5; 10.1016/j.lana.2025.101351) Our search for our interventions for quitting vaping review carried out on 1st February 2026 found: 1 new study (10.1111/jrh.70109) and 2 linked reports (10.1002/adaw.34496; 10.1007/s11606-024-08797-5). For further details see our webpage under 'Monthly search findings': https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/research/electronic-cigarettes-for-smoking-cessation-cochrane-living-systematic-review-1 For more information on the full Cochrane review of E-cigarettes for smoking cessation updated in November 2025 see: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub10/full For more information on the full Cochrane review of Interventions for quitting vaping published in November 2025 see: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD016058.pub3/full This podcast is supported by Cancer Research UK.

Bone loss doesn't start when fractures happen — it begins years earlier. In this episode, we explore how bone aging accelerates during menopause and the emerging role of the gut microbiome as a driver of skeletal decline. Dr. Kara Fitzgerald speaks with research scientists from Sōlaria biō, the company behind Bōndia, about their work studying plant-derived microbes, microbial synergies, and the connections between gut health, inflammation, and bone loss in peri- and postmenopausal women. We also review findings from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial examining a microbiome-based intervention for bone health — and discuss why bone loss may need to be addressed earlier, systemically, and beyond hormones alone. Full show notes + references: https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/fxmed-podcast/ GUEST DETAILS Alicia Ballok, Ph.D. is Director of Discovery at Sōlaria biō, leading research on plant-derived synbiotics for inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases. Trained in Microbiology and Immunology at Dartmouth, with postdoctoral work at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, her work focuses on translating host–microbe science into therapeutic innovation. Mark Charbonneau, Ph.D. is Vice President of R&D at Sōlaria biō. He earned his Ph.D. in Computational and Systems Biology at Washington University in St. Louis, studying infant microbiome development and undernutrition. His work spans microbiome research, bioinformatics, and live biotherapeutic innovation. THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR Sōlaria biō: http://bit.ly/SolariaBio EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR NEW FRONTIERS LISTENERS Looking for a clinically proven way to target bone loss? Bōndia by Sōlaria biō is a groundbreaking blend of plant-derived prebiotics and probiotics shown in a clinical trial to improve bone density outcomes by 85%. Try it for yourself at Sōlaria biō and use code Kara20 for 20% off your order. CONNECT with DrKF Want more? Join our newsletter here: https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/newsletter/ Or take our pop quiz and test your BioAge! https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/bioagequiz YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hjpc8daz Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drkarafitzgerald/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DrKaraFitzgerald/ DrKF Clinic: Patient consults with DrKF physicians including Younger You Concierge: https://tinyurl.com/yx4fjhkb Younger You Practitioner Training Program: www.drkarafitzgerald.com/trainingyyi/ Younger You book: https://tinyurl.com/mr4d9tym Better Broths and Healing Tonics book: https://tinyurl.com/3644mrfw

In episode 68 of Going anti-Viral, Dr Ruanne Barnabas joins host Dr Michael Saag to discuss topic of a symposium session at the upcoming the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) entitled Strategic and Resilient Responses to the Funding Crisis Across Africa. Dr Barnabas is the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital. Her work is focused on identifying effective and scalable HIV, HPV, and infectious diseases treatment and prevention strategies that increase access across diverse communities and promote equity in health. Dr Barnabas discusses the substantial progress made in global health, particularly in HIV treatment and prevention. She also discusses the impact of funding cuts from USAID on health systems and highlights with Dr Saag the importance of the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in delivering effective care. Dr Barnabas outlines the presentations to be given at the upcoming symposium at CROI 2026 addressing the HIV funding crisis, emphasizing community resilience, and the future of health equity.0:00 – Introduction1:29 – Overview of global health funding at the end of 20244:03 – Success of PEPFAR and USAID10:25 – Funding cuts and their consequences12:48 – Overview of the CROI 2026 symposium on the HIV funding crisis in Africa16:28 – Community perspectives and impact of new technologies18:08 – Lessons learned from funding cuts21:13 – Looking ahead: future of HIV and global health programsResources:CROI 2026: https://www.croiconference.org/Going-anti-Viral: Episode 43 - Innovations in HIV Service Delivery: Building a Path Forward with Those Left Behind - Dr Izukanji Sikazwe__________________________________________________Produced by IAS-USA, Going anti–Viral is a podcast for clinicians involved in research and care in HIV, its complications, and other viral infections. This podcast is intended as a technical source of information for specialists in this field, but anyone listening will enjoy learning more about the state of modern medicine around viral infections. Going anti-Viral's host is Dr Michael Saag, a physician, prominent HIV researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and volunteer IAS–USA board member. In most episodes, Dr Saag interviews an expert in infectious diseases or emerging pandemics about their area of specialty and current developments in the field. Other episodes are drawn from the IAS–USA vast catalogue of panel discussions, Dialogues, and other audio from various meetings and conferences. Email podcast@iasusa.org to send feedback, show suggestions, or questions to be answered on a later episode.Follow Going anti-Viral on: Apple Podcasts YouTubeXFacebookInstagram...

Welcome to a brand-new episode of Transmission Interrupted. Today, host Jill Morgan welcomes two seasoned experts, Stefanie Lane and Michael Carr, to dive deep into the critical—and often overlooked—interface between hospitals and EMS teams during the transfer of high-consequence infectious disease patients. Whether it's a suspected case of Ebola, Lassa fever, or MERS, this episode explores the intricate choreography required for safely moving these patients between facilities. Drawing from firsthand experience and lessons learned at institutions like Emory University Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, our guests unpack everything from EMS operational readiness and ambulance preparation to hospital infrastructure planning and waste management. Along the way, they shine a spotlight on the importance of communication, training, and forward-thinking collaboration to keep both providers and patients safe. If you work in healthcare, emergency medicine, or are just curious about what it really takes to transfer a patient with a high-risk pathogen, this episode is packed with practical tips, cautionary tales, and valuable resources. Get ready for an honest, informative look at the pivotal moments when hospital and EMS worlds intersect. Questions or comments for NETEC? Contact us at info@netec.org. Visit Transmission Interrupted on the web at netec.org/podcast. Guests Michael Carr MD, FACEP, FAEMS Emory University School of Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine Prehospital and Disaster Section Stefanie Lane MS, MPH Assistant Director, Biothreats Program Center for Disaster Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital Host Jill Morgan, RN Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, GA Jill Morgan is a registered nurse and a subject matter expert in personal protective equipment (PPE) for NETEC. For 35 years, Jill has been an emergency department and critical care nurse, and now splits her time between education for NETEC and clinical research, most of it centering around infection prevention and personal protective equipment. She is a member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), ASTM International, and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Resources NETEC EMS Biosafety Transport for Operators course EMS Infectious Disease Playbook NETEC Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Featured Resources NETEC Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Readiness Assessment Transmission Interrupted Podcast NETEC Resource Library About NETEC A Partnership for Preparedness The National Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center's mission is to set the gold standard for special pathogen preparedness and response across health systems in the U.S. with the goals of driving best practices, closing knowledge gaps, and developing innovative resources. Our vision is a sustainable infrastructure and culture of readiness for managing suspected and confirmed special

Resources for the Community:___________________________________________________________________https://linktr.ee/theplussidezFind Your US Representatives https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials ______________________________________________________________________This isn't medical advice — always talk to your doctor before making any health decisions.We sit down with Michael Donnelly-Boylen, a leading advocate in the GLP-1 community known as Mike on a Mission, and his husband, a psychiatrist who became certified in obesity medicine. We explore how GLP-1 treatment influenced their relationship, how they grew together, and how advocacy shaped their shared journey, highlighting the ripple effect of health, understanding, and purpose.Community Guest Mike Instgram: mike.on.a.mission2TikTok:  mike.onamission2SubStack: https://mikeonamission2.substack.com/Professional Guest Kevin Donnelly-Boylen, MD is a board-certified psychiatrist and obesity medicine physician who combines clinical expertise with lived experience as a patient living with obesity. He is married to Mike Donnelly-Boylen, an obesity care advocate, known on TikTok as Mike on a Mission.Dr. Donnelly-Boylen earned his medical degree from Georgetown University School of Medicine in 2012. He completed his psychiatry residency at the Massachusetts General Hospital and McLean Hospital program in 2016, followed by a fellowship in Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry at Brigham and Women's Hospital in 2017.He has worked in emergency psychiatry and consultation-liaison psychiatry at a safety-net city hospital and currently practices public psychiatry at a state hospital. After witnessing the high rates of co-occurring psychiatric and metabolic illness among his patients, he pursued additional training in obesity medicine and became board-certified in 2025. He now integrates psychiatry and obesity medicine to improve quality of life and long-term health for patients with serious mental illness.______________________________________________________________________Join this channel to get access to perks:   / @theplussidez______________________________________________________________________#Mounjaro #MounjaroJourney #Ozempic #Semaglutide #tirzepatide  #GLP1 #Obesity #zepbound #wegovy #ObesityCare #PatientAdvocate #GLP1Community #RealGLP1StoriesSend us Fan Mail! Support the showKim Carlos, Executive Producer TikTok Instagram Kat Carter, Producer TikTok Instagram

I want to start off by asking a question I continually interest myself with. Do we really want to be happy? If I survey the culture, it looks like we very much want happy moments. The little jolts of dopamine from entertainment, food, drugs and such. But do we really want deep and abiding happiness in our souls? Because if we do, then our primary interest would be in relationships. But not just any relationships. I'm revisiting a conversation I had with Robert Waldinger. Robert is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development at Massachusetts General Hospital which has been going on for 87 years. His devotion is on what most equates to human happiness, and the answer is, relationships. But let me point out that Robert himself is a Zen master and teaches meditation around the world. Which is a focus on what I feel is our first and most important relationship. The relationship with ourselves. I have continued to grow in appreciation, not just for the message, but for Robert himself. If you have my book, What Drives You, you'll see his endorsement. Roberts book, which is how I came to know of him, is, The Good Life: Lessons From the World's Longest Scientific Study on Happiness. And you type in, “Robert Waldinger TED” you will find his TED talk, titled, What Makes A Good Life, that between postings on both YouTube and TED has over 80 million views. Sign up for your $1/month trial period at shopify.com/kevin Go to shipstation.com and use code KEVIN to start your free trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Dr. Andy Cutler talks with Dr. Tim Wilens about enduring myths surrounding ADHD diagnosis and treatment, beginning with why misconceptions about overdiagnosis and misuse continue to shape clinical hesitation. They explore common misunderstandings about ADHD medications—including stimulants versus non-stimulants, concerns about diversion, personality changes, and long-term safety—and contrast stigma-driven narratives with the clinical evidence. The conversation equips clinicians with practical, evidence-based strategies to address patient fears, counter misinformation, and make thoughtful, individualized treatment decisions.  Timothy Wilens, MD, is chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and is co-director of the Center for Addiction Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. He is the MGH Trustees Chair in Addiction Medicine and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Wilens' research interests include the relationship among attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, and substance use disorders, embedded health care models, and the pharmacotherapy of ADHD across the lifespan.   Andrew J. Cutler, MD, is a distinguished psychiatrist and researcher with extensive experience in clinical trials and psychopharmacology. He currently serves as the Chief Medical Officer of Neuroscience Education Institute and EMA Wellness. He is a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York.  Save $100 on registration for 2026 NEI Spring Congress with code NEIPOD26  Register today at nei.global/spring  Never miss an episode!

Send us a textNavigating Childhood Tics and Tourette Syndrome: Expert Insights with Dr. GreenbergIn this  episode, we sit down with Dr. Greenberg, director of the pediatric psychiatry OCD and Tic disorders program in Boston, to discuss the complexities of childhood tics and Tourette Syndrome. Dr. Greenberg shares his extensive expertise and personal experiences to help parents understand what tics are, how they manifest, and their natural progression. He provides insights on effective treatments such as CBIT therapy and when medication might be necessary. Additionally, Dr. Greenberg emphasizes the importance of differentiating between normal tics and those that may indicate other co-occurring conditions like ADHD and OCD. This episode is a must-watch for parents seeking reassurance and practical advice on managing their child's tics.Erica Greenberg, M.D. is an assistant Professor in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a child/adolescent psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) where she is the Director of the Pediatric Psychiatry OCD and Tic Disorders Program. Dr. Greenberg is also a co-Director of the MGH Tourette Association of America (TAA) Center of Excellence and the co-president of the Medical Advisory Board of the TAA. Her interests include Tourette syndrome (TS), OCD, “Tourettic OCD,” ADHD, body-focused repetitive behavior disorders, and other Tourette syndrome spectrum conditions. She has authored several peer-reviewed manuscripts on TS, OCD, and related disorders, and has presented on these conditions nationally and internationally. Dr. Greenberg graduated from Weill Cornell Medical College with Alpha Omega Alpha honors, and completed her general psychiatry residency at Harvard Longwood and her child/adolescent fellowship training at MGH.Contact Dr Greenberg: MassGeneral Brigham; Massachusetts General Hospital for ChildrenPediatric Psychiatry OCD and Tic Disorders ProgramEmail: MGHPediOCDTics@partners.org617-643-2780Your Child is Normal is the trusted podcast for parents, pediatricians, and child health experts who want smart, nuanced conversations about raising healthy, resilient kids. Hosted by Dr. Jessica Hochman — a board-certified practicing pediatrician — the show combines evidence-based medicine, expert interviews, and real-world parenting advice to help listeners navigate everything from sleep struggles to mental health, nutrition, screen time, and more. Follow Dr Jessica Hochman:Instagram: @AskDrJessica and Tiktok @askdrjessicaYouTube channel: Ask Dr Jessica If you are interested in placing an ad on Your Child Is Normal click here or fill out our interest form.-For a plant-based, USDA Organic certified vitamin supplement, check out : Llama Naturals Vitamin and use discount code: DRJESSICA20-To test your child's microbiome and get recommendations, check out: Tiny Health using code: DRJESSICA The information presented in Ask Dr Jessica is for general educational purposes only. She does not diagnose medical conditi...

Have you ever wondered what it was like to be in the room when the first pelvic embolization was performed or how the TIPS procedure was pioneered? Dr. Ernie Ring, a legendary figure from UCSF and a true forefather of Interventional Radiology, joins host Dr. Peder Horner to recount the early days of the specialty. Dr. Ring shares fascinating stories from his training at Massachusetts General Hospital under Dr. Stanley Baum, where he witnessed the birth of transformative techniques using angiographic catheters to treat life-threatening bleeding. --- SYNPOSIS From improvising the use of autologous blood clot and thrombin to stop massive hemorrhages to his pivotal role in developing the TIPS procedure and specialized biliary catheters, Dr. Ring's career is loaded with innovation. The conversation explores the "cowboy" era of IR, the evolution of essential tools like the glide wire, and the critical importance of maintaining a "high-touch" clinical practice in the face of emerging technologies like AI. Dr. Ring also reflects on his later transition into hospital leadership as Chief Medical Officer, where he applied his problem-solving mindset to institutional quality and safety. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction01:58 - Upbringing from Detroit to Mass Gen 06:55 - Early IR with an Embo Case13:50 - Trailblazing Cases in IR16:17 - Penn and Innovation20:00 - Polarizing Procedures24:13 - IR Device Innovation33:00 - Dotter's Separation from Diagnostics37:30 - Fear Finds Cowboys39:08 - AI and Robotics40:08 - Fun Hobbies

Imagine being afraid of a pickle. Or a banana. Or a nub of bread. That’s daily life for people with ARFID (Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder). It's an eating disorder not driven by weight or body image, but by fear, sensory overwhelm, or low appetite. People with this condition experience real terror and powerful aversions to certain foods - far beyond picky eating. Clinical psychologist Dr. Evelyna Kambanis explains ARFID, who it affects, and how treatment helps people reclaim their lives. Andrew Luber (aka “ARFID Andrew”) shares his funny, blunt, and vulnerable attempts at food exposures online. And Danielle Meinert tells the story of carrying ARFID since toddlerhood, and the startling change she says came after a high-dose psilocybin experience. Resources: National Eating Disorders Association - ARFIDAssociation of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated DisordersFamilies Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Eating Disorders Suggested episodes: The hidden hunger of Pica: Stories from people who eat objects Anorexia is complex. Two people talk frankly about their decades-long journeys GUESTS: Dr. Evelyna Kambanis: Licensed clinical psychologist in the Eating Disorders Clinical & Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School. She is involved in clinical care and research on ARFID Andrew Luber, aka ARFID Andrew: Los Angeles filmmaker and social media creator who documents food exposures with humor under the tagline, “Conquering my fear of food one laugh at a time” Danielle Meinert: Lived with ARFID for 27 years after a major shift in her relationship with food following ear surgery as a toddler. After years of trying traditional approaches, she described experiencing a dramatic change after a session using psilocybin Support the show: https://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Hanny Al-Samkari from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Cindy Neunert from Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York and Prof Francesco Zaja from ASUGI in Trieste, Italy discuss cases of immune thrombocytopenia and recent findings from the 2025 ASH Annual Meeting.CME information and select publications here.

In this episode, Dr Zoe Swithenbank speaks to Dr Olufemi Erinoso, a postdoctoral fellow at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Dr Jennifer Pearson, an Associate Professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Nevada, Reno. The interview covers Olufemi and Jennifer's research article covering the use of cessation products, e-cigarettes, and cigarette cessation outcomes among adults with substance use problems, using the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study from 2013-2021.An overview of the study [01:35]The key findings of the study [02:44]The unexpected findings [05:57]Considerations of the tobacco and e-cigarette policy context throughout the study period [08:02]Variations in findings across race/ethnicity [11:10]Policy recommendations for what works with regards to smoking cessation [13:38]The big take away from the study [15:30]About Zoe Swithenbank: Zoe is a senior research associate at Lancaster University, currently working on a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) funded research project exploring treatment pathways for co-occurring alcohol and mental health problems. She recently completed her PhD at Liverpool John Moores University on behavioural interventions for smoking cessation in substance use treatment services. Prior to starting her academic career, Zoe worked in health services including substance use, mental health, and homeless services, and these experiences shaped her research interests, as well as her commitment to the inclusion of people with lived experience in research.About Olufemi Erinoso: Olufemi, PhD, MPH, BDS, is a public health researcher and clinician-scientist specializing in tobacco control, harm reduction, and health systems research. He earned his MPH from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and PhD in Public Health (Social and Behavioral Health) from the University of Nevada, Reno, followed by postdoctoral training at Massachusetts General Hospital. His research addresses electronic nicotine delivery systems, substance use, and implementation science, with extensive experience analyzing large population-based datasets. Olufemi has authored over 50 peer-reviewed publications in leading journals and advances national and global tobacco regulatory science.About Jennifer Pearson: Jennifer is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Behavior, Policy, and Administration Sciences in the School of Public Health at the University of Nevada, Reno. Broadly, her research focuses on how regulation of tobacco and cannabis product characteristics, packaging, and advertising affects consumer behavior and public health outcomes. Jennifer has authored over 140 scientific peer-reviewed scientific articles on tobacco and cannabis policy and published in high-impact journals such as the Addiction, the American Journal of Public Health, and Tobacco Control. Dr. Pearson earned her doctorate in Social and Behavioral Health from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in 2011, and her Master of Public Health degree from George Washington University in 2007. Jennifer started her career in public health as a Tobacco Education Coordinator for the American Lung Association of Nevada and served as a US Peace Corps volunteer in Guinea from 2002-2004. Original article: Use of cessation products, e-cigarettes and cigarette cessation outcomes among adults with substance use problems: Results from 2013–2021 (Waves 1–6) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70098The opinions expressed in this podcast reflect the views of the host and interviewees and do not necessarily represent the opinions or official positions of the SSA or Addiction journal.The SSA does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information in external sources or links and accepts no responsibility or liability for any consequences arising from the use of such information. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, I'm joined by Dr Amy Comander, an expert I've been wanting to bring onto the podcast for a long time.Amy is a breast oncologist, lifestyle medicine physician, and Menopause Society Certified Practitioner based at Massachusetts General Hospital. She is, quite honestly, many people's dream oncologist — someone who truly understands that surviving cancer is about far more than getting through treatment.In this conversation, we start with menopause and ask an important question: what drove a breast oncologist to skill up so deeply in menopause and lifestyle medicine?We explore lifestyle medicine through a menopause-after-cancer lens, discussing what is genuinely supportive, what needs to be personalised, and how to talk about health without placing unrealistic pressure back onto patients.Amy also shares more about the PAVING the Path to Wellness for breast cancer survivors. This program is designed to support breast cancer survivors and those navigating menopause with practical, evidence-based tools.I promise you will walk away loving Amy just as much as I do! Listen and be inspired!Resources & links mentioned in this episode:PAVING a Woman's Path Through Menopause and Beyond

I am so happy to welcome Dr. Ellen Braaten back for her third time on the show! In case you missed those episodes and/or need a refresher, Dr. Ellen Braaten is the founding director of the Learning and Emotional Assessment Program at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. She is a prolific researcher and author whose work focuses on ADHD, learning disorders, child psychopathology, processing speed, intelligence, and children's motivation, including bestselling books for parents and professionals. Deeply committed to public education, she frequently speaks on child mental health topics and contributes to both local and national media. In our conversation, we talk about why unmotivated kids rarely fit neatly into a single category, with Dr. Braaten explaining that children may struggle with motivation for a variety of reasons, such as cognitive overload, emotional fatigue, repeated failure, or even a lack of clear identity. She also explains why framing these challenges as brain-based skills, rather than personal failings, can help change the way parents and clinicians respond. We also discuss the narrowing of opportunities in schools today, why kids need space to discover their own strengths beyond academics and athletics, and how uncomfortable emotions such as shame, anxiety, or regret can silently block motivation. Dr. Braaten's workbook is designed not just for children but for the adults supporting them, and she shares how parents, teachers, and therapists can use its activities to spark meaningful conversations, assess where a child gets stuck, and offer guidance without shame. It's about collaboration, not enforcement, and about helping kids take ownership of their growth while navigating setbacks safely. This episode of the show will surely resonate with anyone supporting tweens and teens, whether you're a parent, educator, or clinician, and offers strategies to help young people (and even adults) rediscover what matters to them, reclaim their motivation, and move forward with confidence! Show Notes: [2:09] - Hear how Dr. Ellen Braaten realized poor motivation affects everyone, especially during stressful, sleep-deprived times. [5:40] - Motivation consists of initiation, persistence, and desire, and can be treated as a learnable skill. [7:56] - Dr. Braaten discusses how kids today struggle to find identity due to overwhelming choices and early specialization pressures. [9:52] - Dr. Braaten argues that strengths extend beyond academics and sports, yet schools rarely provide opportunities to explore diverse talents. [11:51] - Hear how setbacks, injuries, or missed guidance can lead to regret. [13:44] - Breaking motivation into initiation, intensity, and persistence can help kids, parents, and clinicians clarify obstacles. [16:28] - Dr. Braaten points out how even small changes, like better sleep, improve motivation. [18:04] - Parents should balance support and independence, empowering children while preventing guilt or overwhelming hovering. [21:18] - Anxiety and post-pandemic habits have reduced face-to-face engagement, creating cycles that undermine motivation. [23:04] - Dr. Braaten's workbook is best used with adults as guides, sparking conversations about identity and priorities. [26:05] - Hear how to contact Dr. Braaten. Links and Related Resources: Episode 61: Slow Processing Speed with Dr. Ellen Braaten Episode 107: How to Motivate Kids Who Couldn't Care Less with Dr. Ellen Braaten Dr. Ellen Braaten & Hillary Bush - The Motivation Mindset Workbook: Helping Teens and Tweens Discover What They Love to Do   Connect with Dr. Ellen Braaten: Dr. Ellen Braaten's Website  

Some of the biggest advances in women's health start with a simple question: why hasn't this been fixed yet? In this episode of BackTable OBGYN, Dr. Tess Kim, a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and the founder of Fruits of Labor, a women's health medical device innovation company, joins host Dr. Amy Park. --- SYNPOSIS Dr. Kim's educational journey began with medical school at Emory, followed by residency at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, and fellowship training at MGH. She discusses the founding of Fruits of Labor, which began with the Perry Peach—a warm compress device designed to reduce severe perineal tearing during childbirth and now acquired by Medicines360. Dr. Kim also talks about her creative process, the importance of addressing historically neglected areas in women's health, and the potential impact of her new project, Mellomallows, which aims to reduce discomfort during gynecological procedures such as IUD placement. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities in women's health innovation, the significance of supportive networks, and the role of passion and commitment in driving meaningful change. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction02:03 - The Birth of PeriPeach: Addressing Severe Tearing06:51 - New Medical Devices: Mellomallows08:41 - The Creation and Mechanism of PeriPeach 11:11 - Company Development: Mentorship and Resources17:37 - Pitching Practice and Experience 19:26 - Project Funding and Working with Medicines36021:51 - Advice for Aspiring Innovators23:52 - Concerns About AI in Healthcare26:48 - Innovations in Women's Health29:06 - Challenges in Academic Medicine32:01 - The Importance of Female Innovators34:00 - Forming a Startup in Women's Health36:10 - Parting Advice for Future Innovators37:37 - The Future of Women's Health Innovations40:10 - Conclusion --- RESOURCES Fruits of Labor website:https://www.fruitsoflabormed.com/home PeriPeach website:https://www.peripeach.com/

Dr Jaffer Ajani from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Rutika Mehta from Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York, Dr John Strickler from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Dr Samuel Klempner from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston review relevant data supporting immunotherapy for patients with gastroesophageal cancers and review recently presented clinical findings from the 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.CME information and select publications here.

Dr Jaffer Ajani from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Rutika Mehta from Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York, Dr John Strickler from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Dr Samuel Klempner from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston review relevant data supporting immunotherapy for patients with gastroesophageal cancers and review recently presented clinical findings from the 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.CME information and select publications here.

Dr Jaffer Ajani from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Rutika Mehta from Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York, Dr John Strickler from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Dr Samuel Klempner from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston review relevant data supporting immunotherapy for patients with gastroesophageal cancers and review recently presented clinical findings from the 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.CME information and select publications here.

On this week’s episode, we’re continuing our Guidelines Series exploring the 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension. If you missed our first episode in the series, give it a listen to hear about the most recent recommendations regarding Pulmonary Hypertension definitions, screening, and diagnostics. Today, we’re talking about the next steps after diagnosis. Specifically, we’ll be discussing risk stratification, establishing treatment goals, and metrics for re-evaluation. We’ll additionally introduce the mainstays of pharmacologic therapy for Pulmonary Hypertension. Meet Our Co-Hosts Rupali Sood  grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada and made her way over to Baltimore for medical school at Johns Hopkins. She then completed her internal medicine residency training at Massachusetts General Hospital before returning back to Johns Hopkins, where she is currently a pulmonary and critical care medicine fellow. Rupali’s interests include interstitial lung disease, particularly as related to oncologic drugs, and bedside medical education. Tom Di Vitantonio  is originally from New Jersey and attended medical school at Rutgers, New Jersey Medical School in Newark. He then completed his internal medicine residency at Weill Cornell, where he also served as a chief resident. He currently is a pulmonary and critical care medicine fellow at Johns Hopkins, and he’s passionate about caring for critically ill patients, how we approach the management of pulmonary embolism, and also about medical education of trainees to help them be more confident and patient centered. Key Learning Points 1) Episode Roadmap How to set treatment goals, assess symptom burden, and risk-stratify patients with suspected/confirmed pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). What tools to use to re-evaluate patients on treatment Intro to major PAH medication classes and how they map to pathways. 2) Case-based diagnostic reasoning Patient: 37-year-old woman with exertional dyspnea, mild edema, abnormal echo, telangiectasias + epistaxis → raises suspicion for HHT (hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia) and/or early connective tissue disease. Key reasoning move: start broad (Groups 2–5) and narrow using history/exam/testing. In a young patient without obvious left heart or lung disease, think more about Group 1 PAH (idiopathic/heritable/associated). HHT teaching point: HHT can cause PH in more than one way: More common: high-output PH from AVMs (often hepatic/pulmonary) Rare (1–2% mentioned): true PAH phenotype (vascular remodeling; associated with ALK1 in some patients), behaving like Group 1 PAH. 3) Functional class assessment WHO Functional Class: Class I: no symptoms with ordinary activity, only with exertion Class II: symptoms with ordinary activity Class III: symptoms with less-than-ordinary activity (can't do usual chores/shopping without dyspnea) Class IV: symptoms at rest Practical bedside tip they give: Ask if the patient can walk at their own pace or keep up with a similar-age peer/partner. If not, think Class II (or worse). 4) Risk stratification at diagnosis: why, how, and which tools Big principle: treatment choices are driven by risk, and the goal is to move patients to low-risk quickly. ESC/ERS approach at diagnosis (as described): Use a 3-strata model predicting 1-year mortality: Low: 20% ESC/ERS risk assessment variables (10 domains discussed): Clinical progression, signs of right heart failure, syncope WHO FC Biomarkers (NT-proBNP) Exercise capacity (6MWD) Hemodynamics Imaging (echo; sometimes cardiac MRI) CPET (peak VO₂; VE/VCO₂ slope) They note: even if you don't have everything, the calculator can still be useful with ≥3 variables. REVEAL 2.0: Builds on similar core variables but adds further patient context (demographics, renal function, BP, DLCO, etc.) Case result: both tools put her in intermediate risk (ESC/ERS ~1.6; REVEAL 2.0 score 8), underscoring that mild symptoms can still equal meaningful mortality risk. 5) Treatment goals and follow-up philosophy What they explicitly prioritize: Help patients feel better, live longer, and stay out of the hospital Use risk tools to communicate prognosis and to track improvement Reassess frequently (they mention ~every 3 months early on) until low risk is achieved “Time-to-low-risk” is an important treatment goal Also emphasized: The diagnosis is psychologically heavy; patients need clear counseling, reassurance about the plan, and connection to support groups. 6) Medication classes for the treatment of PAH Nitric oxide–cGMP pathway PDE5 inhibitors: sildenafil, tadalafil Soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator: riociguat Important safety point: don't combine PDE5 inhibitors with riociguat (risk of significant hypotension/hemodynamic effects) Endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) “-sentan” drugs: bosentan (less used due to side effects/interactions), ambrisentan, macitentan Teratogenicity emphasized Hepatotoxicity that requires LFT monitoring Can cause fluid retention and peripheral edema Prostacyclin pathway Prostacyclin analogs/agonists: Epoprostenol (potent; short half-life; IV administration) Treprostinil (IV/SubQ/oral/inhaled options) Selexipag (oral prostacyclin receptor agonist) 7) Sotatercept (post-guidelines) They note sotatercept wasn't in 2022 ESC/ERS but is now “a game changer” in practice: Mechanism: ligand trap affecting TGF-β signaling / remodeling biology Positioned as potentially more disease-modifying than pure vasodilators Still evolving: where to place it earlier vs later in regimens is an active question in the field 8) How risk category maps to initial treatment intensity General approach they outline: High risk at diagnosis: parenteral prostacyclin (IV/SubQ) strongly favored, often aggressive early Intermediate risk: at least dual oral therapy (typically PDE5i + ERA); escalate if not achieving low risk Low risk: at least one oral agent; many still use dual oral depending on etiology/trajectory For the case: intermediate-risk → start dual oral therapy (they mention tadalafil + ambrisentan as a typical choice), reassess in ~3 months; add a third agent (e.g., selexipag/prostacyclin pathway) if not low risk.  References and Further Reading Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, Badagliacca R, Berger RMF, Brida M, Carlsen J, Coats AJS, Escribano-Subias P, Ferrari P, Ferreira DS, Ghofrani HA, Giannakoulas G, Kiely DG, Mayer E, Meszaros G, Nagavci B, Olsson KM, Pepke-Zaba J, Quint JK, Rådegran G, Simonneau G, Sitbon O, Tonia T, Toshner M, Vachiery JL, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Delcroix M, Rosenkranz S; ESC/ERS Scientific Document Group. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022 Oct 11;43(38):3618-3731. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac237. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2023 Apr 17;44(15):1312. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad005. PMID: 36017548. Condon DF, Nickel NP, Anderson R, Mirza S, de Jesus Perez VA. The 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension: what’s old is new. F1000Res. 2019 Jun 19;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-888. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.18811.1. PMID: 31249672; PMCID: PMC6584967. Maron BA. Revised Definition of Pulmonary Hypertension and Approach to Management: A Clinical Primer. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Apr 18;12(8):e029024. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.029024. Epub 2023 Apr 7. PMID: 37026538; PMCID: PMC10227272. Hoeper MM, Badesch DB, Ghofrani HA, Gibbs JSR, Gomberg-Maitland M, McLaughlin VV, Preston IR, Souza R, Waxman AB, Grünig E, Kopeć G, Meyer G, Olsson KM, Rosenkranz S, Xu Y, Miller B, Fowler M, Butler J, Koglin J, de Oliveira Pena J, Humbert M; STELLAR Trial Investigators. Phase 3 Trial of Sotatercept for Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2023 Apr 20;388(16):1478-1490. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2213558. Epub 2023 Mar 6. PMID: 36877098. Ruopp NF, Cockrill BA. Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Review. JAMA. 2022 Apr 12;327(14):1379-1391. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4402. Erratum in: JAMA. 2022 Sep 6;328(9):892. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13696. PMID: 35412560.

Dr Angela DeMichele from the Abramson Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr Komal Jhaveri from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, Dr Erica Mayer from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, Dr Hope S Rugo from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California, and Dr Seth Wander from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston discuss real-world cases and recent clinical data surrounding the management of HR-positive breast cancer.CME information and select publications here.

JHLT: The Podcast returns with an episode discussing the paper, "Impact of evolocumab on coronary physiology and microstructure in de-novo heart transplant recipients," from the January issue of JHLT. Featured on this episode is early career guest host Bin Yang, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital. Mentored by Digital Media Editor Van-Khue Ton, MD, PhD, Dr. Yang shares hosting duties this episode and brings great questions to the discussion. Drs. Yang and Ton are joined by the first author, Salma Karim, and senior author, Hans Eiskjaer, both from Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark. The discussion explores: What imaging and physical markers the researchers used to determine if evolocumab was influencing the development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) The potential role of lipid-lowering therapies or statins in treating CAV The relationship between CAV and microvascular resistance (IMR) For the latest studies from JHLT, visit www.jhltonline.org/current, or, if you're an ISHLT member, access your Journal membership at www.ishlt.org/jhlt. In case you missed it, earlier this month the JHLT Digital Media Editors recapped their favorite papers from 2025. Take a listen! Don't already get the Journal and want to read along? Join the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation at www.ishlt.org for a free subscription, or subscribe today at www.jhltonline.org.

What if the future of women's longevity wasn't about fighting aging—but teaching the body how to adapt, regenerate, and thrive? In this deeply insightful episode of The Girlfriend Doctor Show, Dr. Anna Cabeca sits down with renowned longevity and regenerative medicine expert Dr. Kathleen O'Neil to unpack the cutting-edge science—and timeless fundamentals—behind women's biohacking, immune resilience, and healthy aging. Dr. O'Neil shares her extraordinary journey from pathology and the morgue to elite performance medicine, explaining how understanding why people die transformed how she helps patients live longer, stronger lives. Together, they explore immune modulation, peptides, GLP-1s, light and dark therapy, bone regeneration, adrenal health, energy medicine, and why balance—not extremes—is the true secret to longevity. From menopause and bone loss to hyperbaric oxygen therapy, peptides like oxytocin and thymosin, and the power of adaptability, this episode is a masterclass in personalized, ethical, regenerative medicine for women at every stage of life. If you're curious about biohacking beyond the hype—and want grounded, science-backed strategies that actually work—this conversation is for you.     Key Timestamps 00:01:00 – Welcome & introduction to longevity and regenerative medicine 04:05 – Dr. O'Neill's time in the morgue and what it taught her about immunity, aging, and silent disease 08:15 – The immune system explained: friend vs. foe, gut training, adaptability, and immune modulation 12:18 – Light, dark, melatonin, oxytocin & why darkness is essential for regeneration 13:19 – Feasting, fasting, and the paradoxes that build resilience and adaptability 16:04 – GLP-1s, peptides, and why dosage variability matters for long-term results 21:14 – Energy medicine, biochargers, frequency, vibration & photobiomodulation 24:10 – Adrenal burnout, cortisol dysregulation, and immune collapse 28:17 – Bone loss, ovarian aging clocks, and why prevention must start earlier 30:04 – Bone health, muscle, oxytocin & rebuilding resilience after menopause 36:17 – Regenerative medicine, stem cells, and ethical innovation in longevity care 40:41 – Inside a cutting-edge regenerative medicine clinic 41:02 – Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, lymphatic drainage & advanced recovery tools 45:18 – Personalized medicine, foundations first, adaptability & final takeaways     Memorable Quotes "Longevity is really gerotherapeutics—preventing aging by teaching the body how to regenerate." – Dr. Kathleen O'Neil "You can't hack your life without doing the fundamentals." – Dr. Kathleen O'Neil "Balance—light and dark, stress and recovery—is what creates adaptability." – Dr. Kathleen O'Neil "The immune system is a living medication inside us." – Dr. Kathleen O'Neil "Everything I do today is serving the version of myself I'll be in the future." – Dr. Anna Cabeca     Connect With Guest Dr. Kathleen O'Neil, MD Website: treatwellness.boston Instagram: @treatwellness_ About Dr. O'Neil: Dr. Kathleen O'Neil earned her M.D. from Boston University School of Medicine (Magna Cum Laude) and trained at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital. She is a global expert in regenerative and longevity medicine, peptide therapy, GLP-1s, and exosomes, working with elite athletes and professional teams. She is a founding board member of the International Peptide Society and the American Academy of Stem Cell Physicians and previously served as Medical Director of Tom Brady's TB12 Wellness Center.       Connect With Dr. Anna Cabeca

In this episode, Christina sits down with Jacob Hooker for a candid conversation at the intersection of coaching, mentorship, and mental health. Together, they unpack the psychology of growth, the science of change, and why curiosity is one of the most overlooked tools in personal development.Jacob shares how his journey from academia to entrepreneurship led him to focus on the mental health crisis, and how innovative therapeutic approaches, including psychedelic-assisted treatments, are reshaping what's possible.About The Guest: Jacob Hooker, PhD, is a neuroscientist, entrepreneur, and CEO of Sensorium Therapeutics, a biotechnology company developing nature-inspired medicines for mental health. Jacob previously served as an endowed professor at Harvard Medical School and a scientific leader at Massachusetts General Hospital, where his research helped advance new approaches for understanding the brain and treating psychiatric disease. His work sits at the intersection of neuroscience, chemistry, and human well-being—with a focus on creating better, faster-acting treatments for anxiety and stress.Connect with Jacob on LinkedInLearn more about Sensorium TherapeuticsFollow Jacob on Substack If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating  and leave us a comment on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser and Castbox about what you'd like us to talk about that will help you realize that at any moment, any day, you too can decide, it's your turn! 

Dr. Ellen Braaten is widely recognized as the foremost expert in pediatric neuro, psychological, and psychological assessment particularly in the areas of assessing learning disabilities and attentional disorders. She is the founding director of Learning and Emotional Assessment Program in Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School. In her new book “The Motivation Mindset Workbook: Helping Teens and Tweens Discover What They Love to Do” she offers practical tools, suggestions, ideas, and activities to help get kids off their phone and unleash their excitement and engagement with life as well as other human beings.

HOST: Hildy Grossman CO-HOST, Jordan Rich Guests: Justin Gainor, MD, Director of Targeted Immunotherapy at the Massachusetts General Hospital and David Barbie, MD, Director of the Barbie Lab at Dana Farber Cancer Institute Targeting Innate Immunity in Cancer Lung cancer has long been one of the most complex and difficult cancers to treat. But what if we could outsmart it—not just with surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation, but by training the immune system itself? This episode explores a revolutionary question: Could a vaccine change the future of lung cancer? To shed light on answers to this question are Dr. Justin Gainor, whose interest is in vaccine development, and Dr. David Barbie, who returns to Backstage @ Upstage to explain how the immune system responds to cancer. Our renowned guests describe the challenges of creating a therapeutic vaccine and why a preventative vaccine is less likely to succeed. They detail how the immune system's delicate operations need to be understood to successfully develop a vaccine to treat lung cancer. Moreover, you'll want to hear about the groundbreaking promise of “personalized vaccines” tailored to an individual's unique genomic markers, and how these cutting-edge vaccines will change the future of oncology forever. 

This week on The Beat, CTSNet Editor-in-Chief Joel Dunning spoke with Dr. Michael Lanuti, Director of Thoracic Oncology in the Division of Thoracic Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital and an Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School, and thoracic surgeon and CTSNet Senior Editor Leanne Ashrafian about Dr. Lanuti's thoughts on the JCOG0802 trial and how he believes the wrong parameters were measured. Chapters 00:00 Intro 01:52 JANS 1, ESTS Guidelines 05:09 JANS 2, Resident-Led Operating 06:57 JANS 3, Fasting Impact on Pulm Aspiration 10:02 JANS 4, What Does a Dr Look Like 12:00 Video 1, Robotic Resection & Reconstruction 13:31 Video 2, Neonatal Off-Pump Shunt DORV 15:11 Video 3, Min Inv Bi-IMA OPCAB 16:12 Dr. Lanuti, JCOG0802 Results 44:58 Upcoming Events 45:38 Instructional Video Competition 45:49 Career Center They discussed local recurrence rates, pulmonary function, and the subtypes of adenocarcinoma. Additionally, they explored how to apply these results to future patients, central and peripheral lesions, and other randomized trials. They also covered the five-year results of the JCOG0802 trial and future studies and the implications for future studies, focusing on the parameters that should be considered. Furthermore, they addressed pulmonary function tests and wedge resection.   Joel also highlights recent JANS articles on European Respiratory Society and European Society of Thoracic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on fitness for curative intent treatment of lung cancer, a 10-year propensity-matched analysis on the impact of resident-led operating on outcomes in adult cardiac surgery, a systematic review and meta-analysis on no association between preprocedural fasting and witnessed pulmonary aspiration, and asking AI what a doctor looks like.  In addition, Joel explores robotic anterolateral approach for left secondary carinal tumor resection and reconstruction, neonatal Blalock-Taussig-Thomas shunt for double outlet right ventricle with RVOTO, and minimally invasive Bi-IMA OPCAB via left thoracotomy. Before closing, Joel highlights upcoming events in CT surgery.    JANS Items Mentioned  1.) European Respiratory Society and European Society of Thoracic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline on Fitness for Curative Intent Treatment of Lung Cancer  2.) Impact of Resident-Led Operating on Outcomes in Adult Cardiac Surgery: A 10-Year Propensity-Matched Analysis  3.) No Association Between Preprocedural Fasting and Witnessed Pulmonary Aspiration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis  4.) What Does a Doctor Look Like? Asking AI  CTSNet Content Mentioned  1.) Robotic Anterolateral Approach for Left Secondary Carinal Tumor Resection and Reconstruction   2.) Neonatal Off-Pump Blalock-Taussig-Thomas Shunt for Double Outlet Right Ventricle With RVOTO   3.) Minimally Invasive Bi-IMA OPCAB Via Left Thoracotomy   Other Items Mentioned  1.) Instructional Video Competition   2.) Career Center   3.) CTSNet Events Calendar  Disclaimer The information and views presented on CTSNet.org represent the views of the authors and contributors of the material and not of CTSNet. Please review our full disclaimer page here.

Dr Harry Paul Erba from the Duke Cancer Institute, Dr Amir Fathi from Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr Tara L Lin from The University of Kansas Medical Center, Dr Alexander Perl from the University of Pennsylvania's Abramson Cancer Center and Dr Eytan M Stein from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center discuss recent data surrounding the management of AML and their perspectives on clinical application.CME information and select publications here.

On the monthly Health or Consequences episode of the Codcast, John McDonough of the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and Paul Hattis of the Lown Institute talk with Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital. They discuss Song's research and thoughts about the primary care crisis nationally and in Massachusetts, and dive into the promise and issues with private equity in health care.

We kicked off the program with four news stories and different guests on the stories we think you need to know about! Update on the Cape Cod Bridges Project – What’s the latest with funding, etc?Guest: Luisa Paiewonsky - Executive Director of MassDOT's Mega Projects Delivery Office Can the Patriots still make the playoffs with 3 games to go?Guest: Chris Price – Boston Globe sports reporter Aggressive new flu variant sweeps globe as doctors warn of severe symptomsGuest: Dr. Anahita Dua - Vascular Surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and an Associate Professor of Surgery at Harvard University & chair and founder of Healthcare for Action (a coalition of healthcare workers fed up with inaction in gov’t – supporting healthcare workers running for Congress) To show appreciation for our military during the holidays, Miles For Military and the 1928 Rowe’s Wharf restaurant are hosting a free lunch for active-duty military and veterans on Monday afternoon 12/22 - from 11 am to 2 pm.Guest: Jacob Cool - Miles for Military COOSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, we have a special episode recorded in Southern California just after Veterans Day.We gathered the day before the unforgettable 4th Annual Torchbearer Ball, hosted by VETS (Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions), which raised $960,000 for veterans and families with its continued mission to end veteran suicide and support psychedelic-assisted therapy.My four guests discuss this critical time, and we dial in on the progress and the specific need to expand this care and research. You'll hear from Marcus Capone, Retired Navy SEAL and co-founder of VETS; Amber Capone, co-founder of VETS, Home Base PAT clinician, and actor Eliza Dushku Palandjian; and COO of Home Base, Michael Allard.We also talk about the impact of PAT for veteran health, from suicide prevention to brain health, in the new documentary, In Waves and War, just released on Netflix, brought to the screen by award-winning directors Jon Schenk and Bonni Cohen. The Washington Post just released its Top 10 movies of 2025, listing this film at #7.  So, if you are tuning into this podcast, you will want to see this movie!Home Base is also excited and honored to become the newest member of the VALOR Coalition (Veterans Alliance for Leadership, Outreach, and Recovery), alongside VETS, the Navy SEAL Foundation, the Green Beret Foundation, and the Wounded Warrior Project. Home Base Nation is the official podcast for the Home Base Program for Veterans and Military Families. Our team sees veterans, service members, and their families addressing the invisible wounds of war at no cost. This is all made possible thanks to a grateful nation. To learn more about how to help, visit us at www.homebase.org. If you or anyone you know would like to connect to care, you can also reach us at 617-724-5202.Follow Home Base on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedInThe Home Base Nation Team is Steve Monaco, Army Veteran Kelly Field, Justin Scheinert, Chuck Clough, with COO Michael Allard, Brigadier General Jack Hammond, and Peter Smyth.Producer and Host: Dr. Ron HirschbergAssistant Producer, Editor: Chuck CloughChairman, Home Base Media Lab: Peter SmythThe views expressed by guests on the Home Base Nation podcast are their own, and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Views and opinions expressed by guests are those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Massachusetts General Hospital, Home Base, the Red Sox Foundation, or any of its officials.

Welcome to today's episode of Wisdom Talk Radio! This is where we explore the depths of conscious living and how to live an expanded life. Join us to be inspired, encouraged, transformed and to tap into a deeper sense of joy and possibility.   I'm always drawn to collaborative efforts that bring together people with different perspectives who want to effect change. Health care is one arena where this doesn't often happen. But it needs to. And it can. My guest today has been a pivotal force in addressing this need. Stay tuned.I'm Laurie Seymour, host of Wisdom Talk Radio and CEO and founder of The Baca Institute, home of the Quantum Connection Process. You can go there to discover your unique connection with the essence of who you are by taking the Quantum Connection quiz. Why quantum connection? We are each designed to directly connect with Source differently. Knowing your own style opens a deeper connection with the Universe. It's the secret to creating what you truly want in your life. Because who you are is exactly who is needed.Kathryn Hayward, MD, is the Medical Director of Living Whole immersion retreats and Living Whole Online, a global community she co-founded. She started her 20-year career in primary care internal medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, gradually transitioning to the practice of integrative, whole health. She also founded the private practice Odyssey Journey and published Odyssey Family Systems Companion Guide, bringing together conventional medicine; movement of the body; whole, plant-based food; and mind/body/spirit disciplines.Find Kathryn Hayward at: https://livingwholeonline.com/ Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/Livingwholeonline Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/livingwholeonline/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@livingwholeonlineFind Laurie Seymour at https://thebacainstitute.com/ .Follow Wisdom Talk Radio on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wisdomtalkradio Subscribe on Apple.Want to reach out to me? You can email me directly at laurie@thebacainstitute.com If you are enjoying our show and you'd like to spread the love, please subscribe, download, comment, and tell your friends and family about us. We want to thank you for your continued support. We really appreciate it! Find more episodes of Wisdom Talk Radio HERE Discover your Quantum Connection Style! (QUIZ)The first step to mastering your Quantum Connection is to know your natural style of being in the world.We are each designed to connect with Source differently. Knowing your style, with both your superpowers and your learning edge, is the first step of aligning with your inner guidance at a deeper level than you ever thought you could. It's the doorway to creating what you truly want in your life.Click here to take the quiz now: Quantum Connection QuizFind Laurie's new book, Unconditional Remembrance: Your Connection to Source HEREGet Laurie's New Book, Unconditional Remembrance: Your Connection to Source: https://mybook.to/UnconditionalRememSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/wisdom-talk-radio/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

In this episode, Bernard R. Jones, Vice President, MGB Behavioral & Mental Health, Mass General Brigham; Vice President, MGB Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham & Women's Hospital, McLean Hospital, Brigham & Women's Faulkner Hospital, discusses his dual leadership roles across Mass General Brigham and the system's work to integrate psychiatric services, expand innovative treatments, and improve both patient and provider experience.

Dr Jeremy S Abramson from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and Dr Loretta J Nastoupil from CommonSpirit Mercy Hospital in Durango, Colorado, discuss the clinical applications of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. CME information and select publications here.

In cancer research, the “seed and soil” hypothesis posits that the tumor is like a seed of misbehaving cells taking root in the body. Whether it grows—and where it grows—depends on the conditions, or soil. Since this hypothesis was proposed more than 100 years ago, most research and treatments have focused on the seed, or tumor. For nearly 50 years, Rakesh Jain has been studying the soil. But in a seed-focused field, his work was seen as wasteful and radical. Now, that very same research has led to seven FDA-approved treatments for diseases including lung and liver cancer, and earned him a National Medal of Science in 2016. Host Flora Lichtman talks with Jain about how his fringe idea led to lifesaving cancer treatments. Guest: Dr. Rakesh K. Jain studies the biology of tumors at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital as a professor of radiation oncology.Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

We talk with Peter Grinspoon, MD—an internationally renowned expert on medical cannabis, drug policy, and addiction—about the U.S. Congress recriminalizing most hemp-derived products. The measure is set to take effect one year from enactment — around November 12, 2026. Dr. Grinspoon is a primary care physician and cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and an Instructor in Medicine at Harvard Medical School. A certified Health and Wellness Coach, he has provided medical cannabis care for patients for two decades. He is a board member of the advocacy group Doctors for Drug Policy Reform and an advisor to the Parabola Group, which advocates for social justice in the cannabis space. He spent two years as an associate director of the Massachusetts Physician Health Service, treating and monitoring hundreds of physicians with addiction. Dr. Grinspoon is the author of "Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction," “Seeing Through the Smoke: A Cannabis Specialist Untangles the Truth About Marijuana,” and he has a new book coming out in May 2026—"Aging Well with Cannabis: Feel Better, Sleep Better, and Live Better with Marijuana and CBD." ◘ Related Links: Dr. Grinspoon's website, www.petergrinspoon.com ◘ Transcript: bit.ly/3JoA2mz ◘ This podcast features the song “Follow Your Dreams” (freemusicarchive.org/music/Scott_Ho…ur_Dreams_1918) by Scott Holmes, available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial (01https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) license. ◘ Disclaimer: The content and information shared in GW Integrative Medicine is for educational purposes only and should not be taken as medical advice. The views and opinions expressed in GW Integrative Medicine represent the opinions of the host(s) and their guest(s). For medical advice, diagnosis, and/or treatment, please consult a medical professional.

In this episode of the SHEA Podcast, host Dr. Jonathan Ryder moderates a lively pro/con debate on one of the most discussed biomarkers in infectious diseases: procalcitonin. Joining the conversation are two experts with distinct perspectives: Dr. Michael Mansour, Clinician Investigator and Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and Dr. Sheetal Kandiah, Senior Physician and Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University; Director of the Antibiotic Stewardship Program at Grady Hospital. Together, they explore where PCT may (or may not) add value in antimicrobial stewardship programs. Tune in for an insightful exchange that will help stewards, clinicians, and ID professionals better understand where PCT fits into today's rapidly evolving diagnostic landscape.

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

This week on Health Matters, Courtney sits down with Dr. Braden Kuo, Chief of the Division of Digestive & Liver Diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian and Columbia. Dr. Kuo covers common gut problems during the holiday season, a time of indulgent meals and treats. From bloat to heartburn to travel-related stomach issues, Dr. Kuo is a trove of information and practical tips for navigating holiday festivities with good choices for your gut.  ___ Dr. Braden Kuo is a leading neurogastroenterologist specializing in gastrointestinal motility and the relationship between the brain, nervous system and digestive system. He is the Chief of the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian/ColumbiaUniversity Irving Medical Center and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians andSurgeons. Dr. Kuo received his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College and completed his residency at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center before arriving at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he served as director of the Center for Neurointestinal Health. He also completed formal training in clinical research, earning a Master of Science from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and subspecialty training in neurogastroenterology and motility at Mayo Clinic.___Health Matters is your weekly dose of health and wellness information, from the leading experts. Join host Courtney Allison to get news you can use in your own life. New episodes drop each Wednesday.If you are looking for practical health tips and trustworthy information from world-class doctors and medical experts you will enjoy listening to Health Matters. Health Matters was created to share stories of science, care, and wellness that are happening every day at NewYork-Presbyterian, one of the nation's most comprehensive, integrated academic healthcare systems. In keeping with NewYork-Presbyterian's long legacy of medical breakthroughs and innovation, Health Matters features the latest news, insights, and health tips from our trusted experts; inspiring first-hand accounts from patients and caregivers; and updates on the latest research and innovations in patient care, all in collaboration with our renowned medical schools, Columbia and Weill Cornell Medicine.To learn more visit: https://healthmatters.nyp.org

Synopsis: This episode is proudly sponsored by Quartzy. In this far-reaching conversation, Rahul Chaturvedi speaks with John Lepore, CEO & President of ProFound Therapeutics and CEO-Partner at Flagship Pioneering, tracing a career shaped by a deep commitment to understanding the causal machinery of human disease. John shares how a Harvard-trained physician-scientist evolved into a biotech leader building one of the industry's most ambitious platform companies. Reflecting on 17 years at GSK — from academic cardiologist to running global research — John describes the moment he realized traditional target discovery had reached its limits. That insight propelled him into Flagship's venture-creation ecosystem and ultimately into leading ProFound Therapeutics, where the team is uncovering tens of thousands of previously unknown human proteins that could fundamentally reshape drug discovery and unlock true first-in-class opportunities. John also offers a candid look at today's biotech leadership realities: navigating capital-tight markets, fostering high-trust pharma partnerships, making disciplined early kill decisions, and using AI to extract causal insights from vast proteomic datasets. Together, he and Rahul explore why the expanded human proteome may be medicine's next great frontier — and what it takes, scientifically and psychologically, to lead a company bold enough to pursue it. Biography: John Lepore, M.D., is CEO and President of ProFound Therapeutics and CEO-Partner at Flagship Pioneering, where he is leading a new era of drug discovery by harnessing the expanded proteome to build a pipeline of first-in-class medicines. A physician-scientist and accomplished pharma executive, he joined ProFound following a 17-year career at GSK, where he was most recently SVP, Head of Research, leading a 2,500+ person global team and driving a renewed focus on immunology and human genetics across target discovery and validation, modality platforms, drug discovery, and clinical translation. He also chaired GSK's Research Review and Investment Board, guiding capital allocation and R&D strategy. Under his leadership, GSK advanced 15 Phase 1 programs with first- or best-in-class potential and executed $1B+ in strategic R&D deals. Before joining the biopharma industry, Dr. Lepore was a faculty cardiologist and research investigator at the University of Pennsylvania, where his lab investigated the transcription regulation of cardiovascular development. He currently serves on the boards of ProFound, KSQ Therapeutics, and the Innovation Growth Board of Mass General Brigham. Dr. Lepore received his B.S. in Biology from the University of Scranton and his M.D. from Harvard Medical School, after which he completed his residency and post-doctoral training at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard School of Public Health.

In episode 62 of Going anti-Viral, Dr Rochelle Walensky joins host Dr Michael Saag on World AIDS Day 2025 to discuss her experience as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the COVID-19 pandemic and the current state of public health in the United States. Dr Walensky is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and has published over 300 research articles that have motivated changes to US HIV testing and immigration policy and promoted expanded funding for HIV-related research, treatment, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Dr Walensky reflects on her experience during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts where she was the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr Saag and Dr Walensky then discuss her transition to the Director of the CDC and her management of the agency during the pandemic. Dr Walensky and Dr Saag emphasize the dedication of public health professionals and the need for continued support and understanding of the challenges they face. They discuss the risk of proposed budget cuts to the CDC and the impacts this will have on the agency as well as state and local public health departments. Finally, they discuss the future of public health and their shared optimism for public health over the long-term.0:00 – Introduction1:41 – Management of the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Massachusetts and reflections on the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) in March of 202011:50 – Transition to lead the CDC and reflections on the difficult job of management of the CDC during a pandemic24:00 – Navigating COVID-19 variants and the challenge of public health recommendations for wearing masks and vaccination28:24 – Outlook on the future of public health and the CDC and the risks of proposed budget cuts on state and local public health agencies __________________________________________________Produced by IAS-USA, Going anti–Viral is a podcast for clinicians involved in research and care in HIV, its complications, and other viral infections. This podcast is intended as a technical source of information for specialists in this field, but anyone listening will enjoy learning more about the state of modern medicine around viral infections. Going anti-Viral's host is Dr Michael Saag, a physician, prominent HIV researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and volunteer IAS–USA board member. In most episodes, Dr Saag interviews an expert in infectious diseases or emerging pandemics about their area of specialty and current developments in the field. Other episodes are drawn from the IAS–USA vast catalogue of panel discussions, Dialogues, and other audio from various meetings and conferences. Email podcast@iasusa.org to send feedback, show suggestions, or questions to be answered on a later episode.Follow Going anti-Viral on: Apple Podcasts YouTubeXFacebookInstagram...

Nishant Uppal is an instructor in medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. N. Uppal and Z. Song. Venture Capital Investments by U.S. Academic Medical Centers. N Engl J Med 2025;393:2077-2080.

Obesity is a chronic disease. So why are we still not treating it as such?Enter Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, Associate Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital.Dr. Stanford is a global voice on obesity - redefining it as a chronic disease, not a personal failure.In taking us through the science behind it, Dr. Stanford guides us to the heart of several patient stories, highlighting the need for treating patients with dignity, improving access to care, and eliminating biases in global healthcare.——We spoke about genetic, environmental, and systemic factors that contribute to obesity, the efficacy of treatments like GLP-1 receptor agonists, real-life examples, the emotional and practical aspects of this chronic disease, and the need to involve healthcare professionals, government, and the community to tackle the global obesity epidemic.Follow me on Instagram and Facebook @ericfethkemd and checkout my website at www.EricFethkeMD.com. My brand new book, The Privilege of Caring, is out now on Amazon! https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CP6H6QN4

Dr. Gominak grew up and attended college in California, moved to Houston for medical school at Baylor College of Medicine, where she received an MD degree in 1983. Her Neurology residency was done at the Harvard affiliated, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She practiced Neurology in the San Francisco Bay area from 1991-2004 then moved with her husband to Tyler, Texas.  Starting in 2004 she began to dedicate more of her practice to the treatment of sleep and sleep disorders. In 2012 and 2016 she published two pivotal articles about the global struggle with worsening sleep, the possible causes and solutions, related to vitamin D deficiency and the intestinal microbiome.  In 2016 she retired from her office practice to have more time to teach. She currently divides her time between RightSleep® coaching sessions for private individuals, teaching about sleep and sleep disorders on her channel, youtube.com/@DrStashaGominak and teaching other clinicians the RightSleep® method of sleep repair.  In this episode, we chat about: The cause of your headaches you're not looking into What does fat bear week have to do with hormones Is vitamin D at the root of endometriosis and PCOS Thoughts and feelings about sunscreen How medicine has lost critical thinking ability Covid and vitamin D Why your doctor is saying no to vitamin D testing Learn more about working with me  Shop my masterclasses (learn more in 60-90 minutes than years of dr appointments) Follow me on IG Follow Empowered Mind + Body on IG  Learn more about working with Dr. Stasha Gominak Follow Dr. Stasha Gominak on IG  

Earlier this season, we visited the Ether Dome at the Massachusetts General Hospital to learn about the first public use of an anesthetic in surgery. On this bonus episode of The Object of History, we return to Mass General to visit the Paul S. Russell, MD Museum of Medical History and Innovation. MHS Podcast Producer Sam Hurwitz joins the Director of the Museum, Sarah Alger, for a tour where they examine some of the museum's most significant items related to the history of medicine. Learn more about episode objects here: https://www.masshist.org/podcast/season-4-bonus-episode-Russell-Museum  Email us at podcast@masshist.org. Listen to Episode 3 Episode Special Guest: Sarah Alger is the George and Nancy Putnam Director of Mass General Hospital's Paul S. Russell, MD Museum of Medical History and Innovation. She was a founding editor of Proto, a thought leadership publication that was sponsored by MGH for 17 years. This episode uses materials from: The Bond (Instrumental) by Chad Crouch (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International)        Psychic by Dominic Giam of Ketsa Music (licensed under a commercial non-exclusive license by the Massachusetts Historical Society through Ketsa.uk)        Curious Nature by Dominic Giam of Ketsa Music (licensed under a commercial non-exclusive license by the Massachusetts Historical Society through Ketsa.uk)

Dr Jeremy S Abramson from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and Dr Manali Kamdar from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora discuss patient questions and experiences with CAR T-cell therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Educational information and select publications here.

Send us a textC4 Leaders – the ONLY nonprofit to utilize the pizza making process to create space for our companions to be seen, heard, and loved.   We work with businesses, sports teams, hospitals, churches…anyone looking to RISE TOGETHER.  We also write children's books and use the most amazing handmade, hand-tossed, sourdough pizza to bring out the best in each other.   Please check out PIZZADAYS.ORG to support our important work. Season 5 Episode #23 Dr. Kate Lund is coming from Edmonds, Washington (inform, inspire, & transform)You can find via her website katelundspeaks.comAbout our guest: Growing up with Hydrocephalus took the ordinary out of her childhood. Numerous surgeries, countless doctor visits and relentless recovery periods had become the norm for Kate.  But through it all, she found one thing that kept her thriving – the power of resilience in extraordinary circumstances. Building her life around finding incredible possibility on the other side of challenge kept her driven and ultimately helped Kate find her true calling.Today, Kate is a licensed clinical psychologist of 15 years, peak performance coach, best-selling author and TEDx speaker. Her specialized training in medical psychology includes world-renowned Shriners Hospital for Children, Boston, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, all of which are affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Kate uses a strengths-based approached to help her clients improve their confidence in school, sports and life while helping them to become more resilient and reach their full potential at all levels.Thanks for sharing your many gifts, for putting your courage, thoughts, experience, and insight on paper (three times) and for guiding all people to see life's adversities as opportunities for growth and understanding.   Welcome to the show! TOTD – “Your actions are your only true belongings.”  Thich Nhat HanhBuild a habit - to create intention - to live your purpose! In this episode:What was life like growing up?What are your life's essential ingredients?What is ResilienceThe power of managing our emotions – RULER…Self-Awareness, Social Awareness, Self-Management, Practical tools to use to help maintain homeostasis…Mantra…FriendshipSocial Demands of being humanBooks you recommendLegacy 

Today our guest is Dr. Ryan Sherman, Director of Wellness at Medway Public Schools in Medway, Massachusetts. We talk to Dr. Sherman about how his healthcare background is helping schools rethink what student wellness means, and how he is helping to modernize MTSS. He shares how Medway added a fourth tier of support that brings mental health care directly into schools through care coordination, in-school outpatient services, and telehealth partnerships. Dr. Sherman also unpacks the mindset shift from “we don't do mental health” to shared ownership of student wellbeing, and how this approach is improving access, attendance, and GPA. Learn More About CharacterStrong:  Access FREE MTSS Curriculum Samples Request a Quote Today! Learn more about CharacterStrong Implementation Support Visit the CharacterStrong Website   Ryan Sherman, Ph.D., has been Medway School's Director of Wellness for ten years. Prior to coming to Medway, Ryan was a clinician in cardiology at Boston Medical Center and in internal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. Ryan is the author of several peer-reviewed behavioral health research studies and the co-author of The Fourth Tier: Modernizing MTSS for Student Mental Health.  Ryan is also a senior professor and researcher of social and emotional learning at Bay Path University.  Dr. Sherman is the recipient of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association Wellness Coordinator of the Year Award and the Massachusetts General Hospital Innovation Award.  Ryan resides in Massachusetts with his wife, two children, and boxer.

What do you do when someone you love - whether it's your kids, a spouse, or a friend - keeps doing the same maddening things?  This week, we're tackling how to approach the most frustrating dynamics in any relationship. Dr. Alison is joined by award-winning psychologist Dr. J. Stuart Ablon, founder of Think:Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School.  He shares a game-changing mindset shift: most challenging behavior is about skill, not will. If you've ever thought, “They just don't care,” about someone you love, this conversation provides a proven, practical path to real solutions.  This episode explores: The five core skills that drive every behavior The real reason most people struggle How to keep your cool and trade judgment for curiosity The exact words that lower defensiveness fast Why boundaries still matter—and how to set them collaboratively A step-by-step walkthrough of Collaborative Problem Solving in action For more from Dr. Stuart Ablon, check out his many free resources:

This week, Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford joins us for a compassionate conversation about weight, health, and healing. We're exploring why obesity should be understood as a chronic disease, not a moral failing, and discussing new treatment options like GLP-1 medications that are changing lives. Dr. Stanford is an obesity medicine Physician-Scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. What makes her perspective so valuable is that she understands the unique experiences of Black women navigating weight and health in a world that often judges us harshly. As one of the few Black women leading research in this field, she sees how chronic stress, systemic barriers, and generational trauma show up in our bodies in ways that traditional medicine has often overlooked. During our conversation, we talk about the science behind weight regulation, how new medications actually work, and why it's time to move beyond BMI as the only measure of health. About the Podcast The Therapy for Black Girls Podcast is a weekly conversation with Dr. Joy Harden Bradford, a licensed Psychologist in Atlanta, Georgia, about all things mental health, personal development, and all the small decisions we can make to become the best possible versions of ourselves. Resources & Announcements Did you know you can leave us a voice note with your questions for the podcast? If you have a question you'd like some feedback on, topics you'd like to hear covered, or want to suggest movies or books for us to review, drop us a message at memo.fm/therapyforblackgirls and let us know what’s on your mind. We just might share it on the podcast. Grab your copy of Sisterhood Heals. Find obesity medicine physicians Where to Find Our Guest Website: https://www.askdrfatima.com Instagram: @askdrfatima LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/askdrfatima/ X (Twitter): https://x.com/askdrfatima Stay Connected Join us in over on Patreon where we're building community through our chats, connecting at Sunday Night Check-Ins, and soaking in the wisdom from exclusive series like Ask Dr. Joy and So, My Therapist Said. ​ Is there a topic you'd like covered on the podcast? Submit it at therapyforblackgirls.com/mailbox. If you're looking for a therapist in your area, check out the directory at https://www.therapyforblackgirls.com/directory. Grab your copy of our guided affirmation and other TBG Merch at therapyforblackgirls.com/shop. The hashtag for the podcast is #TBGinSession. Make sure to follow us on social media: Twitter: @therapy4bgirls Instagram: @therapyforblackgirls Facebook: @therapyforblackgirls Our Production Team Executive Producers: Dennison Bradford & Maya Cole Howard Director of Podcast & Digital Content: Ellice Ellis Producers: Tyree Rush & Ndeye Thioubou See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.