Podcasts about NCI

In today's episode, I'm joined by Jason Phillips — founder of the Nutritional Coaching Institute (NCI), performance nutrition expert, and one of the most trusted voices in sustainable transformation.We dive into what it really takes to reach your health and fitness goals after struggling with food — especially if you come from a background of disordered eating, restrictive dieting, or fear around tracking. Jason shares his personal story about anorexia, the truth about metabolic adaptation and macros, and how to rebuild your relationship with food while prioritizing a health, skin or fitness goal. Whether you're a client trying to heal your body or a coach supporting others through that process, this episode will give you clarity, strategy, and hope.⸻

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton highlight key abstracts that were presented at ASCO25, including advances in breast and pancreatic cancers as well as remarkable data from the use of structured exercise programs in cancer care. Transcript Dr. Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. Today, we'll be discussing some of the key advances and novel approaches in cancer care that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. I'm delighted to be joined again by the chair of the Meeting's Scientific Program, Dr. Erika Hamilton. She is a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, congratulations on a fantastic meeting. From the practice-changing science to the world-renowned speakers at this year's Meeting, ASCO25 really reflected the amazing progress we're seeing in oncology today and the enormous opportunities that lie ahead of us. And thanks for coming back on to the podcast today to discuss some of these advances. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm happy to join you today. It really was an impactful ASCO Annual Meeting. I probably am biased, but some great research was presented this year, and I heard lots of great conversations happening while we were there. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There was a lot of buzz, as well as a lot of media buzz around the meeting this year, and I think that's probably a good place to start. So I'd like to dive into abstract number LBA3510. This was the CHALLENGE trial, which created a lot of buzz at the meeting and subsequently in the media. This is the study that was led by the NCI Canada Clinical Trials Group, which was the first randomized phase 3 trial in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, which demonstrated that a post-treatment structured exercise program is both feasible and effective in improving disease-free survival in this patient group. The study was performed over a long period of time and in many respects is quite remarkable. So, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about this study and whether you think that this means that our futures are going to be full of structured exercise programs for those patients who may benefit. Dr. Hamilton: It's a fantastic question. I think that this abstract did create a lot of buzz. We were very excited when we read it. It was highlighted in one of the Clinical Science Symposium sessions. But briefly, this was a phase 3 randomized trial. It was conducted at 55 centers, so really a broad experience, and patients that had resected colon cancer who completed adjuvant therapy were allowed to participate. There were essentially 2 groups: a structured exercise program, called ‘the exercise group,' or health education materials alone, so that was called just ‘the health education group.' And this was a 3-year intervention, so very high quality. The primary end point, as you mentioned, was disease-free survival. This actually accrued from 2009 to 2024, so quite a lift, and almost 900 patients underwent randomization to the exercise group or the health education group. And at almost 8 years of follow-up, we saw that the disease-free survival was significantly longer in the exercise group than the health education group. This was essentially 80.3% of patients were disease-free in exercise and 73.9% in the health education group. So a difference of over 6 percentage points, which, you know, at least in the breast cancer world, we make decisions about whether to do chemotherapy or not based on these kind of data. We also looked at overall survival in the exercise group and health education group, and the 8-year overall survival was 90.3% in the exercise group and 83.2% in the health education group. So this was a difference of 7.1%. Still statistically significant. I think this was really a fantastic effort over more than a decade at over 50 institutions with almost 900 patients, really done in a very systematic, high-intervention way that showed a fantastic result. Absolutely generalizable for patients with colon cancer. We have hints in other cancers that this is beneficial, and frankly, for our patients for other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, etc., I really think that this is an abstract that deserved the press that it received. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely, and it is going to be very interesting, I think, over the next 2 or 3 years to see how much impact this particular study might have on programs across the country and across the world actually, in terms of what they do in this kind of adjuvant setting for structured exercise. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to Abstract 3006. This was an NCI-led effort comparing genomic testing using ctDNA and tissue from patients with less common cancers who were enrolled in but not eligible for a treatment arm of the NCI-MATCH trial. Tell us about your takeaways from this study. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, so I thought this was a really interesting study based, as you said, on NCI-MATCH. And many of the listeners will probably remember that the original NCI-MATCH study screened almost 6,000 patients to assess eligibility for those who had an actionable mutation. And it turned out that about 60% of the patients who went on to the study had less common tumors, which were defined as anything other than colon, rectum, breast, non–small cell lung cancer, or prostate cancer. And most of those patients lacked an eligible mutation of interest and so didn't get onto a trial therapy. But with a great deal of foresight, the study group had actually collected plasma samples from these patients so that they would have the opportunity to look at circulating tumor DNA profiles with the potential being that this might be another way for testing for clinically relevant mutations in some of these less common cancer types. So initially, they tested more than 2,000 patients, and to make a somewhat complicated story short, there was a subset of five histologies with a larger representation in terms of sample size. And these were cholangiocarcinoma, small cell lung cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer. And in those particular tumors, when they compared the ctDNA sequencing with the original tumor, there was a concordance there of around 84%, 85%. And in the presentation, the investigators go on to list the specific mutated genes that were identified in each of those tumors. But I think that the other compelling part of this study from my perspective was not just that concordance, which suggests that there's an opportunity there for the use of ctDNA instead of tumor biopsies in some of these situations, but what was also interesting was the fact that there were several clinically relevant mutations which were detected only in the circulating tumor DNA. And a couple of examples of those included IDH1 for cholangiocarcinoma, BRAF and p53 in several histologies, and microsatellite instability was most prevalent in small cell lung cancer in the ctDNA. So I think that what this demonstrates is that liquid biopsy is certainly a viable screening option for patients who are being assessed for matching for targeted therapies in clinical trials. The fact that some of these mutations were only seen in the ctDNA and not in the primary tumor specimen certainly suggests that there's some tumor heterogeneity. But I think that for me, the most compelling part of this study was the fact that many of these mutations were only picked up in the plasma. And so, as the authors concluded, they believe that a comprehensive gene profiling with circulating tumor DNA probably should be included as a primary screening modality in future trials of targeted therapy of this type. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think that that's really interesting and mirrors a lot of data that we've been seeing. At least in breast cancer, you know, we still do a biopsy up front to make sure that our markers, we're still treating the right disease that we think we are. But it really speaks to the utility of using ctDNA for serial monitoring and the emergence of mutations. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. And you mentioned breast cancer, and so I'd like to dwell on that for a moment here because obviously, there was a huge amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the meeting this year. And in particular, I'd like to ask you about LBA1008, the DESTINY-Breast09 clinical trial, which I think has the potential to establish a new first-line standard of care for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. And that's an area where we haven't seen a whole lot of innovation for around a decade now. So can you give us some of the highlights of this trial and what your thinking is, having seen the results? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So this was a trial in the first-line metastatic HER2 setting. So this was looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan. We certainly have had no shortage of reports around this drug, initially approved for later lines. DESTINY-Breast03 brought it into our second-line setting for HER2+ disease and we're now looking at DESTINY-Breast09 in first-line. So this actually was a 3-arm trial where patients were randomized 1:1:1 against standard taxane/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in one arm; trastuzumab deruxtecan with pertuzumab in another arm; and then a third arm, trastuzumab deruxtecan alone. And what we did not see reported was that trastuzumab deruxtecan-alone arm. But we did have reports from the trastuzumab deruxtecan plus pertuzumab versus the chemo/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. And what we saw was a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival, 26.9 months up to 40.7, so an improvement of 13.8 months, over a year in PFS. Not to mention that we're now in the 40-month range for PFS in first-line disease. Really, across all subgroups, we really weren't able to pick out a subset of patients that did not benefit. We did see about a 12% ILD rate with trastuzumab deruxtecan. That really is on par with what we've seen in other studies, around 10%-15%. I think that this is going to become a new standard of care in the first-line. I think it did leave some unanswered questions. We saw some data from the PATINA trial this past San Antonio Breast, looking at the addition of endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, for those patients that also have ER+ disease, after taxane has dropped out in the first-line setting. So how we're going to kind of merge all this together is, I suspect that there are going to be patients that we or they just don't have the appetite to continue 3 to 4 years of trastuzumab deruxtecan. And so we're probably going to be looking at a maintenance-type strategy for them, maybe integrating the PATINA data there. But how we really put this into practice in the first-line setting and if or when we think about de-escalating down from trastuzumab deruxtecan to antibody therapy are some lingering questions. Dr. Sweetenham: Okay, so certainly is going to influence practice, but watch this space for a little bit longer, it sounds as though that's what you're saying. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to GI cancer. Abstract 4006 reported preliminary results from the randomized phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus the chemo gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. As you mentioned, elraglusib is actually a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK3-beta, which has multiple potential actions in pancreatic cancer. But the drug itself may be involved in mediating drug resistance as well as in some tumor immune response modulation. Some of that's not clearly understood, I believe, right now. But certainly, preclinical data suggests that the drug may be effective in preclinical models and may also be effective in combination with chemotherapy and potentially with immune-modulating agents as well. So this particular study, as you said, was an open-label, randomized phase 2 study in which patients with pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 in favor of the elraglusib plus GMP—gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel—versus the chemotherapy alone. And upon completion of the study, which is not right now, median overall survival was the primary end point, but there are a number of other end points which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the sample size was planned to be around 207 patients. The primary analysis included 155 patients in the combination arm versus 78 patients in the gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel arm. Overall, the 1-year overall survival rate was 44.1% for the patients in the elraglusib-containing arm versus 23.0% in the patients receiving gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel only. When they look at the median overall survival, it was 9.3 months for the experimental arm versus 7.2 months for chemotherapy alone. So put another way, there's around a 37% reduction in the risk of death with the use of this combination arm. The treatment was overall well-tolerated. There were some issues with grade 1 to 2 transient visual impairment in a large proportion of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse effects with the elraglusib/GMP combination was transient visual impairment, which affected around 60% of the patients. Most of the more serious treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 50%, 25%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. So the early results from this study show a significant benefit for 1-year overall survival and for median overall survival with, as I mentioned above, a significant reduction in the risk of death. The authors went on to mention that the median overall survival for the control arm in this study is somewhat lower than in other comparable trials, but they think that this may be related to a more advanced disease burden in this particular study. Of interest to me was that right now: there is no apparent difference in progression-free survival between the 2 arms of this study. The authors described this as potentially indicating that this may be related in some way to immune modulation and immune effects on the tumor, which, if I'm completely honest, I don't totally understand. And so, the improvement in overall survival, as far as I can see at the moment, is not matched by an improvement in progression-free survival. So I think we probably need to wait for more time to elapse to see what happens with the study. And so, I think it certainly is an interesting study, and the results are intriguing, but I think it's probably a little early for it to actually shift the treatment paradigm in this disease. Dr. Hamilton: Fantastic. I think we've been waiting for advances in pancreatic cancer for a long time, but this, not unlike others, we learn more and then learn more we don't realize, so. Dr. Sweetenham: Right. Let's shift gears at this point and talk about a couple of other abstracts in kind of a very different space. Let's start out with symptom management for older adults with cancer. We know that undertreated symptoms are common among the older patient population, and Abstract 11002 reported on a randomized trial that demonstrated the effects of remote monitoring for older patients with cancer in terms of kind of symptoms and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and whether you think this approach will potentially improve care for older patients? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I really liked this abstract. It was conducted through the Veterans Affairs, and it was based in California, which I'm telling you that because it's going to have a little bit of an implication later on. But essentially, adults that were 75 years or older who were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were eligible to participate. Forty-three clinics in Southern California and Arizona, and patients were randomized either into a control group of usual clinic care alone, or an intervention group, which was usual care plus a lay health worker-led proactive telephone-based weekly symptom assessment, and this was for 12 months using the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. So, there was a planned enrollment of at least 200 patients in each group. They successfully met that. And this lay health worker reviewed assessments with a physician assistant, who conducted follow-up for symptoms that changed by 2 points from a prior assessment or were rated 4 or greater. So almost a triage system to figure out who needed to be reached out to and to kind of work on symptoms. What I thought was fantastic about this was it was very representative of where it enrolled. There were actually about 50% of patients enrolled here that were Hispanic or Latinos. So some of our underserved populations and really across a wide variety of tumor types. They found that the intervention group had 53% lower odds of emergency room use, 68% lower odds of hospital use than the control group. And when they translated this to actual total cost of care, this was a savings of about $12,000 U.S. per participant and 75% lower odds of a death in an acute care facility. So I thought this was really interesting for a variety of reasons. One, certainly health care utilization and cost, but even more so, I think any of our patients would want to prevent hospitalizations and ER visits. Normally, that's not a fantastic experience having to feel poorly enough that you're in the emergency room or the hospital. And really showing in kind of concrete metrics that we were able to decrease this with this intervention. In terms of sustainability and scalability, I think the question is really the workforce to do this. Obviously, you know, this is going to take dedicated employees to have the ability to reach out to these patients, etc., but I think in value-based care, there's definitely a possibility of having reimbursement and having the funds to institute a program like this. So, definitely thought-provoking, and I hope it leads to more interventions. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, we've seen, over several years now, many of these studies which have looked at remote symptom monitoring and so on in this patient population, and many of them do show benefits for that in kinds of end points, not the least in this study being hospitalization and emergency room avoidance. But I think the scalability and personnel issue is a huge one, and I do wonder at some level whether we may see some AI-based platforms coming along that could actually help with this and provide interactions with these patients outside of actual real people, or at least in combination with real people. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, that's a fantastic point.  So let's talk a little bit about clinical trials. So eligibility assessment for oncology clinical trials, or prescreening, really relies on manual review of unstructured clinical notes. It's time-consuming, it's prone to errors, and Abstract 1508 reported on the final analysis of a randomized trial that looked at the effect of human-AI teams prescreening for clinical trial eligibility versus human-only or AI-only prescreening. So give us more good news about AI. What did the study find? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, this is a really, a really interesting study. And of course, any of us who have ever been involved in clinical trials will know that accrual is always a problem. And I think most centers have attempted, and some quite successfully managed to develop prescreening programs so that patients are screened by a health care provider or health care worker prior to being seen in the clinic, and the clinical investigator will then already know whether they're going to be eligible for a trial or not. But as you've already said, it's a slow process. It's typically somewhat inefficient and requires a lot of time on the part of the health care workers to actually do this in a successful way. And so, this was a study from Emory University where they took three models of ways in which they could assess the accuracy of the prescreening of charts for patients who are going to be considered for clinical trials. One of these was essentially the regular way of having two research coordinators physically abstract the charts. The second one was an AI platform which would extract longitudinal EHR data. And then the third one was a combination of the two. So the AI would be augmented by the research coordinator or the other way around. As a gold standard, they had three independent oncology reviewers who went through all of these charts to provide what they regarded as being the benchmark for accuracy. In a way, it's not a surprise to me because I think that a number of other systems which have used this combination of human verification of AI-based tools, it actually ultimately concluded that the combination of the two in terms of chart accuracy was for the most part better than either one individually, either the research coordinator or the AI alone. So I'll give you just a few examples of where specifically that mattered. The human plus AI platform was more accurate in terms of tumor staging, in terms of identifying biomarker testing and biomarker results, as well as biomarker interpretation, and was also superior in terms of listing medications. There are one or two other areas where either the AI alone was somewhat more accurate, but the significant differences were very much in favor of a combination of human + AI screening of these patient charts. So, in full disclosure, this didn't save time, but what the authors reported was that there were definite efficiency gains, and presumably this would actually become even more improved once the research coordinators were somewhat more comfortable and at home with the AI tool. So, I thought it was an interesting way of trying to enhance clinical trial accrual up front by this combination of humans and technology, and I think it's going to be interesting to see if this gets adopted at other centers in the future. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think it's really fascinating, all the different places that we can be using AI, and I love the takeaway that AI and humans together are better than either individually. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely.  Thanks once again, Dr. Hamilton, for sharing your insights with us today and for all of the incredible work you did to build a robust program. And also, congratulations on what was, I think, a really remarkable ASCO this year, one of the most exciting for some time, I think. So thank you again for that. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks so much. It was really a pleasure to work on ASCO 2025 this year. Dr. Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to all the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Be sure to catch up on all of our coverage from the Annual Meeting. You can catch up on my daily reports that were published each day of the Annual Meeting, featuring the key science and innovations presented. And we'll have wrap-up episodes publishing in June, covering the full spectrum of malignancies from ASCO25. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   More on today's speakers: Dr. John Sweetenham   Dr. Erika Hamilton @erikahamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:     Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose    Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

Tonight's guest, Rob Effler, is from Western North Carolina. In 2023, he started North Carolina Investigates with co-founder George Lunsford. Prior to that, in 2007, he was the founder of GoDark Paranormal Investigations. In 2012, he started to receive reports of Sasquatch sightings in his area of North Carolina. That came as quite a surprise to him, because, up until then, he thought Sasquatch were only in the Pacific Northwest. Little did he know, it wouldn't be long that he'd see, with his own eyes, how wrong he was about that.We hope you'll tune into tonight's show and listen to Robert talk about the 5 Sasquatch sightings he's had over the years. He's also going to talk about North Carolina Investigates and the work he's done with NCI and his team members.If you'd like to contact Robert, to share a Sasquatch sighting you've had, in North Carolina, with him, please send an email to RGE2010@gmail.com and put the type of cryptid sighting you're reporting in the subject line.If you've had a Bigfoot sighting and would like to be a guest on the show, please go to BigfootEyewitness.com and let me know.If you'd like to help support the show, by buying your own Bigfoot Eyewitness t-shirt or sweatshirt, please visit the Bigfoot Eyewitness Show Store, by going to https://Dogman-Encounters.MyShopify.comI produce 4 other shows that are available on your favorite podcast app. If you haven't checked them out, here are links to all 4 channels on the Spreaker App...My Bigfoot Sighting https://www.spreaker.com/show/my-bigfoot-sighting Dogman Tales https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/dogman-tales--6640134Dogman Encounters https://www.spreaker.com/show/dogman-encounters-radio_2 My Paranormal Experience https://www.spreaker.com/show/my-paranormal-experience Thanks, as always, for listening!

The Boilerhouse in Dublin is 26 years old and in this episode we're celebrating this iconic meeting point for the LGBTQI+ comminity.We spoke with Conor James who studied in NCI and obtained a BA Honours in Computer Science. He has also worked in the Boilerhouse for 13 years as Assistant Manager. He says he is a big believer in community especially when engaging our own fabulous one. We also chatted with Gary Ghent Macken who has worked at the Boilerhouse for 24 years. He lives in Smithfield with his husband Robert and is a proud ally of the Poz Vibe Tribe.They shared the history of Boilerhouse and their plans for the future. They hope to continue to welcome guests for years to come and help foster a sense of community for all.Love,Veda and Robbie.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Poz Vibe Podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is a⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Veda⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Lady and⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Robbie Lawlor⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ production. Big thanks to ⁠our sponsors ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dublin Pride ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠who make this series possible. We'd also like to thank The Boiler House, Man 2 Man, Gay Health Network and The George for all their help and support.Episodes are produced by Veda and Robbie with production assistance and editing by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Esther O'Moore Donohoe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Artwork, social media assets and⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ all created by the fragrant Lavender The Queen.⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠

In Episode 52 of the Nextflow podcast, Phil Ewels is joined by Ziad Al Bkhetan and Steven Manos from the Australian BioCommons to explore how Nextflow and Seqera Platform are transforming bioinformatics research across Australia.Discover how the Australian BioCommons emerged as a national infrastructure investment to support molecular life sciences researchers, building digital platforms and tools that serve diverse research communities - from genome assembly to proteomics. Learn about their journey from identifying Nextflow as the leading workflow management system in Australia to successfully deploying Seqera Platform for over 90 users across 18+ research institutions.The conversation covers fascinating success stories including the collaborative development of the nf-core/proteinfold pipeline, supporting structural biology researchers with advanced protein folding tools, and the innovative Ozark community phylogenetic trees workflow. Steven and Ziad share insights on overcoming challenges like integrating web platforms with traditional HPC infrastructure at Australia's tier-one supercomputing facilities (NCI and Pawsey), and building hybrid compute environments that seamlessly span local HPC and cloud resources.Key highlights include Australia's growing contribution to the global nf-core community, culminating in their first official participation in the March 2025 nf-core hackathon with a dedicated Sydney hub. The team also discusses practical advice for other countries looking to establish national Nextflow services, emphasizing the importance of building local expertise and community engagement.For Australian researchers interested in accessing these services, visit biocommons.org.au to learn more about available platforms, training opportunities, and community resources.00:00 Podcast Ep 52: BioCommons00:06 Welcome00:41 Ziad - introduction01:36 Steven - introduction03:40 Introduction to Australian BioCommons08:13 Nextflow usage in Australia09:05 BioCommons collaboration with Seqera12:24 Compute infrastructures in Australia15:05 Nextflow support & training16:43 Highlights and lowlights19:11 Protein fold21:50 Ozard Community23:39 Automation with Seqera Platform25:52 Nextflow Communty in Australia29:27 2025 nf-core hackathon31:57 Future plans for Nextflow & Seqera Platform33:04 Tips for building a National Nextflow platform36:21 Next steps37:51 Wrap upResources:Australian BioCommons: https://biocommons.org.aunf-core office hours: https://nf-co.re/blog/2025/apac-helpdesk-2025

Dr. Alipi Bonm, a neuro-oncologist at the Providence Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, joins host Dr. Ashwani Rajput to offer up valuable insights into brain cancer, from what to expect to the promising treatment options available that could ease your fears. He also debunks common myths, such as the misconception that cell phones and electrical wires cause brain cancer and highlights promising future treatments. If you or a loved one are affected by brain cancer, discover the support groups available for both patients and caregivers. Don't miss out on this informative and supportive discussion.Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioSee below Do you want to know more?Check out the Providence blog for more information on melanoma and other cancer related topics. Personalized cancer peptide vaccine shows remarkable promise against glioblastomaProvidence Saint John's opens last phase of clinical trial of promising drug for aggressive brain cancerTo learn more about our mission programs and services, go to Providence.org.Follow us on social media to get continued information on other important health care topics. You can  connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and X.For all your healthcare information on the go, download the Providence app. Whether you're tracking symptoms, scheduling appointments, or connecting with your healthcare providers, the Providence app has your back.To learn more about the app, check out the Wellness Brief podcast episode. Wellness Brief: Simplifying Care-There's an App for That.We'd love to hear from you. You can contact us at FutureOfHealthPodcasts@providence.org Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioAshwani Rajput, MD, FACS, joined Providence Swedish in September 2024 as the regional executive medical director (EMD) of the Swedish Cancer Institute. Dr. Rajput comes to us from Johns Hopkins University, where he is a professor of Surgery and Oncology, as well as the director of the Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in the Washington, D.C. region. Dr. Rajput completed his medical school, general surgery training, and a post-doctoral fellowship in molecular genetics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He went on to the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., for a fellowship in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO). There, he was recruited to join the faculty at Roswell Park with appointments in GI Surgical Oncology as well as Pharmacology and Therapeutics. His laboratory investigated the key signal transduction pathways in colorectal metastases using novel orthotopic murine models. In 2009, Dr. Rajput was recruited to the University of New Mexico as the inaugural division chief of Surgical Oncology. During his tenure in New Mexico, he also served as the director of surgical services for the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice-chair of surgery for academic affairs and faculty development. Under his leadership, an ACGME-approved fellowship in CGSO was created and launched. Throughout his roles in New Mexico and D.C., he has actively addressed cancer health care outcomes and health equity. Under Dr. Rajput's leadership, he will develop and implement a cancer strategic vision and enhance collaboration across our geography. He will oversee the SCI medical directors and partner with the Senior Director of Operations to deliver excellence in cancer care. Dr. Rajput and his wife, Sunita, have four children. Outside of work, he enjoys playing tennis, piano, the arts, and traveling.

Send us a textWow, it's almost a year since I have done a podcast...hard to believe...what a joy!Thank you so much for tuning in; I hope this finds you well and enjoying life, even with all it's insanities...This episode grew out of my meeting Shawn Buckley - lawyer and organizer extraordinaire - at NCI- National Citizen's Inquiry. He has done an excellent job there along with his wife Theresa and Ted Kuntz (see an early episode on Dr Heather Uncensored) and so many others...it is SO exciting to know this organization exists. I spoke at the event  held in Edmonton in March. That conference was titled Are Children Safe in Canada? As an expert witness I spoke on The Flexner Report of 1910 and how that has sabotaged our right to a full spectrum of healthcare.There were many others over that 3 day, 12 hour event...People like the hockey play Fleury spoke on sexual abuse by his coach; First Nation elders spoke on human trafficking; a mother who lost her daughter to a Covid vaccine, and so many more...The next NCI is in June in Ontario. Go to nationalcitizensinquiry.orgI trust you will enjoy this first episode in almost a year! Welcome back and I wish you all the blessings you can experience, and truth always...xoSupport the show#Medicalfreedom #Canadaontheedge #HealthCanada #CanadaLaw #TrueHope #truth #apocaloptimist #transformingtrauma #grief #grievingdeeply #homeopathy #loveheals #naturopathicmedicine #druglessmedicine #energymedicine #expressiveartsheal #empoweredvoices #knowledgeispower #singtohealthyroids #erasetoxiclegacies #peaceispossibleBooks: Transforming Trauma, a drugless and creative path to healing PTS and ACE is published by Hammersmith Books is available globally. Surviving a Viral Pandemic through the lens of a naturopathic medical doctor. On Amazon both paperback and eBookFlawed, a novel - an eccentric family saga - is on Amazon both paperback and eBook...audiobook now on Audible Music: Sophie's Heart - Avi Noam Gross (streaming)Workshops and retreats coming. Pls email drheatherh@icloud.com with workshop as the subjectwebsite: drheatherington.comemail: drheatherh@icloud.com new phone number 672 399 1942Breathe in and out slowly and gently wherever you are. We will survive this dark time of the world. It starts with you: standing, jumping, singing in the light of love and (even if just a little) joy.

Join us for the inaugural episode of "TWAD: Cancer, Cures and Coffee" with Dr. Ashwani Rajput and special guest Dr. Kelly Paulson. In this episode, we dive deep into the topic of Melanoma, one of the most serious types of skin cancer. Dr. Paulson, a medical oncologist at Swedish Cancer Institute First Hill in Seattle, shares her expertise on the importance of early detection, risk factors, and the latest advancements in treatment. Learn how to protect yourself and your loved ones from Melanoma and discover the role of the immune system in fighting cancer. Don't miss this informative and engaging discussion.Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioSee below Do you want to know more?Check out the Providence blog for more information on melanoma and other cancer related topics. ·       Cancer survivor speaks with doctor he credits for saving his life·       Saint Patrick HealthBreak - Skin Cancers·       A year to remember: Advancements, recognition and transitions To learn more about our mission programs and services, go to Providence.org.Follow us on social media to get continued information on other important health care topics. You can  connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and X.For all your healthcare information on the go, download the Providence app. Whether you're tracking symptoms, scheduling appointments, or connecting with your healthcare providers, the Providence app has your back.To learn more about the app, check out the Wellness Brief podcast episode. Wellness Brief: Simplifying Care-There's an App for That. We'd love to hear from you. You can contact us at FutureOfHealthPodcasts@providence.org Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioAshwani Rajput, MD, FACS, joined Providence Swedish in September 2024 as the regional executive medical director (EMD) of the Swedish Cancer Institute. Dr. Rajput comes to us from Johns Hopkins University, where he is a professor of Surgery and Oncology, as well as the director of the Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in the Washington, D.C. region. Dr. Rajput completed his medical school, general surgery training, and a post-doctoral fellowship in molecular genetics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He went on to the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., for a fellowship in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO). There, he was recruited to join the faculty at Roswell Park with appointments in GI Surgical Oncology as well as Pharmacology and Therapeutics. His laboratory investigated the key signal transduction pathways in colorectal metastases using novel orthotopic murine models. In 2009, Dr. Rajput was recruited to the University of New Mexico as the inaugural division chief of Surgical Oncology. During his tenure in New Mexico, he also served as the director of surgical services for the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice-chair of surgery for academic affairs and faculty development. Under his leadership, an ACGME-approved fellowship in CGSO was created and launched. Throughout his roles in New Mexico and D.C., he has actively addressed cancer health care outcomes and health equity. Under Dr. Rajput's leadership, he will develop and implement a cancer strategic vision and enhance collaboration across our geography. He will oversee the SCI medical directors and partner with the Senior Director of Operations to deliver excellence in cancer care. Dr. Rajput and his wife, Sunita, have four children. Outside of work, he enjoys playing tennis, piano, the arts, and traveling.

A recently published study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) discovers a link between physical activity and cancer risk after gathering data from wrist sensors, which could help lead to major advances in cancer research. Alaina Shreves, predoctoral fellow at NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics Metabolic Epidemiology Branch, said the findings come from accelerometer-measured physical activity, which associated low-intensity exercise with up to a 26 percent decreased risk of certain cancers. Shreves highlighted the importance of wrist sensor data in cancer prevention. She also shared her excitement about a new project involving wearable technologies to determine how walking patterns impact cancer development.

This interview with Walter Lawrence Jr. was conducted in 2020, when Lawrence was 95 years old and director emeritus of VCU Massey Cancer Center. Lawrence died one year later, on Nov. 9, 2021.Lawrence was one of the founders of the field of surgical oncology, setting up the first-ever university-based division of surgical oncology at what later became VCU Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center, in Richmond, Virginia. He served as director of VCU Massey from 1975 to 1988, during which time the cancer center earned NCI designation.Lawrence spoke with Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, and Robert Winn, director of VCU. “The thing that was exciting about the National Cancer Act, which I think was one of the best things President Nixon did, among things that weren't so good, was that it did bring the federal government into the funding of various kinds of research,” Lawrence said.Lawrence saw promise in the National Cancer Act, and earning the Cancer Center designation from NCI in 1975 allowed VCU, then called the Medical College of Virginia, to become systematically involved in clinical trials.“Randomized clinical trials were the only way we had of really improving patient cancer care—things like the one that Bernie Fisher in Pittsburgh started, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project,” Lawrence said.Read more and explore related archives at https://cancerhistoryproject.com/article/walter-lawrence-podcast/

“How much pain they have cost us, the evils which never happened.” —Thomas Jefferson In this episode of the Building HVAC Science Podcast, Eric Kaiser and Bill Spohn sit down with Anthony Woo, an HVAC contractor from Quebec, Canada. Anthony shares his journey from dropping out of college to becoming a successful business owner specializing in heat pump installations in one of North America's coldest climates. He discusses his personal and professional evolution, from gaining confidence through a Tony Robbins seminar to implementing systems like EOS in his rapidly growing business. Anthony also highlights the power of data-driven decisions, the importance of networking through NCI, and his passion for educating homeowners about indoor air quality and comfort. Throughout the conversation, Anthony gives us a peek into his strategic approach to business growth, emphasizing sustainable scaling, reinvesting in his team, and leveraging modern tools like the TrueFlow Grid for diagnostics. He also talks about creating a strong personal brand and reputation that fueled his success primarily through word-of-mouth marketing. This episode offers actionable insights for HVAC professionals looking to elevate their craft, implement smart business practices, and lead with purpose. Some thought nuggets from Anthony: “Podcasts are like a university on wheels for learning.” “As I learn new things, I'm conscious of making sure my colleagues have the framework to understand what I am talking about.” “I apply filtration to ideas to decide what to implement.” Finally, Anthony offers a simple yet powerful piece of advice: set your goals, make a plan, and go after what you want—without fear. After we finished recording, ELK helped summarize: “You've said you don't know how to run a business. What you are really saying is you are not running a business the way others do or advise you to do, you are running your business on your own terms.”   Anthony's LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-woo-88a77466/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ClimatisationACG Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/anthonywoohvac/reels/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/climatisationacg/     This episode was recorded in March 2025.

In this episode of The Next Level Health & Fitness Podcast, I'm joined by someone who's been a mentor and friend to me for over six years — Jason Phillips. Jason is the founder of NCI (Nutritional Coaching Institute), a powerhouse in the coaching and certification space. We dove deep into the current state of the coaching industry, where it's heading, and how to actually stand out in a saturated space. One of the biggest topics we covered was Jason's bold move to buy back NCI after selling it last year — the behind-the-scenes story, the lessons he learned, and what led him to step back in as owner. Jason also dropped an exclusive scholarship opportunity for listeners looking to level up their coaching skills through NCI — a limited-time chance to join at a massive discount. We also hit on the mindset piece — specifically, how clients can develop more patience in their journey and why that's the game-changer when it comes to long-term results. This one's packed with wisdom, business insights, and real talk.   NCI Scholarship - Apply Here   Register For 30-Strong - Register Here Join The Collective - Join Here Interested in working with a coach? Get a free nutrition consultation - Schedule Here Join Us On Patreon - Join Here   Submit your questions to be featured on our Q&A episodes.   Order from Cured Supplement Order from Legion Supplements and get 20% off your first order by using discount code: keynutrition   Connect with us on Instagram Host Brad Jensen – @thesoberbodybuilder Jason Phillips - @realjasonphillips Next Level Nutrition – @mynextlevelnutrition   Episode Timestamps 00:00 Covid's Impact: Rise of Online Coaching 04:38 Prime Opportunity for Dedicated Coaches 09:01 Coaching: Connection Beyond Communication 13:25 Respecting Client Investment and Experience 15:32 Jason: Versatile Business Coach 20:25 Active Shooter Alert at FSU 22:24 Business Sale Driven by Burnout 26:04 "NCI: Execution & Support Focused" 30:03 "Proven Success in Gym Growth" 31:12 "Coaching: Business vs. Transaction" 34:15 "Coaches' Success Tied to Growth" 37:56 Evolving Expertise: Learning from the Past 41:45 Rethink Business Education Priorities 45:08 "Building a Genuine Coaching Community" 48:55 "Connection and Generosity" 51:27 "Subscribe and Share, Please"

On the inaugural episode of ASCO Education: By the Book, Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Don Dizon share reflections on the evolution of the ASCO Educational Book, its global reach, and the role of its new companion podcast to further shine a spotlight on the issues shaping the future of modern oncology. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nathan Pennell: Hello, I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, welcoming you to the first episode of our new podcast, ASCO Education: By the Book. The podcast will feature engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. Each month, you'll hear nuanced views on key topics in oncology featured in Education Sessions at ASCO meetings, as well as some deep dives on the advances shaping modern oncology. Although I am honored to serve as the editor-in-chief (EIC) of the ASCO Educational Book, in my day job, I am the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair for clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Center here in Cleveland. I'm delighted to kick off our new podcast with a discussion featuring the Ed Book's previous editor-in-chief. Dr. Don Dizon is a professor of medicine and surgery at Brown University and works as a medical oncologist specializing in breast and pelvic malignancies at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Rhode Island. Dr. Dizon also serves as the vice chair for membership and accrual at the SWOG Cancer Research Network. Don, it's great to have you here for our first episode of ASCO Education: By the Book. Dr. Don Dizon: Really nice to be here and to see you again, my friend. Dr. Nathan Pennell: This was the first thing I thought of when we were kicking off a podcast that I thought we would set the stage for our hopefully many, many listeners to learn a little bit about what the Ed Book used to be like, how it has evolved over the last 14 years or so since we both started here and where it's going. You started as editor-in-chief in 2012, is that right? Dr. Don Dizon: Oh, boy. I believe that is correct, yes. I did two 5-year stints as EIC of the Educational Book, so that sounds about right. Although you're aging me very clearly on this podcast. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I had to go back in my emails to see if I could figure out when we started on this because we've been working on it for some time. Start out a little bit by telling me what do you remember about the Ed Book from back in the day when you were applying to be editor-in-chief and thinking about the Ed Book. What was it like at that time? Dr. Don Dizon: You know, it's so interesting to think about it.  Ten years ago, we were both in a very different place in our careers, and I remember when the Ed Book position came up, I had been writing a column for ASCO. I had done some editorial activities with other journals for sure, but what always struck me was it was very unclear how one was chosen to be a part of the education program at ASCO. And then it was very unclear how those faculty were then selected to write a paper for the Educational Book. And it was back in the day when the Educational Book was completely printed. So, there was this book that was cherished among American fellows in oncology. And it was one that, when I was newly attending, and certainly two or three years before the editor's position came up, it was one that I referenced all the time. So, it was a known commodity for many of us. And there was a certain sense of selectivity about who was invited to write in it. And it wasn't terribly transparent either. So, when the opportunity to apply for editor-in-chief of the Educational Book came up, I had already been doing so much work for ASCO. I had been on the planning committees and served in many roles across the organization, and editing was something I found I enjoyed in other work. So, I decided to put my name in the ring with the intention of sort of bringing the book forward, getting it indexed, for example, so that there was this credit that was more than just societal credit at ASCO. This ended up being something that was referenced and acknowledged as an important paper through PubMed indexing. And then also to provide it as a space where we could be more transparent about who was being invited and broadening the tent as to who could participate as an author in the Ed Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It's going to be surprising to many of our younger listeners to learn that the Educational Book used to be just this giant, almost like a brick. I mean, it was this huge tome of articles from the Education Sessions that you got when you got your meeting abstracts book at the annual meeting. And you can always see people on the plane on the way out of Chicago with their giant books. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: That added lots of additional weight to the plane, I'm sure, on the way out. Dr. Don Dizon: And it was not uncommon for us to be sitting at an airport, and people would be reading those books with highlighters. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I fondly remember being a fellow and coming up and the Ed Book was always really important to me, so I was excited. We'll also let the listeners in on that. I also applied to be the original editor-in-chief of the Ed Book back in 2012, although I was very junior and did not have any real editorial experience. I think I may have been section editor for The Oncologist at that point. And I had spoken to Dr. Ramaswamy Govindan at WashU who had been the previous editor-in-chief about applying and he was like, “Oh yeah. You should absolutely try that out.” And then when Dr. Dizon was chosen, I was like, “Oh, well. I guess I didn't get it.” And then out of the blue I got a call asking me to join as the associate editor, which I was really always very thankful for that opportunity. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, it was a highly fruitful collaboration, I think, between you and I when we first started. I do remember taking on the reins and sort of saying, “You know, this is our vision of what we want to do.” But then just working with the authors, which we did, about how to construct their papers and what we were looking for, all of that is something I look back really fondly on. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it was interesting too because neither one of us had really a lot of transparency into how things worked when we started. We kind of made it up a little bit as we went along. We wanted to get all of the faculty, or at least as many of them as possible contributing to these. And we would go to the ASCO Education Committee meeting and kind of talk about the Ed Book, and we were thinking about, you know, how could we get people to submit. So, at the time it wasn't PubMed indexed. Most people, I think, submitted individual manuscripts just from their talk, which could be anywhere from full length review articles to very brief manuscripts. Dr. Don Dizon: Sometimes it was their slides with like a couple of comments on it. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And some of them were almost like a summary of the talk. Yeah, exactly. And so sort of making that a little more uniform. There was originally an honorarium attached, which went away, but I think PubMed indexing was probably the biggest incentive for people to join. I remember that was one of the first things you really wanted to get. Dr. Don Dizon Yeah. And, you know, it was fortuitous. I'd like to take all the credit for it, but ASCO was very forward thinking with Dr. Ramaswamy and the conversations about going to PubMed with this had preceded my coming in. We knew what we needed to do to get this acknowledged, which was really strengthening the peer review so that these papers could meet the bar to get on PubMed. But you know, within the first, what, two or three years, Nate, of us doing this, we were able to get this accepted. And now it is. If you look at what PubMed did for us, it not only increased the potential of who was going to access it, but for, I think the oncology community, it allowed people access to papers by key opinion leaders that was not blocked by a paywall. And I thought that was just super important at the time. Social media was something, but it wasn't what it is now. But anybody could access these manuscripts and it's still the case today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it's hard to overstate how important that was. People don't realize this, but the Ed Book is really widely accessed, especially outside the US as well. And a lot of people who can't attend the meeting to get the print, well, the once print, book could actually get access to essentially the education session from the annual meeting without having to fly all the way to the US to attend. Now, you know, we have much better virtual meeting offerings now and whatnot. But at the time it was pretty revolutionary to be able to do that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, and you know, it's so interesting when I think back to, you know, this sort of evolution to a fully online publication of the Ed Book. It was really some requests from international participants of the annual meeting who really wanted to continue to see this in print. At that time, it was important to recognize that access to information was not uniform across the world. And people really wanted that print edition, maybe not for themselves, but so that access in more rural areas or where access in the broadband networks were not established that they still could access the book. I think things have changed now. We were able, I think, in your tenure, to see it fully go online. But even I just remember that being a concern as we went forward. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, we continued with the print book that was available if people asked for it, but apparently few enough people asked for it that it moved fully online. One of the major advantages of being fully online now is of course, it does allow us to publish kind of in real time as the manuscripts come out in the months leading up to the meeting, which has been, I think, a huge boon because it can build momentum for the Education Sessions coming in. People, you know, really look forward to it. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, that was actually a concern, you know, when we were phasing out Ed Book and going to this continuous publication model where authors actually had the ability to sort of revise their manuscript and that would be automatically uploaded. You had a static manuscript that was fully printed, and it was no longer an accurate one. And we did have the ability to fix it. And it just goes to show exactly what you're saying. This idea that these are living papers was really an important thing that ASCO embraced quite early, I think. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And with the onset of PubMed indexing, the participation from faculty skyrocketed and almost within a couple of years was up to the vast majority of sessions and faculty participating. Now I think people really understand that this is part of the whole process. But at the time I remember writing out on my slides in all caps, “THIS IS AN EXPECTATION.” And that's about the best word I could give because I asked if we could make people do it, and they were like, no, you can't make people do it. Dr. Don Dizon: So right.  Actually, I don't think people are aware of the work on the back end every year when I was on as EIC, Nate and myself, and then subsequently Dr. Hope Rugo would have these informational sessions with the education faculty and we would tout the Ed Book, tout the expectation, tout it was PubMed indexed and tout multidisciplinary participation. So, we were not seeing four manuscripts reflecting one session. You know, this encouragement to really embrace multidisciplinary care was something that very early on we introduced and really encouraged people not to submit perspective manuscripts, but to really get them in and then harmonize the paper so that it felt like it was, you know, one voice. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I consider that after PubMed indexing, the next major change to the Ed Book, that really made it a better product and that was moving from, you know, just these short individual single author manuscripts to single session combined manuscript that had multiple perspectives and topics, really much more comprehensive review articles. And I don't even remember what the impetus was for that, but it was really a success. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, I mean, I think in the beginning it was more of a challenge, I think, because people were really not given guidance on what these papers were supposed to look like. So, we were seeing individual manuscripts come forward. Looking back, it really foreshadowed the importance of multidisciplinary management. But at the time, it was really more about ensuring that people were leaving the session with a singular message of what to do when you're in clinic again. And the goal was to have the manuscripts reflect that sort of consensus view of a topic that was coming in. There were certain things that people still argued would not fit in a multidisciplinary manuscript. You know, if you have someone who's writing and whose entire talk was on the pathology of thyroid cancer. Another topic was on survivorship after thyroid cancer. It was hard to sort of get those two to interact and cover what was being covered. So, we were still getting that. But you're right, at the end of my tenure and into yours, there were far fewer of those individual manuscripts. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I think it's even made it easier to write because now, you know, you just have to write a section of a manuscript and not put together an entire review. So, it has helped with getting people on board. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, the other thing I thought was really interesting about the process is when you're invited to do an Education Session at ASCO, you're either invited as a faculty speaker or as the chair of the session. And the responsibility of the chair is to ensure that it flows well and that the talks are succinct based on what the agenda or the objectives were as defined by the education committee for that specific group. But that was it. So really being named “Chair” was sort of an honor, an honorific. It really didn't come with responsibility. So, we use the Ed Book as a way to say, “As chair of the session, it is your responsibility to ensure A, a manuscript comes to me, but B, that the content of that paper harmonizes and is accurate.” And it was very rare, but Nate, I think we got dragged into a couple of times where the accuracy of the manuscript was really called into question by the chair. And those were always very, very tricky discussions because everyone that gets invited to ASCO is a recognized leader in their field. Some of us, especially, I would probably say, dating back 10 years from today, the data behind Standards of Care were not necessarily evidence-based. So, there were a lot of opinion-based therapies. You know, maybe not so much in the medical side, but certainly some of it. But when you went to, you know, surgical treatments and maybe even radiotherapy treatments, it was really based on, “My experience at my center is this and this is why I do what I do.” But those kinds of things ended up being some of the more challenging things to handle as an editor. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And those are the– I'll use “fun” in a broad sense. You know, every once in a while, you get an article where it really does take a lot of hands-on work from the editor to work with the author to try to revise it and make it a suitable academic manuscript. But you know what? I can't think, at least in recent years, of any manuscripts that we turned down. They just sometimes needed a little TLC. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah. And I think the other important thing it reminds me of is how great it was that I wasn't doing this by myself. Because it was so great to be able to reach out to you and say, “Can you give me your take on this paper?” Or, “Can you help me just join a conference call with the authors to make sure that we're on the same page?” And then on the rare example where we were going to reject a paper, it was really important that we, as the editorial team, and I include our ASCO shepherder, through the whole process. We had to all agree that this was not salvageable. Fortunately, it happened very rarely. But I've got to say, not doing this job alone was one of the more important facets of being the EIC of ASCO's Educational Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's nice to hear you say that. I definitely felt that this was a partnership, you know, it was a labor of love. So, I want to go to what I consider sort of the third major pillar of the changes to the Ed Book during your tenure, and that was the introduction of a whole new kind of manuscript. So up to, I don't know, maybe seven or eight years ago, all the articles were authored just by people who were presenting at the Annual Meeting. And then you had an idea to introduce invited manuscripts. So take me through that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, well, you know, again, it went to this sort of, what can people who are being asked to sort of lead ASCO for that year, what can they demonstrate as sort of a more tangible contribution to the Society and to oncology in general? And I think that was the impetus to use the Ed Book for everyone who was in a leadership position to make their mark. That said, I was here, and I was either president of the society or I was Education Program Chair or Scientific Program Chair, and they got to select an article type that was not being covered in the annual meeting and suggest the authors and work with those authors to construct a manuscript. Never did any one of those folks suggest themselves, which I thought was fascinating. They didn't say, “I want to be the one to write this piece,” because this was never meant to be a presidential speech or a commemorative speech or opportunity for them as leaders. But we wanted to ensure that whatever passion they had within oncology was represented in the book. And again, it was this sort of sense of, I want everyone to look at the Ed Book and see themselves in it and see what they contributed. And that was really important for those who were really shepherding each Annual Meeting each year for ASCO that they had the opportunity to do that. And I was really pleased that leadership really took to that idea and were very excited about bringing ideas and also author groups into the Educational Book who would not have had the opportunity otherwise. I thought that was just really nice. It was about inclusiveness and just making sure that people had the opportunity to say, “If you want to participate, we want you to participate.” Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I agree. I think the ASCO leadership jumped on this and continues to still really appreciate the opportunity to be able to kind of invite someone on a topic that's meaningful to them. I think we've tried to work in things that incorporate the presidential theme each year in our invited manuscript, so it really allows them to put kind of a stamp on the flavor of each edition. And the numbers reflect that these tend to be among our more highly read articles as well. Dr. Don Dizon: You know, looking back on what we did together, that was something I'm really, really quite proud of, that we were able to sort of help the Educational Book evolve that way. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I agree. You brought up briefly a few minutes ago about social media and its role over time. I think when we started in 2012, I had just joined Twitter now X in 2011, and I think we were both sort of early adopters in the social media. Do you feel like social media has had a role in the growth of the Ed Book or is this something that you think we can develop further? Dr. Don Dizon: When we were doing Ed Book together, professional social media was actually a quite identified space. You know, we were all on the same platform. We analyzed what the outcomes were on that platform and our communities gathered on that platform. So, it was a really good place to highlight what we were publishing, especially as we went to continuous publishing.  I don't remember if it was you or me, but we even started asking our authors for a tweet and those tweets needed work. It was you. It was you or I would actually lay in these tweets to say, “Yeah, we need to just, you know, work on this.” But I think it's harder today. There's no one preferred platform. Alternate platforms are still evolving. So, I think there are opportunities there. The question is: Is that opportunity meaningful enough for the Ed Book to demonstrate its return on an investment, for example? What I always thought about social media, and it's still true today, is that it will get eyes on whatever you're looking at far beyond who you intended to see it. So, you know, your tweets regarding a phase 3 clinical trial in lung cancer, which were so informative, were reaching me, who was not a lung oncologist who doesn't even see lung cancer and getting me more interested in finding that article and more and more pointing to the Educational Book content that speaks to that piece, you know. And I think coupling an impression of the data, associating that with something that is freely accessed is, I think, a golden opportunity not only for our colleagues, but also for anyone who's interested in a topic. Whether you are diagnosed with that cancer or you are taking care of someone with that cancer, or you heard about that cancer, there are people who would like to see information that is relevant and embedded and delivered by people who know what they're talking about. And I think our voices on social media are important because of it. And I think that's where the contribution is. So, if we had to see what the metric was for any social media efforts, it has to be more of the click rates, not just by ASCO members, but the click rates across societies and across countries. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, social media is, I mean, obviously evolving quite a bit in the last couple of years. But I do know that in terms the alt metrics for the track access through social media and online, the ones that are shared online by the authors, by the Ed Book team, do seem to get more attention. I think a lot of people don't like to just sit with a print journal anymore or an email table of contents for specific journals. People find these articles that are meaningful to them through their network and oftentimes that is online on social media. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes, 100%. And you know what I think we should encourage people to do is look at the source. And if the Ed Book becomes a source of information, I think that will be a plus to the conversations in our world. We're still dealing with a place where, depending on who sponsored the trial, whether it was an industry-sponsored trial, whether it was NCI sponsored or sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, for example, access to the primary data sets may or may not be available across the world, but the Ed Book is. And if the Ed Book can summarize that data and use terms and words that are accessible no matter what your grade level of education is. If we can explain the graphs and the figures in a way that people can actually easily more understand it. If there's a way that we structure our conversations in the Ed Book so that the plethora of inclusion/exclusion criteria are summarized and simplified, then I think we can achieve a place where good information becomes more accessible, and we can point to a summary of the source data in places where the source is not available. Dr. Nathan Pennell: One of the other things that I continue to be surprised at how popular these podcasts are. And that gives you an opportunity pretty much the opposite. Instead of sort of a nugget that directs you to the source material, you've got a more in-depth discussion of the manuscript. And so, I'm delighted that we have our own podcast. For many years, the Ed Book would sort of do a sort of a “Weird Al takeover” of the ASCO Daily News Podcast for a couple of episodes around the Annual Meeting, and I think those were always really popular enough that we were able to argue that we deserved our own podcast. And I'm really looking forward to having these in-depth discussions with authors. Dr. Don Dizon: It's an amazing evolution of where the Ed Book has gone, right? We took it from print only, societally only, to something that is now accessed worldwide via PubMed. We took it from book to fully online print. And now I think making the content live is a natural next step. So, I applaud you for doing the podcast and giving people an opportunity actually to discuss what their article discusses. And if there's a controversial point, giving them the freedom and the opportunity to sort of give more nuanced views on what may not be something that there's 100% consensus over. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yes. Well, I hope other people enjoy these as well. Just want to highlight a few of the things that have happened just in the couple years since you stepped down as editor-in-chief. One of them, and I don't know if you noticed, but last year we started adding manuscripts from the ASCO thematic meetings, so ASCO GI and ASCO GU, something we had certainly talked about in the past, but had lacked bandwidth to really do. And they seem to be pretty widely accessed. Dr. Don Dizon: That's fantastic. Yes, I do remember talking about the coverage of the thematic meetings and you're right, this takes a long time to sort of concentrate on the Annual Meeting. It may seem like everything happens in the span of like eight weeks. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It does feel like that sometimes. Dr. Don Dizon: Right? But this is actually something that starts a year before, once the education program is set. We're in the room when they set it. But then it's really chasing down manuscripts and then making sure that they're peer reviewed because the peer review is still really important, and then making sure that any revisions are made before it's finalized and goes to press. That is a many months process. So, when we're trying to introduce, “Oh, we should also do ASCO GU or-,” the question was, how do you want to do that given this very, very involved process going forward? So, I'm glad you were able to figure it out. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's challenging. I don't think people realize quite the compressed timeline for these. You know, the Education Session and authors and invited faculty are picked in the fall, and then basically you have to start turning in your manuscripts in February, March of the following year. And so, it's a really tight turnaround for this. When we talk about the ASCO thematic meetings, it's an even tighter window. Dr. Don Dizon: Right, exactly. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And so, it's challenging to get that moving, but I was really, really proud that we were able to pull that off. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, congratulations again. And I think that is a necessary step, because so much of what's going on in the various disease management sites is only covered cursorily through the Annual Meeting itself. I mean, there's just so much science breaking at any one time that I think if we want to comprehensively catalog the Year in Review in oncology, it kind of behooves us to do that. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Some other things that are coming up because we now have manuscripts that are going to be coming in year-round, and just to kind of make it easier on the editorial staff, we're going to be forming an editorial board. And in addition to our pool of reviewers who get ASCO points, please feel free to go online to the ASCO volunteer portal and sign up if you are interested in participating. So, moving forward, I'm really excited to see where things are going to go. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, that's great. That's great. And I do remember talking about whether or not we needed to have an editorial board. At least when I was there, having this carried by three people was always better than having it carried by one person. And I think as you expand the potential for submissions, it will be very helpful to have that input for sure. And then it gives another opportunity for more members to get involved in ASCO as well. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Absolutely. People want involvement, and so happy to provide that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Is there anything we didn't cover that you would like to mention before we wrap up? Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I will say this, that ASCO and through its publications not only has had this real emphasis on multidisciplinary management of cancers, especially where it was relevant, but it also always had a stand to ensure representation was front and center and who wrote for us. And I think every president, every chair that I've worked with naturally embraced that idea of representation. And I think it has been a distinct honor to say that during my tenure as EIC, we have always had a plethora of voices, of authors from different countries, of genders, that have participated in the construction of those books. And it stands as a testament that we are a global community and we will always be one. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, thank you for that. And I'm happy to continue that as we move forward. Well, Don, thank you. It's been great speaking with you. You played such a pivotal role in the Ed Book's evolution and I'm so glad you were able to join me for our inaugural episode. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I'm just tickled that you asked me to be your first guest. Thank you so much, Nate. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. We hope you'll join us again for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the Education Sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year, as well as our periodic deep dives on advances that are shaping modern oncology. Have a great day. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Nathan Pennell  @n8pennell @n8pennell.bsky.social   Dr. Don Dizon @drdondizon.bsky.social  Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)   ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:  Dr. Nathan Pennell:      Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron     Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi  Dr. Don Dizon: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Midi, Doximity Honoraria: UpToDate, American Cancer Society Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Kronos Bio, Immunogen Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb          

In this fascinating episode of the Project Purple Podcast, CEO & Founder Dino Verrelli welcomes Dr. Cosimo Commisso, interim director and deputy director of the NCI-designated Cancer Center at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute. A leader in cancer metabolism research, Dr. Commisso shares groundbreaking insights into how pancreatic cancer cells survive and thrive—and what that means for future treatments. Dr. Commisso breaks down the complex science behind tumor microenvironments, metabolic vulnerabilities, and the latest advances in targeting pancreatic cancer at a cellular level. He also discusses the challenges researchers face, the hope emerging from new studies, and why funding for this research is more critical than ever. Whether you're a patient, caregiver, advocate, or science enthusiast, this episode delivers a powerful look at the cutting edge of pancreatic cancer research and the fight for better treatments. Subscribe to the Project Purple Podcast for more inspiring stories. If you'd like to donate to Project Purple's mission of a world without pancreatic cancer, please visit https://www.projectpurple.org/. To learn more about Project Purple, visit https://www.projectpurple.org/ or follow us on social media at these links: https://www.facebook.com/Run4ProjectPurple https://www.instagram.com/projectpurple/ https://twitter.com/Run4Purple https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgA8nVhUY6_MLj5z3rnDQZQ

Claire L. Carter, Ph.D., is an Assistant Member of the Center for Discovery and Innovation; Assistant Professor of Pathology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine; and Co-Director of the Mass Spectrometry and Analytical Pharmacology Shared Resource at the NCI-designated Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.Dr. Carter completed her Ph.D. in Chemistry at the University of Birmingham, UK, under the supervision of Professor Josephine Bunch. She then moved to the US for a postdoctoral appointment at the University of Maryland Baltimore, where she worked on normal tissue radiation injury. At the Hackensack Meridian Center for Discovery and Innovation, Dr. Carter has built a translational pediatric neuro-oncology research program in partnership with Dr. Derek Hanson, Director of Pediatric Neuro-oncology, Joseph M. Sanzari Children's Hospital, Hackensack University Medical Center.Dr. Carter possesses a rare translational background that combines expertise in bioanalytical chemistry, clinical histopathology and biomedical science. Her group are using next generation imaging techniques to develop a deep understanding of the biological and transitional states of tumor cells as shaped by their spatiotemporal location within patient tumors and preclinical models. Their focus is on targeting lipid signaling and metabolism for less toxic and more efficacious treatments in highly aggressive pediatric brain tumors. In addition to using mass spectrometry imaging for intratumoral pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) studies to identify more efficacious treatment regimens that can be rapidly translated into clinic gain.You can also get involved with the Gold Ribbon Kids Cancer Foundation or the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation through fundraising, volunteering, promoting awareness, or contributing to pediatric cancer research. Visit goldribbon-kids.org or nationalpcf.org for more informationTo contact Tiffany, please email info@goldribbon-kids.orgTo contact Kelly, please email kgoddard@nationalpcf.orgSupport the show

I sit down with Dr. Matthias Kloor, Acting Medical Director Applied Tumor Biology at Heidelberg University.  We discuss the thought process followed by the hurdles faced in trying to get a Lynch Syndrome vaccine, through the phases, to potentially the proverbial bedside.  We discussed collaboration with the NCI in bringing this and other projects to market.  We also talk about the European Hereditary Tumor Group, whose conference this year is also in Heidelberg.  EHTG is a great group, one that has embraced the advocacy community, similar to CGAIGC and InSIGHT.  

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

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is exploring how it can leverage artificial intelligence to enhance cancer screening techniques, ultimately improving patient outcomes across the nation. Dr. Katrina Goddard, director of the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at NCI, explains how her division is leveraging AI, and other innovative solutions like the low-dose CT scan, to better detect lung cancer and enable better access to data.

In this episode of theHVAC Know It All Podcast, Host Gary McCreadie sits down with Adam Mufich, an Expert in airflow diagnostics and technical trainer at theNational Comfort Institute (NCI). They will discuss deep into the critical role of airflow in HVAC systems, why static pressure doesn't equal airflow, and how technicians can improve system performance with better diagnostics.Adam shares insights on the TrueFlow Grid, a Revolutionary tool for measuring airflow accurately, and explains how it integrates with MeasureQuick and NCI workflows to help technicians troubleshoot and optimize HVAC systems more efficiently. They also discuss common airflow mistakes, the importance of proper system sizing, and the impact of filter selection on performance.Expect to Learn:1. Why airflow is the backbone of HVAC system performance.2. How the TrueFlow Grid simplifies airflow measurement.3. The difference between static pressure and airflow and why it matters.4. How improper system sizing leads to airflow issues.5. Why deeper pleated filters outperform one-inch filters.Episode Highlights:[00:33] – Introduction to the Episode with Adam Mufich[02:23] – How Important Is Airflow? Adam Explains Why it's a 10/10[03:35] – Right Way to Sell HVAC Services: Solution-Based Selling & the Role of Airflow Measurement.[06:19] – The TrueFlow Grid: Accurate Airflow Measurement Beyond Ductwork Limitations.[10:56] – Static Pressure vs. Airflow Understanding the key differences[13:29] – TrueFlow Grid & NCI: Optimizing Airflow with Fan Law 2.[21:28] – Undersized Ducts or Oversized Equipment? The Key to Proper Airflow.[26:03] – The Deep Pleat Filter Advantage, More surface area = better airflow[29:25] – Can Better Filtration Reduce White Slime?[31:45] – UV Lights, Drain Pans & Biofilm, Do UV lights really help?[33:38] – Final Thoughts: How to Improve Your Airflow Game.This Episode is Kindly Sponsored by:Master:https://www.master.ca/Cintas:https://www.cintas.com/Supply House:https://www.supplyhouse.comCool Air Products:https://www.coolairproducts.netLambert Insurance Services:https://www.lambert-ins.com Follow the Adam Mufich on:LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-mufich-5225055a/National Comfort Institute:https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-comfort-institute/ Master HVAC diagnostics with Measure Quick & True Flow Grid!

A psyops is short for psychological operation in which a carefully planned scenario is constructed to create a reality for people to follow that isn't necessarily reasonable. But by using emotional and psychological diversion, can lead you from the actual important matter. By diverting you elsewhere through these tactics you are less engaged to question the official narrative and pick out the inconsisencies that would bring to question the event. Some of these events take advantage of focus, while others are orchestrated by the conspiracists to dovert you from something, like magic slight-of-hand.My episode of the 5 corporations that own 99% of all media.https://jimdukeperspective.com/who-owns-all-the-media/The NCI report can be requested here.http://nci.university/reality

Ken Drysdale is an executive engineer with over 40 years of experience as a Professional Engineer. He is the author of the "Drysdale Report," a forensic audit on the Canadian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Ted Kuntz is the President of Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), a not-for-profit society advocating for informed consent and the right to make healthcare decisions related to vaccination.Shawn Buckley is a constitutional lawyer with a specialization in Canada's Food and Drug Act. His legal expertise has been pivotal in discussions around health policy, particularly vaccine approval processes.We discuss the upcoming National Citizens Inquiry hearings in Edmonton, how important it is to hear testimonies in person and their upcoming NCI fundraiser in Morinville AB.Cornerstone Forum ‘25https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone25/Contribute to the new SNP StudioE-transfer here: shaunnewmanpodcast@gmail.comGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastSilver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: SNP@silvergoldbull.comText Grahame: (587) 441-9100

Unlock the secrets of legends, myths, and the supernatural in the latest episode of the BLC Podcast, where we had the privilege of hosting the talented George Lunsford. George is a celebrated author and co-founder of the NCI podcast, as well as an enthusiastic storyteller who's committed to preserving and sharing the folklore that shapes our cultural identity.During this captivating conversation, George dives into his newest book, "Legends, Myths, Monsters, and Ghosts: The North American Edition," currently available on Amazon. A true enthusiast of the supernatural, George shares electrifying tales from his personal experiences, including multiple encounters with Bigfoot in the Appalachian Mountains. His adventures include efforts to capture evidence—whether through photographs, hair samples, or footprints—that might one day offer tangible proof of these mysterious creatures' existence. George brings these stories to life with humor and a deep passion for exploring the unknown.But there's more! The episode also highlights George's broader mission to document regional folklore from across the globe, as he teases his upcoming European edition of the book. His work reflects how storytelling serves as a bridge to connect us to our shared history and diverse cultures.Fans of the supernatural will also love George's insights into his television ventures with Channel 12, where he hosts thrilling discussions about paranormal phenomena and cryptids. The channel is growing fast, with streaming options available on platforms like Roku and Google TV, and George candidly shares their efforts to establish this exciting new network.Whether you're a staunch believer, a skeptic, or someone who simply loves a good story, this episode has something to offer. Laugh, learn, and get inspired as we explore George's adventures and the fascinating tales that keep folklore alive. Don't forget to pick up his book, subscribe to the podcast, and follow George as he continues his quest to shed light on the mysteries lurking in the shadows. Tune in now and join the adventure! #blcpodcast #podcastingforthepeople #funny #podcast #greenvillesc #scpodcast #yeahthatgreenville Listen at: https://blc.world/ Tweet the Show: https://twitter.com/blcworld Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/blcpodcast/ Check us out on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/blcpodcast/ Buy Fred and Allan Beer: https://www.patreon.com/blcworld

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "You Don't Bring Me Flowers” by Dr. Kathryn Cappell, who is an Assistant Research Physician at the National Cancer Institute. The article is followed by an interview with Cappell and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Cappell shares the difficulty in protecting oncology patients without taking away things that bring them joy. TRANSCRIPT  Narrator: You Don't Bring Me Flowers, by Kathryn Cappell, MD, PhD Easter morning dawned a beautiful spring day in Washington, DC. Soft sunlight and a cool breeze streamed through my bedroom window. My children woke up early, and I listened to their shouts of delight as they found their baskets, brimming with grass and chocolate eggs wrapped in pink and purple foil. Later that morning, I drove to a local hospital where I was rounding. Cherry blossom trees bursting with pink flowers bloomed throughout our peaceful neighborhood, and their showers of pollen had coated my car windows in a soft dusting of green. I put my arm out the car window and caught the heavy scent of flowers as fresh air flooded in. The fifth patient on my rounds, Evelyn, had been in the hospital for 22 days. This morning, as the charge nurse, Frances, and I entered the room, I noticed a vase brimming full of bright pink flowers beside her bed. Evelyn caught my eye and looked guiltily at her lovely bouquet. “I know it's against the rules,” she said, “but my son brought them, and they make me so happy.” Fresh flowers were indeed against ward policy. Theoretically, flowers could introduce fungal spores that could float through the air and lodge into the vulnerable lungs of our neutropenic patients. Evelyn was not the only patient who had received flowers. On that Easter day, the elevator area outside the oncology ward bloomed with forbidden flowers mistakenly brought by other loving sons. Frances kindly offered to take a picture of the flowers for Evelyn and print it out. Frances explained that this way she could still enjoy the picture while protecting herself and other patients on our ward. I found myself unsure; I wanted Evelyn to have the joy of the flowers during her long hospitalization. I could picture her son, a lumbering man in his 60s, carefully selecting the flowers last night. He was a quiet man, and I got the impression that bringing flowers was a way for him to share his feelings about his mother. Evelyn had been separated from her family for almost a month and was isolated in a hospital room without the ability to even open a window to enjoy a fresh breeze. She had maintained her gentle and positive attitude throughout, bravely battling complications from chemotherapy. The flowers probably brought her a little chance to savor the beauty of Spring and reflect on the love from her son. I did not want to take that from her. Still, I knew the importance of ward policies and protecting our vulnerable patients. I dislike taking things from my patients, but I have been diligently doing so for most of my career. As a medical student and resident, I remember oncology patients struggling to tolerate a neutropenic diet devoid of many fresh fruits and vegetables. A generation of doctors advised patients that the neutropenic diet was necessary to protect them from infections. I recall one young boy with leukemia repeatedly asking for fresh blueberries and the medical team insisting he follow the neutropenic diet. He eventually got sicker and died; I am not sure if he ever got a blueberry. I think of him with a lingering tension that we did him wrong by taking away something that could have brought him joy before he died. This is particularly true because the neutropenic diet has now been largely debunked.1 The modern oncology patient enjoys the blueberries that only 20 years ago we would have assiduously removed from the room. Like the neutropenic diet, there is little evidence that fresh flowers pose a significant infection risk. Fungal spores could theoretically also come into the ward on fresh fruits and the dusttracked in on employee shoes, yet we ban neither of these. The CDC hospital infection control recommendations note that there are minimal evidence-based studies in this area but cautiously recommend against flowers in areas where immunosuppressed patients are located.  The lack of evidence is reflected in varying hospital policies regarding flowers; some major medical centers ban flowers on the oncology ward and others do not.  I stood before Evelyn with her pink flowers, as she implored me to overrule the policy and allow her to keep them. Bright sunlight shone in through her window and the room felt stuffy and closed, in stark contrast to the lovely outdoor scene. The flowers did add a hint of beauty to an otherwise sterile-appearing room. The vase that held these was clean and the water crystal clear. If we tested the flowers and water, would it be brimming with fungus that would subsequently endanger Evelyn and others on the ward? Who knew? In the absence of evidence, I followed the rules. Evelyn's face fell as I concurred with Frances that it was ward policy to not allow flowers in the room. She was too polite to argue, and though she looked disappointed, her demeanor toward Frances and me did not change. Frances took a picture of the flowers and brought the picture back to Evelyn. The flowers were carefully moved to the oncology elevator lobby. I finished my rounds, put in orders, wrote my notes, and went home to my children. The afternoon was as lovely as when I went into work that morning. My kids rushed at me as I got out of the car, eager for a promised afternoon Easter Egg hunt. My son climbed on the apricot tree in front of our house, and little flower petals fell to the ground as the branches shook from his weight. He was still at an age where he would often pick dandelions in the yard and tuck these carefully behind my ear. It is his simple way of expressing love and it makes me feel cherished. I pictured him, a grown man, bringing flowers to me in the hospital someday, and how painful it might be to have those taken away. I could not quite shake the feeling I had made the wrong decision. I mentally reassured myself that it was hospital policy to take away Evelyn's flowers, and after all, it was for her own protection. Was it not? Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Today, we're joined by Dr. Katy Cappell, Assistant Research Physician at the National Cancer Institute. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, “You Don't Bring Me Flowers.” At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Katy, welcome to our podcast and thank you so much for joining us. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Thank you. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's such a delight to have you here. Can you just start by giving us a little bit of your background? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: I've been practicing mainly in hematologic malignancies, and at the time of the writing of this article, I was an Assistant Research Physician at the National Cancer Institute. Before that, I trained at University of Miami, actually, where you work, for my bachelor's. Then I went to University of North Carolina for an M.D. Ph.D., and then I was at Stanford for my residency, followed by NCI for my fellowship. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's great. I didn't know about your University of Miami connection. I feel like I have to throw up a U to you on our video recording here. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yes. Your screen looks very recognizable from my undergrad. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it's great to be reunited then with you. I was wondering if I could ask you to talk a little bit about your writing process. When did you start writing and when do you find the time to write? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yeah. So this is actually my first story that I've written in a long time, probably in 20 years. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Wow. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: I started writing this story because when I was rounding at this hospital, I always noticed the flowers being absent in rooms. And I liked to chart my notes at the nurse's station where a lot of patients would come and check in. And when they were checking in, I'd often hear people getting their flowers taken away and moved to the lobby. So I've been thinking about the piece for a long time, just from rounding and while I was listening to all these conversations about patients losing their flowers. So that's where it came from. And it's my first piece. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's really amazing. It's a phenomenon we witness all the time when people with all of the best intentions bring things into patients who are in the hospital for three or four weeks, like those patients who are getting treatment for acute leukemia or those who are undergoing a transplant to try to make their room more recognizable and more homelike for them. And then we often see those things whisked away because of hospital policies. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yeah, definitely. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: When you're writing, does an essay all come out at once or do you revisit it? So how do you refine your writing to transform it into a work of art? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: This piece, I started writing, probably, actually a year ago. It took me a long time to get started, to the point where I was thinking about it for a long time, thinking about the piece, for almost a year. I can remember that because I started thinking about it at ASH 2023, and I hadn't really finished it till ASH 2024. And during that time, a lot was going on in my head about how I would structure the piece. And then once I had started writing it, I went through multiple revisions before I got the courage to submit one to JCO. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I love how you frame it in terms of the courage to submit to JCO. I just read a post from Adam Grant, who's an economist and writes about kind of our actions in the workplace, and he mentioned the point that we often will put something off out of fear. It's not some kind of deliberate action on our part to avoid doing something that we don't want to do. It's really fear and fear of failure and fear of anxiety that prevents us from doing something. So you talk about courage. I think the flip side of courage is fear. Describe what that's like, that first moment that you decide, “Okay, I'm going to write a piece, and I want to write something that's public, that other people will see.” Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yeah. I think most people, when they write, it's a very personal thing to share something that you've written, especially if you've been thinking about it in your mind for quite a long time. That's actually part of the reason I don't write very often is because of that. And I think you're right that it comes from fear of sharing it. So I started out by, I was just going to write this for myself. And then as I got more comfortable with it over time, I decided, “Well, I might as well share this piece to see what happens.” Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Did you bounce the idea off of friends or colleagues to kind of see what their reaction would be before you kept taking those steps that eventually led to a completed piece and submitting it to JCO? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yes, I did bounce it off a friend who had the same experience in the same hospital with flowers getting taken away from patients. So I checked to see if other people had had the kind of same reaction to it as I had. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's great. It's always helpful to have a cadre of supportive readers when you first start writing - people who are going to talk about what's great about your piece and then give you advice that you can trust that's more helpful in revising it. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yes. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I love how in this piece you explore the tension we face as hematologist-oncologists between recommending what we feel is medically appropriate for our patients and feeling as if we've taken away some of their agency and some of their liberty. Can you discuss this in a little more detail? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: You'd think that the hardest thing about being a hematologist-oncologist would be knowing all the drugs and knowing what you should do, but I think that that's actually one of the easier parts. The harder part is these kind of interactions that arise because I think they have an emotional component to them and that makes it harder to do, day in and day out, dealing with those things. I mean, I think hospital policies are important and they're there to protect people. So I think, in the end of the story, I did do what the hospital policy said to do. And I think that that's in some ways important to make sure we have a good environment for everybody on the ward. But I think it's really painful as a doctor to have to make those decisions where it impacts someone's agency and someone's joy and what they're getting out of a day to day life, especially when they're in the hospital for a really long time. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Was there something that you could do to make up for it? So sometimes we'll take something away like beautiful flowers for fear of introducing infection in a ward where people are immunocompromised. But we can make up for it by saying, “Okay, but we're okay with you bringing food in from the outside.” Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yeah. So the nurse in the story, I mean, she definitely was trying to make up for it. She was a very sweet nurse with helping me. She went and printed out the picture of the flowers, which I think is one thing you can do, but another thing I've seen a lot of patients do and family members do is bring in paper flowers. They decorate the room in other ways, which I think makes it meaningful and still nice for people. And I think the nurses on our ward did a great job doing that too. They decorate the rooms and try to still keep a very nice environment. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's terrific. What other things do family members do to try to make the room more of a home environment? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Bringing in their own blankets for people so they have their own comforter on the bed is a big one. Bringing in pictures of family members, putting them on the walls, on the windows. Bringing in food from home I think is very important. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I completely agree. And there was a recent study looking at neutropenic precautions in a transplant unit and whether or not those actually improved the outcome of patients, and it turns out it didn't. So we've had these incredibly restrictive diets for patients that I think we can feel much more comfortable now relaxing and allowing people their comfort foods, which you, as a University of Miami graduate know, here involves a lot of Cuban food. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yeah, definitely. But I think that that neutrophenic diet is a great parallel to that. We start instituting things that kind of take away people's agency in something that brings them joy, but we might not have that great of evidence for it. And it really does impact people's happiness, I think, in a lot of ways and comfort in the hospital. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. And that's so important for getting through this ordeal of being in the hospital sometimes for weeks. You start and end the essay writing about your family, and this beautifully illustrates the freedom that they and you have compared to your patients who are confined to the hospital on a lovely holiday weekend. How do you navigate what must feel almost like survivor's guilt of being free from the hospital when others aren't, and being able to shift your focus to the joy of being around your children enjoying their holiday. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yeah, I think children help you focus it themselves. When I come home, they're pretty focused on what they want. They want their Easter egg hunt in the morning. They need their Easter baskets. So that alone brings you back into a different world. I come back, and suddenly I'm thinking about where the Easter eggs are going to go. That helps me a lot doing that. But I also think most people in oncology, most onc physicians, it is a difficult separation. You do think about your patients outside of work hours. That is something that's hard to do. But I'd say my children actually help me with that, getting my mind onto something different because they're just so active and they have so much going all the time. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's interesting how you frame that also, how your children help you. I remember distinctly one time my daughter asked me, “How was work?” And I said, “Oh, it was a hard day because I had to tell somebody some bad news.” And she very deliberately said to me, “You need to separate what you tell us at home from what happens at work. We don't want to hear your sad stories.” Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Oh, that's a sad story in itself. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it is, right? But it was kind of very helpful to me to realize that, yes, we do have to- we have to compartmentalize, not only for our own health, but also for the health of our family. We've chosen this path in our lives, which is this incredible opportunity to be around people who have a cancer diagnosis at a pivotal point in their lives. But our family hasn't necessarily made that same choice. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: The children don't understand it 100%. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Do you feel as if hematologists-oncologists are better at compartmentalizing maybe than other professionals in medicine? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: I'm not sure. I feel like a lot of medicine has those sad points that are difficult. So I think psychiatry is a good example of that. That's hard to, I think probably, very difficult to compartmentalize. So I'm not sure. I think other physicians also have difficulties with it. But I do think we see a lot of difficult scenarios more than other groups. So that could make it that we're better at compartmentalizing. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You mentioned in your essay, you refer to your patient's lumbering son. I love that phrase, the lumbering son who brings her the flowers. Do you think it helps to see that backstory to what's going on in your patients' lives? There's a risk of almost too much empathy, of knowing too much about it, and therefore having an even more difficult time separating yourself. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: For me, I think it helps with patient care a lot to know their family so you know where they're going back when they leave the hospital. You kind of know what helps, you know what they value. So I think in a lot of ways it does help for patient care to know what they're coming from in terms of family members. I do think sometimes getting too involved and knowing too much about the situation and attaching to it emotionally can make it hard to be objective. So I think that it's important to keep some distance there in terms of being able to make good decisions for your patients as well. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You mention looking at people's rooms and seeing the photos up on the wall. I always think we worry about the patients most who don't have any photos up on the wall and what kind of support system they're going back to when they're discharged from the hospital. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Yeah, I definitely agree. That's definitely something I think about as well. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You end this beautiful essay by asking the question, and I'm quoting you now, “I couldn't quite shake the feeling I'd made the wrong decision. I mentally reassured myself that it was hospital policy to take away Evelyn's flowers. And after all, it was for her own protection, wasn't it?” And I'm wondering, I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit, Katy, can you answer your own question? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Boy, I'm not sure if I can still. I think that's part of where the tension in the piece arises from. I think when you're in a hospital, you're working as a team, and part of the thing I think about is nurses are an important part of that team and they structure the ward. So I don't think it's just my decision. I think it's a hospital decision as a team. And I do think there's a component of fairness. If you're going to say it to one patient, that's the policy, it should be the policy to all patients. So in some ways I reassure myself about that. But in the other side of me, it still makes me a little sad. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, it's well stated. I'm wondering that the hospital in which you work changed their policy or did your previous position change their policy? Dr. Kathryn Cappell: I haven't actually mentioned this story to them yet or asked them to change their policy. I do feel it's pretty common at the different hospitals. I've worked at seeing a policy similar to this, so I haven't asked. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, Katy, I want to thank you for joining us today on the podcast. Your writing is elegant, the tale that you tell resonates with all of us, and it's been just delightful getting to know you even better. Dr. Kathryn Cappell: Great to meet you as well. Thank you for having me on. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. Thank you again.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr. Kathryn Cappell is Assistant Research Physician at the National Cancer Institute.  

In this episode of the Building HVAC Science Podcast, Eric Kaiser welcomes David Richardson from the National Comfort Institute. David shares his journey from starting as a “gopher” for his father's HVAC business to becoming a leading advocate and instructor for high-performance HVAC systems. The discussion delves into the evolution of HVAC standards, focusing on the importance of measurements, diagnostics, and craftsmanship in delivering comfort, safety, and energy efficiency. David introduces the concept of high-performance HVAC, emphasizing the importance of field measurements to diagnose and solve system inefficiencies. The conversation highlights tools like the TrueFlow® Grid, which have revolutionized testing accuracy and streamlined processes. They also touch on customer engagement, the challenges of breaking industry habits, and the importance of a growth mindset when adopting new practices. The episode concludes with David encouraging HVAC professionals to embrace small, consistent improvements, measure system performance on their own projects, and engage with the growing community of like-minded industry peers who are eager to share knowledge.   Here is David's LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-richardson-41502112/ NCI's HOMEPAGE: https://www.nationalcomfortinstitute.com/ NCI Store on TruTech website: https://trutechtools.com/nci-store.html Find the Digital TrueFlow® Grid at TruTechTools®: https://trutechtools.com/trueflow     This episode was recorded in January 2025.

In this short Q&A podcast episode, Bryan answers a listener-submitted question and gives some of his tips for moving to HVAC sales from field technician/installer roles. The world of sales has a different pay structure, which makes it an appealing option to many technicians. Salespeople need to be able to have money conversations with confidence and not be afraid to talk about pricing. You can practice these conversations with friends or fellow technicians, including answering questions and responding to objections. Sales confidence is another key to success in sales. Many successful sales techs go into sales with the assumption that the client wants to work with them and aren't timid because they're confident they'll make the sale. Great salespeople also seek out feedback to learn and grow from. Many great salespeople in the HVAC industry also benefit from learning about load calculations, equipment selection, and duct design, particularly via the ACCA manuals and software like Wrightsoft and Kwik Model 3D. The HVAC Grapevine, NCI, and TEC all have great educational resources about building science. Deploying test instruments, including blower doors, duct blasters, and thermal imaging cameras, also gives you vital information about the structure and shows clients that you're going above and beyond for their comfort; you're delivering quality and doing so with integrity. Communication skills are a crucial part of sales, and the best thing you can do to start honing your communication skills is to ask good questions and listen for valuable answers. Empathy is also important in sales, and it's most effective when you can understand your client's priorities.     Have a question that you want us to answer on the podcast? Submit your questions at https://www.speakpipe.com/hvacschool.  Purchase your tickets or learn more about the 6th Annual HVACR Training Symposium at https://hvacrschool.com/symposium. Take the HVAC School Industry Pulse Survey by WorkHero at https://hvacrschool.com/industrypulse.  Subscribe to our podcast on your iPhone or Android.   Subscribe to our YouTube channel.  Check out our handy calculators here or on the HVAC School Mobile App for Apple and Android

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and his guests Dr. Ann Wu and Dr. Alexa White discuss the article "Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Multiethnic Cohort Study" and the editorial "Growing Evidence for the Role of Air Pollution in Breast Cancer Development"  TRANSCRIPT The guests on this podcast episode have no disclosures to declare.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy.  Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. Anna Wu and Dr. Alexander White. Dr. Wu is a professor of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of UCS, while Dr. White is an investigator in the Epidemiology branch of the Environment and Cancer Epidemiology Group at the National Institute of Health.  Today, we will be discussing the article titled, “Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Multiethnic Cohort Study,” and the accompanying editorial.  So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Wu, Dr. White. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for having us. Dr. Alexandra White: Yes, thank you so much for the invitation to be here. Dr. Davide Soldato: So before going in depth about the results of the study that was published in the JCO, I was wondering if you could give us like a brief introduction and a little bit of background about what was known about air pollution as a risk factor for breast cancer and what was the evidence before this study was conducted. Dr. Alexandra White: Okay. I can start with that question. So, there's been research for decades looking at the relationship between air pollution and breast cancer. And it's been a really challenging question to address for a number of reasons. One being that it can be really difficult to assess exposure to air pollution and many previous studies have had really limited information on people's residences over time. But in general, what we thought leading up to this study was that evidence was most consistent that exposure to traffic related pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide was more consistently related to a higher risk of breast cancer. The evidence for fine particulate matter or PM2.5 was less consistent. More recently, there have been a few large, well conducted studies that have supported a positive association. This new study in the multiethnic cohort led by Dr. Wu is really important because it really demonstrated that, in this large study of over 50,000 women in California, that they also do see an association with PM2.5.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much for the introduction. So, Dr. Wu, we just want to hear a little bit more about the results. So, what was the association that was observed for PM2.5? And specifically, the study that you ran was focused on a very diverse population, a multiethnic cohort, and so I was wondering if you observed any type of differences when you consider the different populations that were included in your study. And if you could also give us a little bit of what was the composition of the women that were enrolled in this cohort. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for the question. So, the multiethnic cohort study is a cohort of over 200,000 individuals who were enrolled when they lived in Hawaii or California. For the air pollution studies that we've been conducting, we have focused on primarily the California participants. And in this instance for the breast cancer study, it was based on roughly 56,000 individuals out of- there were about 100,000 because half of them were men and they were not included. Of the California participants, 75% of them were African Americans or Latinos and they were self-identified as these racial ethnic groups when they enrolled in the study. And this was a particularly important consideration for us because in most of the studies that have been published so far on-air pollution and breast cancer, as well as other cancer sites, most of those studies were conducted among whites in the US or whites in Europe. And even if they included non-white populations, the numbers tend to be small so that they were not able to conduct racial ethnic specific analysis. So, we were particularly interested in examining these other racial ethnic groups because we know from other studies that racial ethnic minority groups tend to live in communities of low socioeconomic status and those communities also tend to have higher levels of various types of environmental pollutants. And so, it was important for us to actually try to tease apart these various interrelated factors.  So, what we found was that per 10 micrograms per cubic meter, we had a 28% increased risk overall in all participants combined that meet across the racial ethnic groups. We actually did not see any differences or significant differences in the hazard ratios by race ethnicity and they were in general quite compatible with each other. But we did see a stronger finding among the white participants in our study. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you, a lot, Dr. Wu. So, I think it's very interesting the fact that in the end you observed that air pollution is a significant risk factor across all the ethnicities that were included in the study. But I think that one very strong point of the manuscript and one very strong point of the analysis was that in the end you also corrected for a series of different factors because we know that the incidence of breast cancer can be modified, for example, by familial history or BMI or smoking habits or also alcohol consumption. And a lot of these risk factors were included in your analysis. And so, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit whether you observed any significant differences when you observed or included also these risk factors in your analysis, or whether the association for air pollution as a risk factor stands even when we consider all of these other elements. Dr. Anna Wu: Yes. So, we considered all the well-established breast cancer risk factors. And in this situation, we were particularly interested in considering smoking, alcohol intake, use of menopausal hormones, history of diabetes, body mass index, family history, as well as physical activity, because many of these risk factors, such as, for example, diabetes and body mass index, they are risk factors for breast cancer, and air pollution, have also been found to increase risk of these factors.  So, in our analysis, we first adjusted for all of these potential confounders in a mutually adjusted manner, so all of them were considered. In addition, we also conducted stratify analysis. So as an example, we stratified the analysis to examine whether the hazard ratio associated with PM2.5 provided comparable risk estimate or hazard ratio estimates for never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. Although we did not see significant heterogeneity by these various subgroups, we did see a significantly stronger effect of PM2.5 among individuals who did not have a family history of breast cancer.  Interestingly, our finding was also stronger among individuals who were never smokers and light alcohol drinkers, even though the results were not significantly different. So, we surmised that maybe individuals who already had a high risk because of other established risk factors for breast cancer, we were less likely to be able to observe the effect of air pollution. But it's important to note that other studies, such as the ones that Dr. White has conducted, have also looked at various subgroups, and I think part of the limitation that all of us have is that once you subdivide the study population, even if you start out with a large sample size, often the sample size gets cut in half or a third. And so, we still lack the statistical power to be able to observe significant differences. But I think it is important to note that, in fact, the hazard ratio estimates are actually quite comparable, but we did see a hint of stronger effects among never smokers, and people who were light alcohol drinkers. So, I think this is an area that we certainly need to continue to investigate since there are other subgroups, such as menopausal status, such as hormone receptor status of breast cancer, that we need to consider in future studies. There's still a lot of work we need to do to sort this out, to actually figure out who are the women who are the most susceptible to the exposures. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. White, I would really love a comment from you on this specific area and specifically on what still needs to be done. And related to this, a question actually, for both of you, because I think that from a methodological point of view, there is a lot of work that goes into deciding how we are going to assess the exposure to air pollution. So which type of data are we going to use? Which type of data are we currently using in the epidemiological studies that have been conducted and in the one that we are discussing right now in JCO? And what are the caveats for this data that we are using? Meaning, I think that we use mostly residential addresses, which means that we are looking at the exposure where people actually live, which might not be the place where they spend most of their time. For example, if someone is working, maybe they could be more exposed and have higher exposure when they are at work compared to when they are at home. So, I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an overview as to what is the methodological standard of care right now in terms of this analysis and what can we do better to refine and understand this specific factor as Dr. Wu was mentioning? Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so I'm happy to take a first stab at that question. So, I think it's important to note just how far we've come. I think even a few years ago, air pollution was really not considered a risk factor for breast cancer. And a lot of the work that we've been doing and others have really moved this forward in terms of understanding this as a risk factor. And as I mentioned earlier, there have been a lot of challenges in exposure assessment. And to get to your question, I think that our studies in general are doing better at looking at exposure over more years, residences, more time. We know that cancer takes time to develop, and we can't rely on just a single snapshot of exposure. But as you mentioned, almost all of the studies published have really exclusively focused on residential estimates of exposure. And so, there's a real need to understand the exposures that people are experiencing in other aspects of their life, from their commute to their jobs, to really capture that totality of exposure.  And then I think one of the points that Dr. Wu was alluding to as well as we know that breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease, so risk factors for breast cancer vary by tumor subtypes, by menopausal status at diagnosis. And a lot of studies have really focused on considering breast cancer as a combined outcome, and that might be missing some really important signals where we might have a stronger effect for certain subtypes due to the fact that there's different biologic pathways that are underlying these subtypes or by menopausal status. And so having large study populations where, as we discussed earlier, would really give us the power to look among these smaller groups of women who might be more susceptible and those with younger women, we know that incidence of cancer is rising in young people, and we need to understand the risk factors for that. And most of our studies are really focused on older individuals, so I think that's one important gap, as well as having the power to really look at different differences by tumor subtypes. Dr. Davide Soldato: I think it's very interesting, and I think one point both of you made in the original article and in the accompanying editorial is also the fact that we tend to look at these risk factors in people who are actually aged, while we maybe should be looking at this in an earlier phase of development and potentially during puberty. Do you think that we should design studies that are more focused on this population even though I think that they will take a lot of time to produce significant results?  Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah. I think that it is really important to consider how exposure during early life is related to breast cancer risk. We know that exposures during pregnancy or even as early as during puberty might be particularly relevant for breast cancer. And I think a lot of our studies have really been up against the challenge of the fact that exposure monitoring for air pollution really didn't start until the 1990s. And so, it's challenging, especially for these older cohorts, to get back at that time period that might be relevant. But I think that's something that definitely newer cohorts are going to be able to address, and I think it's going to be really important, and also will give us some clues to better understand the important windows of exposure, but also that might provide clues for the biologic pathways as well that are relevant. Dr. Davide Soldato: And just a related question, because I'm not aware of this, but are there right now cohorts that are specifically looking at this in the US or in other parts of the world? If you are aware of that, of course.  Dr. Alexandra White: There have been some cohorts that have focused on exposure during these hypothesized windows of susceptibility, but I don't think they've been able to follow those women long enough to develop breast cancer. One of the things that we're working on in the sister study is trying to expand our assessment of air pollution exposure back in time to try to get at these earlier windows of exposure. So, I'm hoping that it's something we'll be able to comment on and at least for some of the women in our cohort who are younger. But I don't know, Dr. Wu, if you're familiar with any other populations that are doing this now?  Dr. Anna Wu: Well, NCI funded several new cohorts in the last couple years that are really focused on trying to get a much more refined exposure assessment. So, I know colleagues at University of Michigan that are peers and also Dr. Wei Zheng at Vanderbilt, they are putting together newer cohorts that are younger and also trying to include a range of exposure, not just air pollution, but really environmental exposures. Those cohorts I think have the potential in the future to try to address some of these questions, but again, it will take at least another number of years before there are a sufficient number of endpoints so that they can actually do these types of studies.  Another possibility is that there are a number of big cohort studies in Asia. The age of diagnosis tends to be earlier in Asia. I know that investigators in China are very interested and concerned with the air pollution effects in China. I think there are potentials that in other countries where the age of breast cancer diagnosis is actually younger than in the US and if they establish in a manner that allows them to assess air pollution that they may have opportunities.  And I think the other way to try to address this question, whether there are studies where you can actually tap into either biomarkers or pathology samples so you won't be actually studying air pollution in a large population, but you're actually narrowing it down to try to see if you see any signals in a way that would give you some additional clues and insights as to the mechanism. So I think we're going to have to piece together various types of study to try to answer the questions because one type of study like these observational air pollution studies, will allow us to address one slice of the questions that we have and then we need to put together other studies so that we can address other aspects that we're interested in to put it together. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much both of you. That was very interesting.  Coming back to the results of the manuscript, we really focused up until now on PM2.5. But it's true that inside of the study you evaluated different pollutants. So, I was wondering whether you saw a similar association for other pollutants that were included in the study or whether the association for higher risk was observed only for PM2.5. Dr. Anna Wu: The results for NO2, NOx, PM10, and carbon monoxide were actually very compatible with the risk estimates that other studies have published as well as from the meta-analysis. So, I would say that our results from the other pollutants are actually very consistent with other results. I think one difference is that our PM2.5 estimates were based on the satellite-based PM2.5 estimates, whereas all the other pollutants were based on monitoring station estimates from EPA sponsored air monitoring stations. So, they are not measured in the same way. And I think different studies over time have used either monitoring station type measures for other pollutants. And I think we were particularly interested in PM2.5 because the measurement of PM2.5 in the monitoring world didn't start until around 2000. So, studies up until that time were less able to actually provide the assessment of PM2.5 as good as we can for air pollution. There's always misclassification. So, I think it's a matter of how much misclassification in the assessment. But, again, we are really limited in really just having exposure over one part of adult life.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And one potentially related question. We are speaking in general about air pollution, but I think that since we are considering residential addresses, probably we are capturing more either traffic pollution or pollution that comes from probably industries or stuff like that, which is mostly related to residential areas or the place where people live. But I think that in the end we also think about air pollution as something that can come from different forms. And one very interesting point, Dr. White, that you made in your editorial is also that there is a global change also in the way we are faced with air pollution. For example, you made the example of wildfires in your editorial and how this might potentially change exposure to air pollution, maybe for limited times, but with concentrations that are fairly higher compared to what we generally observed. So, I was wondering if you could comment a little bit on that and also, if there is potentially a way to also consider this in future epidemiological studies. Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so when we talk about exposure to fine particulate matter, PM2.5, we're assessing exposure to particles that are based on the size of the particle, and we're really not evaluating the types of particles that people are experiencing exposure to. And we know that, in general, that PM2.5 composition really varies geographically due to differing sources of exposure. So, like you were saying, there might be a stronger contribution to industry or from agriculture or from traffic. And so that could really change the PM2.5 exposure profile that individuals experience. And so it could be that this is another really important area that this research needs to consider, which could really help us identify what sources of exposure are most relevant.   Wildfires are a really important growing concern. We know that wildfires are increasing in both intensity and duration and frequency, and we really don't understand the long-term health impacts of wildfires. But we know that wildfire associated PM2.5 might be one of the most dominant contributors to PM2.5 moving forward. And although we've seen historic declines in PM2.5 in the US after the Clean Air Act, those declines have really stalled. PM2.5 itself is projected to increase over the next few decades, so understanding different PM2.5 composition profiles and the sources that drive them can really help us identify the most important targets for any potential interventions. And wildfire PM2.5 in particular may be of concern because it's a combustion byproduct, and so it's thought to have more of the components that might, we hypothesize, are most relevant for breast cancer, such as PAHs or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or metals. And so, these components are thought to act as endocrine disruptors, which may be particularly relevant for breast cancer. So, I think understanding this changing landscape of PM2.5 moving forward is going to be really important in understanding how PM2.5 contributes to cancers beyond just breast, but as well as other female hormone driven cancers and all of the cancers really.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. So, one closing remark, because I think that in general, we have been really in a field of primary prevention for breast cancer where we were focusing on individual behaviors, for example, smoking cessation, reduction in alcohol intake, reduction of BMI, increase of physical activity. But I think that the evidence that is accumulating in the last three years or so is telling us more and more that we also need to shift the perspective on prevention going not only on individuals, but also as including environmental risk. So, I was wondering, how can we include this new evidence in the policies that we implement and how policymakers should act on the data that we have available right now? Dr. Anna Wu: I think it's really important that this new information is communicated to all the stakeholders, including our policymakers, so that they are, first of all, really aware that any changes and not actually adhering to current guidelines can have long lasting consequences, deleterious consequences. And I think it's important to also note that over 90% of the world actually live in areas where PM2.5 exceeds the limit. We have observed increases in breast cancer in many middle- and low-income countries, so I think it's particularly important to emphasize that this is really not just a western country issue, it is really a global issue. Dr. Alexandra White: I agree. And I would just add to that that air pollution is not something that an individual can really change on their own. There are things you can do, you can monitor air quality, you can try to live in a home that's far away from traffic. But really these are large scale problems that really require large scale solutions. And we know that policy changes can be effective here and that this is something that, in my opinion, is not something that we leave to the individual to change. This is something that we as a society should encourage change for the health of everyone. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, thank you very much again, Dr. Wu, Dr. White, for joining us today on the podcast. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you. Dr. Alexandra White: Thank you so much for having us.  Dr. Davide Soldato: So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article and accompanying editorial titled, “Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidents in the Multiethnic Cohort Study.”  If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

JCO PO authors Dr. Philippe Bedard (Staff Medical Oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Professor of Medicine at University of Toronto) and Dr. Alberto Hernando Calvo (Medical Oncologist at Vall d´Hebron University Hospital) share insights into their JCO PO article, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab,” one of the top downloaded articles of 2024. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Bedard and Hernando Calvo discuss how combined transcriptome and ctDNA longitudinal analysis associates with pembrolizumab outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma.  Today we are excited to be joined by Dr. Philippe Bedard, Staff Medical Oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center and Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto, as well as by Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo, Medical Oncologist at the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, both authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab.”  Thank you for joining us today. Phil and Alberto. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Thank you. Dr. Philippe Bedard: Great to be with you. Thanks for having us.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the reasons we do this podcast, as some of the listeners who listen to this podcast regularly may know, is to bring in novel approaches and try to understand how the field is moving towards a space where we are understanding biomarkers better. So your manuscript that was published in JCO Precision Oncology fulfills many of those criteria. And interestingly enough, I was at a conference at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer last month earlier in November and a lot of excitement at SITC was revolving around novel transcriptomic biomarkers, proteomic biomarkers or imaging based biomarkers. So could you tell us a little bit about why you started looking at biomarkers? This is an extremely competitive field. Why did you think that looking at the transcriptome is somewhat different from or more interesting from tumor mutational burden PDL-1 than other biomarkers that we currently use? And that question is for you Alberto to start off.  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So I think gene expression profiles may have a predictive performance as compared to already existing biomarkers and this was one of the points that we describe in our manuscript. The gene expression signature that we developed back in 2019 at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology was initially developed based on over 45 different tumor types and tested in over 1000 patients treated with antiPD-1 and anti PDL-1. And back then and in this manuscript, we proved that for instance the gene expression signature VIGex that we developed has a potential complementary role to other predictive biomarkers. In this case, we observe this predictive power with ctDNA dynamics and we then see a correlation with other existing biomarkers such as tumor mutational burden. So I don't think we need to use one or the other, but rather they may have additive predictive power. So we need to better individualize predictive biomarkers based on tumor types and select the best combination possible to improve the performance.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree that one size does not fit all, especially in the landscape of immunotherapy. From your perspective, when you developed the original signature, how did you choose what genes to look at? I looked at the manuscript, on the methodology side, some of the signatures are pro-inflammatory STING interferon gamma based, so how did you try to identify that these are the 7 to 10 or whatever number of signatures on the transcriptome side? And then why did you try to combine it with ctDNA based changes?  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Back in our initial manuscript, published in Med from Cell Press, we developed the VIGex gene expression signature, as I mentioned, with taking into consideration over 1000 tumor samples from FFPE that we can consider real world samples because they are from real patients coming from the clinic notes as part of real investigational protocol doing or performing biopsies on patients. We did observe after doing a VIGex research and doing different tests, we eventually collected these 12 different genes. Because there is a combination of both genes involved in the interferon gamma pathway, we have genes associated with Tregs as well as T cell memory cells. So it's not only looking at genes that are associated with T cell activation or CD8+ T cell infiltration, but also looking at genes that may be overactivated, overexpressed, an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. So it was both selecting genes, the minimum number of genes to do it more scalable and having the minimum dataset of genes and including in the signature genes that are already at targets for immune sequent inhibitors or are being tested in immunotherapy combinations.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you. And Phil, for the sake of our listeners, could you elaborate upon this aspect of using ctDNA? So this was tumor-informed ctDNA from what I understood in the manuscript. You guys basically try to use it to understand changes in the ctDNA with treatment and then try to combine it with the transcriptome signature. How did the idea come up initially and how did you plan on combining this with an RNA-based signature? Because I have seen manuscripts and other data where people are either using one or the other, but not necessarily both together. So how did you guys come up with that idea? Dr. Philippe Bedard: Well, we thought that this was a great opportunity to look at the combination of the transcriptome as well as the ctDNA dynamics because we had run an investigator-initiated phase 2 clinical trial called INSPIRE at our institution at Princess Margaret from 2016 to 2018, where patients across five different tumor groups received single agent pembrolizumab. And we really did a deep dive on these patients where there were tumor biopsies before and while on treatment. We did exome sequencing, we did RNA sequencing to capture the transcriptome. And in a prior analysis, we had partnered with Natera to look at their Signatera assay, which is a bespoke ctDNA assay, to look at ctDNA dynamics using this test and the association with response outcomes as well as survival outcomes. So we thought that this was a really unique data set to try and address the question of whether or not there was complementarity in terms of looking at the transcriptome and transcriptome signatures of IO benefit together with the ctDNA dynamics. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a patient treatment standpoint, it sounded like you mostly tried to include individuals who were treated with pembrolizumab. Did this not include individuals who were treated with chemoimmunotherapy or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab? Just pembrolizumab alone? And if that's the case, some of the tumor types there included, from what I remember, ovarian cancer and some other unusual cancers that don't necessarily have approvals for single agent pembrolizumab, but perhaps in the TMB-high setting. So can you elaborate on the patient selection there for the study?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question. So at the time that the study was designed in 2015, this was really the early days of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, so we didn't have the approvals that we have now in specific tumor types for immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations. So when the study was designed as an investigator initiated clinical trial, the idea was really to capture patients across different tumor types - so head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, ovarian cancer, triple negative breast cancer, and a kind of mixed histology solid tumor cohort, where we knew that there were some patients who were going to be immunotherapy responsive, where there was already approvals or evidence of single agent activity, and others where the responses were more anecdotal, to try and understand in a phase 2 clinical trial with kind of a deep dive, which patients benefited from treatment and which didn't. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Interesting approach. Going to the results, Alberto, could you help us understand some of the important findings from these data? Because there's different sections of how you tried to look at the response rates, the survival, looking at the immune deconvolution, if you could explain that. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So the first thing that we tried was to further confirm the external validation of this immune gene expression signature, VIGex in the INSPIRE asset. So what we observed at VIGex-Hot, the category defined by VIGex-Hot tumor microenvironment, was associated with better progression free survival. After including that in a multivariable analysis adjusted by other biomarkers such as TMB, PDL-1 or tumor type, this was also confirmed for overall survival. So then the next step was to really try to hypothesize if the addition of ctDNA dynamics, taking into consideration the ctDNA quantification at baseline as compared to cycle three, if those dynamics could further improve the predictive performance of VIGex categories taken in the baseline samples. What we did observe was that, for instance, VIGex-Hot tumors in baseline tumor samples that were having a ctDNA decrease, as I mentioned before on cycle three assessment as compared to baseline, were having both better progression free survival and better prognosis overall. Another important finding was the evaluation of response rate across tumor types considering both biomarkers. I would say the most important finding is that when we were considering a cold tumor microenvironment in baseline samples before pembrolizumab initiation plus an increase in ctDNA values, what we observed is that those patients were having a 0% response rate. So this may help as a future strategy either for intensification of immunotherapy regimens in a more individualized way or for an early stop to immunotherapy and try to avoid financial toxicities as well as toxicities for our patients. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From the data that you showed, it seems that there was a strong correlation, as you sort of mentioned, between individuals that had ctDNA clearance and baseline immune pro-inflammatory signatures. So do you really need the transcriptome signature or could the ctDNA just serve as an easy quick surrogate? Because from a cost standpoint, doing whole transcriptome sequencing or more RNA sequencing or tissue standpoint, where tissue is often limited, can become a big issue. So do you think that validation of this may perhaps more revolve around using ctDNA as an easier metric or surrogate? Or am I overestimating the utility of ctDNA? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think it's a really good question. In our data set which was relatively small, there were 10 patients who had ctDNA clearance, meaning ctDNA that was positive at baseline was not detected. And so 9 out of those 10 patients, as you alluded to, were VIGex-Hot. So the question is a good one, could you do the same with just ctDNA clearance alone, particularly in identifying these patients who really do well, who have long term disease control on immunotherapy? I think it's a tough question to answer because the field is also changing in terms of sensitivity of detection of ctDNA tests. So we know now that there are newer generations of tests which can detect even at logs down in terms of allele variants in the circulation. So I think we need more data to address the question. I think it is important as to what is the best test, what is the endpoint that we should be using from a drug development point of view in terms of really trying to push and understand which treatment regimens are the most effective and have early readouts in terms of activity. Because we all recognize in the clinic that radiographic response doesn't tell the whole story, especially early radiographic assessments using RECIST or other criteria that we apply in clinical trials. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a clinical trial standpoint, we often talk about validation of these studies. You may have heard of other tests where, for example, the NCI iMatch, which is incorporating transcriptome sequencing based approach to stratify patients as an integral biomarker for treatment stratification. Is that something that you guys are thinking of using, this approach where individuals who are signature highly inflamed perhaps get lesser therapies or there's a de-intensification of some sort similar to what people are trying to do with ctDNA-based approaches? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think that's a great question. I think it makes a lot of sense. And certainly, with the new wave antibody drug conjugates in terms of identifying patients who have expression of targets for antibody drug conjugates, that's very attractive as an approach because we don't necessarily have IHC markers for all of the different targets of antibody drug conjugates. We don't necessarily have IHC markers to completely understand different contributions to the tumor microenvironment and whether or not tumors are inflamed. But it's also a challenging approach too because RNA-seq currently is not a routine clinical test. Sometimes there are issues, particularly in patients who have stored specimens that are formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded in terms of the quality of the RNA for RNA sequencing. And it's not always feasible to get pre-treatment biopsies and turn them around in an approach. So I think it is an attractive approach for clinical trials, but it's a hypothesis that needs to be tested. It's not something that is ready for clinical prime time today in 2024. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the other interesting observations that I came across in your manuscript was that tumor mutational burden, interestingly, did not correlate with signature high tumors. What is the explanation for that? Because generally you would expect a TMB high to perhaps also have an immune gene high signature. Could it have something to do with the tumor types because there was a heterogeneous mixture of tumor type? Or I'm not sure. What else could you possibly think of that you didn't see those correlations or just sample size limitations? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So our findings are consistent with prior data suggesting for instance T cell inflamed gene expression profile was also not correlated with tumor mutational burden and both biomarkers in a prior publication. So to have additive predictive performance for identifying patients most likely to benefit from anti PD-1 regimen, so we somehow were expecting this observation, the fact that both biomarkers are not very correlated. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So given the proof of concept findings from your study, Phil, what is the next interesting step that you guys are thinking of to expand this? Would you think that a nivolumab-ipilimumab treated cohort would have similar findings? Or is this a treatment specific single agent immunotherapy specific correlation that you found versus something else that you may find in a nivo-ipi cohort or a doublet immune checkpoint cohort?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: The findings are really hypothesis generating. They require additional validation. And you're quite right, there may be nuances in terms of specific tumor types, combinations with other immunotherapy or combinations with chemotherapy or other agents. So I think it would be great if there are other data sets that are collecting this type of information that have ctDNA dynamics and also have transcriptome and potentially exome or genome analysis to look at these types of questions because the field is moving quickly and we really need more data sets in order to understand some of the nuances and greater numbers to validate the signals that we see. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And one thing, as you said, the field is definitely moving very quickly. I was meeting with a company an hour back and they have an imaging-based approach using fresh tissue to look at pharmacodynamic biomarkers. And I used to work in the NCI with a group that was very interested and they developed an immuno-oncology pharmacodynamic panel that has been used and published in a few clinical trials where they did phosphorylation status. So the final theme that comes out of most of these research based studies that are being done is that one size does not fit all. But the question that comes to my mind is how many things do you necessarily need to combine to get to a predictive biomarker that is useful, that is patient centric, and that perhaps is able to identify the right therapy for the right patient. What is your take on that, Phil?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question too. The challenge is it depends on the context in terms of what degree of positive predictive value do you need as well as the negative predictive value to drive clinical decisions. So I think in certain situations where you don't have other approved treatment options and with a therapy that is potentially low toxicity and low financial toxicity, then I think the bar is very high in terms of being able to really confidently identify that patients aren't going to benefit. I think the nuance and the challenge becomes when you move into earlier lines of therapy, or when you talk about combinations of agents, or trying to understand within the context of other available options, particularly with treatments that have significant side effect profiles as well as financial risks, then it becomes a much more nuanced question and you really need comparative studies to understand how it fits versus the existing treatment paradigm. So I'm not really answering your question with a specific number because I think it's hard to give you a number. Some of that we also need input from patients in terms of what kind of level of validation do you need and what kind of level of discrimination do you need in order to drive decisions that are meaningful for them. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely early days, as you pointed out. More and more work in this field will hopefully lead us in the direction that we all want to go in.  Now, going to a different aspect of this podcast, which is trying to understand the trajectories for both of you, Phil and Alberto. And as you mentioned, this project seemed to have started in 2015. So I'm guessing there's a history there between Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron. Could you highlight that a little bit? And then perhaps, Alberto, after that you could tell us a little bit about your career when you worked at Princess Margaret as a fellow and then now back at Vall d'Hebron. Phil, you as well. Dr. Philippe Bedard: So absolutely. We have a long history of collaborating with Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona. It's really a great cancer institution with a lot of like minded individuals. We have a formal partnership and we have a lot of informal links in terms of scientists and clinicians who we work with and who we collaborate with on early phase clinical trials, as well as through different investigator networks and other translational projects. So this was really how this collaboration came about and we were fortunate to have Alberto, who came to work with us for two years and brought this great idea of looking at this signature they had developed at Vall d'Hebron in their phase one group and applying it to a data set that we had through the INSPIRE clinical trial.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sounds like a very successful academia-academic collaboration, which is very nice to see. So, Alberto, could you tell us a little bit about your career trajectory and how you ended up at Princess Margaret and then back at Vall d'Hebron and what you do currently? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So I did my oncology residency at Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona, Spain. Then I decided to further specialize in early drug development as well as head and neck cancer oncology. So I decided to pursue a clinical research fellowship under the supervision of Phil Bedard, among others. And so we decided to further validate the signature that we had developed both in the cancer genomic lab at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology and the phase one unit at Vall d'Hebron, and apply the signature that have been originally tested in patients receiving anti PD-1 or anti PDL-1 combinations in early phase clinical trials. In the phase 2 clinical trial of INSPIRE, where we also had ctDNA dynamics and allowed us to test both biomarkers and see that additive predictive power when we were using both. That was one of my research topics under the mentorship of Dr. Bedard and my fellowship at Princess Margaret. And this was one of the manuscripts describing all the findings of this collaboration between Vall d'Hebron and Princess Margaret Cancer Center. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And then, Phil, if you could highlight some of the things that you've done over the course of your career and perhaps some advice for early career junior investigators and trainees.  Dr. Philippe Bedard: I finished my oncology, medical oncology training at the University of Toronto in 2008. And then I did a breast cancer fellowship in Brussels at Breast International Group. At the time, I was really intrigued because it was really kind of the early days of microarray and RNA signatures in terms of expressing signatures were being used as part of a clinical trial that BIG was running called the MINDACT Study. And so when I finished my fellowship, I came back to Princess Margaret, started on staff. I've been here now for 15 years. I was fortunate to work with the phase 1 group and kind of my career has sort of morphed in terms of early drug development as well as genomics. I've been involved with the American Association for Cancer Research project GENIE, where I'm the current chair. This is really an international data sharing project with panel based sequencing, which both Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron have contributed to. And I've been fortunate to work with a number of really talented early career investigators like Alberto, who spend time with us in our drug development program and launched transitional research projects that leverage some existing data sets at their own institutions and also bring together with different research groups at our institution to lead to publications like this one. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. This was very exciting. Phil and Albert, thanks for joining us today and thank you for allowing us to discuss your interesting manuscript and hopefully we'll see more of this biomarker work from you guys in the near future, perhaps published in JCO Precision Oncology.   And thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.     The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Suzanne George and Liz Salmi discuss their JCO article "Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality" TRANSCRIPT TO COME Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO's After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Liz Salmi, Researcher and Patient Advocate, and by Dr. Suzanne George, who works as a Medical Oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute where she acts as the Chief of the Division of Sarcoma. She is also Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Today, we are going to discuss with Suzanne and with Liz the article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” So thank you for speaking with us, Suzanne, Liz. Liz Salmi: Thanks for having us. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, thanks. Dr. Davide Soldato: I just want to make a brief introduction because I think that the concept of patient partner research is very wide and I'm not sure that all of the readers of JCO really have a deep understanding because I imagine that there are a lot of ways we can involve patient and patient advocates in the research process. And so I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an introduction about the concept. Dr. Suzanne George: Sure. I think the point that you raise is really important because there are many terms that are used, patient-partnered research, patient advocacy, but I don't think that there's a single definition as to what that actually means. In the context of our work, we've sort of summarized our experience through something called the PE-CGS or the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing network. And in that project, which is a Moonshot funded network, the intention is to have participants in research be true partners working with traditional academic research teams in order to develop networks specifically focused on cancer genomics. So what we've done, every center is a little bit different in the network, but we're really having research participants not just act, but really work on the research team from the beginning of the project inception all the way through the research project. Liz Salmi: What brings me to the PE-CGS network is my 17 years experience as a person living with a low grade glioma, brain tumor or brain cancer and involving patients in the co-design of research is super critical because patients bring unique lived experiences that can shape research questions, study designs and outcome measures in ways researchers might not anticipate. And we're finding this through our network. So through my work, including my patient experience and brain tumor focused study designs, I've seen firsthand that patient insights can drive more practical implementations that ultimately benefit both patients and the researchers. And so the particular project I work on in the network, we've got like five different arms and different groups of cancer types that are being represented, so I'm basically focusing on the OPTIMUM study around how brain tumor patients can help in this study design. So in this project I serve as not just a participant in the research, but also as a patient co-investigator. Dr. Davide Soldato: That is very interesting. And I think that we really captured the essence of patient-partnered research by having both of you here talking with us about the PE-CGS. And the second question that I wanted to ask is: I really think that the network focuses on something that is quite important right now and currently in medical oncology - so cancer genome sequencing, access to novel therapies - and I think that it's really challenging to imagine a way in which we can really get our patient and get patient advocates to help us designing new trials who are looking into this. And I just wanted to know, do you think that there is something that is particularly challenging when we are speaking specifically about cancer genomics and access to this type of drugs that are targeting specific molecular alteration? Because I think that in general it might be a little bit easier, maybe I'm biased on this, so you can also tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that it's a little bit easier when we are trying to design, for example, behavioral intervention or things that are more commonly found in oncology and a little bit more complicated when we are speaking about genomics. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that's part of what this network is trying to address, which is really what are the barriers and the opportunities around cancer genomics from the patient perspective and how do we make sure that that perspective is included as we're thinking about study design and inclusion? As Liz mentioned, this network has five different networks within the network, five different centers, and each center is slightly different with the population that it engages with. And so there's diversity there in terms of reaching out to different patient communities and partner communities around potential barriers for genomics research. I think one of the things though that we're finding across the network is that people want to be part of this work. People that have a lived experience of cancer want to help move the field forward. And what we ended up writing about was some of the barriers that get in the way of that. It's awesome to have people like Liz that are like all in and then there's people who are on the other end of the spectrum that want to share their information to help move the field forward around genomics, but then there's all these barriers at the systems level that get in the way of that. So I think that that's one of the challenges we're trying to overcome and learn about across the network. Liz Salmi: Yeah, I think I bring this really interesting, I can't say I'm really interesting, but I think I bring this really niche perspective. Not only am I a person living with a brain tumor and I'm a co-investigator but also like a participant in this study. I also, in my day job, I'm an investigator as part of the director of communications and patient initiatives on the OpenNotes lab at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. And our lab really focuses on how open, transparent communication between doctors and patients improves care. And that's been going on for longer than I've been around on our team. But what I bring to that lab is I focus on engaging both patients and clinicians in spreading the awareness about the power of how easy access and transparent communication, access to information across healthcare settings helps patients feel more involved and informed in their care.   And I work specifically, it's a really niche area. I work on projects that aim to expand access to notes and test results in diverse care settings, really helping tailoring initiatives so that various patient communities can understand how they can be involved in these types of research projects. Ultimately that's what brought me into this space. I might be one of the first generation of patients that actually starts helping co-design studies on things like this. And I think that across a lot of healthcare settings cancer is really what we're focused on. But patients are now increasingly being involved as research collaborators. And there's many different funding institutions such as the NCI but also PCORI they now mandate that funders reflect a shift towards more patient centered research frameworks. So it's like the PE-CGS network isn't the only group that's being funded to do research in this way. And I think other investigators, even outside of the cancer space, but specifically in cancer, need to learn how to do research in this way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I agree. And I think the other thing that we need to do is if people want to participate and that participation in many of these networks has to do with record sharing and data sharing, the system needs to accommodate that. If people want to share their information in order to allow research to be performed, then we need to make sure that that can happen, and that it's not that the institution systems don't connect with someone else's systems or that you to pay X, Y and Z dollars for the data to go A, B and C, or that some places are on this EHR and some places are on that EHR and so, sure, you can share it, but you have to go through all of these hurdles in order to make it happen. When a patient signs a consent form that says, “I want my data to be used,” we as an investigator community, we owe it to that patient to make sure that their information is being part of the data set that will be used for learnings. And that's part of what we wrote about, is the lots of behind the scenes things that just get in the way and that we need to work towards improving. Liz Salmi: Both Suzanne and I are really passionate about this stuff. And as a person living with a brain tumor for the last 17 years, I'm a chronic research participant. I always, always, am really curious. I'm like, “Yes, let me contribute my data. Whether that's electronic health record data or maybe I'm being interviewed about certain aspects of the cancer care experience.” And the one thing that bummed me out for like the first 10 years of being this chronic research participant is I would enroll in things, I'd be interviewed for things, I'd fill out these surveys and then I never heard anything about what happened with that information and that time I spent. And people would send me like a $10 gift card to Amazon, like, “Thanks for participating,” but really what I wanted to know is like, did you do anything with that? How did that inform things? So that really annoyed me to the point where I was like, I'm just going to be part of the research process and really figure out how we share that information back to everybody who had spent so much time. And so my participation in this space is like, “Let's change it. Let's give people information back.” And now I know it takes a really long time to have a finding that could be published somewhere that we then get it back. But closing the loop on the communications gap is something I'm really passionate about. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that we are changing a little bit this perspective? I feel like we are getting a little bit better in creating patient communities of patients who are included in specific clinical trials. And then we do the effort of creating a community, of keeping people really involved with the research that they are participating in. I think that we are not quite there yet, but I think that we are making some kind of steps in that direction. For example, trying also to inform patients to participate in the study when the publication that is related to that specific study comes out. What is the benefit? What have we discovered? I think that we are not quite there yet. There is a lot of room for improvement, particularly in the way I think we communicate these to patients who participated in research. But I have the impression that we are making some steps forward. So I don't know. Do you share the same thoughts? Liz Salmi: So Dr. George talked about the PE-CGS network and then there's five different cancer types being studied. So the thing I can reflect on is what we've done in the, this is a really long acronym but, Optimizing Molecular Characterization of Low Grade Glioma. Say that 10 times fast. So our particular group is people who donate tissues about their brain tumors. We're really collecting data from people with multiple brain surgeries over time, which is really complicated and to make that process easier. And then once those tissue samples are stored somewhere, studying that information about what changes in the brain tumors over time and then also giving those results back to people so they can take that research level data and bring it back to their neuro oncology team and say, “Hey. Here's what I found out, “and having a conversation. So, this is a long multi touch point study and in order to do that, to even make that possible is the individual patients need to understand what's in it for them. They're donating precious tissue in order to make the research process work. And so in order to do that, it's not just the investigators saying, “Hey. Give us your brain tissue, peace out.” It is we have a whole research advisory council of people living with these particular tumor types who help us co-design how do we do that outreach, how do we explain why this is important, or how do we message the importance of this work so they understand,“Oh, this is what's in it for me and this is what's in it for other people like me.” And from there then with that process, which again I mentioned, all of these multi-step processes, once we're able to understand how patients want to hear that information, what's in it for them, then we bring it back to like those bench scientists, investigators going, “Okay. And here's how this workflow should work for the patients,” and design everything around the patient experience before we even care about what's happening from the scientist researcher perspective. Dr. Suzanne George: I agree. I think to your point, I think the fact that we're all here today talking about this is just like you said, is that we are making progress, right? Like we're even here having this conversation. Just like you said, I think there's opportunities to improve and further refine the communication and the involvement back in the patient community. When I think- if I put on my clinical investigator hat, I'm very involved in PE-CGS, but my primary research interest historically has been clinical trials and drug development. And I think that our approach in communicating results back has just not been consistent. But I do think that there's opportunities, just like you said, to provide summaries of information to loop back. I don't think that we've completely solved: What do we do? How do we provide information back to loved ones of patients that may no longer be alive that participated? How do we provide information to people who maybe we don't have their contact information? What if we lose track of them? How do we also make sure that we give people the choice to know? Do you want to know about this or would you rather just participate and then give space to that research? Because maybe that's how people's best for them. So I think that you're right, we're making progress, but I think that there's also a lot more that we can do. So I'm glad we're talking about it. Dr. Davide Soldato: How much do you think that directly involving patients in this process, like asking them directly and co-designing the trial from the very beginning and understanding the level of information? This might also be another question inside of the question. So first, how much co-designing this type of research helps, and then do we also need to further refine at that level of communication, different communication depending on the level of information that different people want to have? Because I think that that's another level of complexity that we need to work towards at a certain point. We need to work on that first level of giving back the information. But then I think that there is also the other point of providing the information and information that should also be probably adapted to the cultural belief of different patients, to the ethnicity or to whatever cultural background or social background or whatever they may place their most interest in. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that you're 100% right on all of those points. I think those are all topics that need to be considered. We may be able to get to a certain degree of granularity around those communication points, but on the other hand, we also want to be able to communicate broadly and accessibly as possible. One of the interesting things about PE-CGS, as Liz was mentioning, is each of the five centers has a slightly different focus. For example, one of the centers is focused on American Indians and Tribal Nations, and the communication practices coming out of that center are really unique and really very special and something that's been really, I think for me, very fascinating to hear about. Because to your point, like, just the strategy and what's considered appropriate is just different. I think if we hope to build a research world where our research participants and research data come from a broad swath of the population that really represents the population, the only way that we're going to be able to do that is find ways that bring meaning across the population as well. And that may be different based on where people are coming from and where people are at in their own journeys and in their own lives. But it's on us to be open to that and like to hear that, so we can do the right thing. Dr. Davide Soldato: And I think that this is one of the objectives of the PE-CGS, really trying to bring this type of research participation to really diverse and underrepresented populations, not only in terms of cultural background, but I also think about different types of tumors. Like Liz was referring about brain cancer or low grade glioma, which is a very niche population. And I also think about sarcomas, for example, the degree of variability that we have in that specific type of disease is such that we really need to probably find different ways to communicate also inside of this diversity in terms of single patient and experiences, but also in terms of single diseases. You were speaking a little bit before about the fact that the manuscript is really on the barriers that we would need to identify and then to change to make this system a reality. We were talking a little bit about consenting information and consenting the sharing of information, and I think that you make a very interesting point about the consent process when we are designing research. Could you give a little bit of your impressions about giving informed consent? What we need to change, how can we improve? Dr. Suzanne George: The bottom line is the consent process needs to be simple, clear, and transparent. And sometimes I feel, because the traditional way that we've always gone about consent is frequently consent is as it should be in many ways. These consent forms are developed from a regulatory framework. What are we required to do to consent and how do we meet those requirements? Sometimes that becomes directly at odds with how do we do this simply, clearly and transparently? And I think as a research community, we have to be able to find a common ground there. That has to include regulatory requirements, that has to include IRBs. When we think about consents and work with our patient communities on this, everybody agrees the consents need to be more simple, except the IRB or maybe the IRB agrees, but it's this tension between how do we make it simple, clear and transparent and not get so bogged down in the regulatory that we lose that intent. Liz Salmi: It's complicated. As a person, I mentioned, I'm a chronic research participant living with a brain tumor for 17 years. I remember enrolling in studies and seeing things that are just so complicated. I'm like, “Well, I'm just going to sign off.” I imagine somewhere somebody who knew more than me said, “I should just fill out this thing.” And then as I switched to the research world, I spent more time digging into, “Wow, this is a really complicated consent,” versus, “This is a really streamlined consent and I love this.” And throughout my work with Dr. George and others on the PE-CGS network, an example of a good consent that's easy for people to understand is what the NIH All Of Us research project did, where they're trying to get a million people, more than that, signed up to be in this longitudinal study. And their consent is to go to their website and they have a whole bunch of short YouTube videos. There's a kind of like a quiz involved and they're animated, they have multiple languages involved. And I signed up for that study and I was like, “This is a beautiful consent.” And it's a very plain language. And more consents like that. If you're looking for a good example, go there. I have not been paid by them in any way. I'm a participant in their study. I'm not sure if you guys and your listeners are aware, but there was I think, October 19th of this year or 2024, there was a special communication published in JAMA on an update on the Helsinki Principles for Medical Research involving human participants. And what they're saying is an ethical update is patient engagement in research, which emphasizes the need for continuous, meaningful engagement with research participants and their communities throughout the research life cycle, before, during and after studies. And so this is what we're talking about here. And it's now been embedded in these updated principles. Dr. Suzanne George: That's really great and I agree with you. I think the All Of Us consent process is very accessible. It feels like you can understand it. But the other thing is that, again, I also am not directly involved with All Of Us, but the other thing about it is that they also have a high-touch way to consent where they have navigators and people that will go into communities in a very resource intensive way. So there's all different ways to go about it. We need to find a way that we can balance the complexity around regulatory and the simplicity and transparency that we need in cancer research. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that in terms of patient engagement we are doing better in academic sponsored research compared to sponsored research? A little bit of a provocative question maybe. Dr. Suzanne George: I think that's a really interesting question. I think this idea of participant engagement and involvement is being infused across the research community. And in part, the FDA has prioritized it as well. I think the industry sees the FDA prioritizing this as well. And I think that there are many companies that are involving participant and advocacy communities in different ways in the study design, in the study process early on. So I think it's happening. Liz Salmi: I'll be spicy. I've been a participant, I've been an investigator, co-investigator on studies and I have been reached out to often by pharma of, “Hey Liz, brain tumor patient advocate, would you be kind of like the poster child of our study or be involved in that way?” And I personally want to have no work in that space. I have no interest. However, I am approached, and other people living with cancer have been approached, by industry about lending their likeness or being commercials. And I don't think there's enough education to patient advocates of what that necessarily means, pros and cons. But I also can't speak on behalf of all of the patient advocates who might want to see that's a way that they could lend their voice and advance research. I personally think that there needs to be more involvement from the academic side of creating spaces where patients can be involved in the co-design of research and they also get compensated for their time fairly at the same level or some version of it in a way so they don't just jump to the pharma side of things. But that's an opinion that I have. Opinions. Dr. Suzanne George: I think it's really interesting the point that you make about providing more awareness or information about what it even means to do these things from a patient side. I certainly don't know that side as well, but I do see, often, the term patient advocate used very frequently in many different contexts that mean many different things. And I think that there's an opportunity there for understanding more about what that really means and what it can mean. Liz Salmi: Yeah. We want to involve patients, we want to do patient engagement. The BMJ or the British Medical Journal, have this new policy in place for patients as reviewers of research. And what I find interesting with the BMJ is they also ask patients to declare their conflicts of interest. So this is kind of a new space. If you're involved in patient research or perhaps working with pharma, patients, if you're involved at that level, should also be declaring their conflicts of interest if they're getting paid by a pharma. Or do I have a conflict now that I'm doing this cool ASCO podcast? Maybe. But do we want to overburden patients with tracking all this information? So it's a new world. The more we have access to information, the more we share information, the more we can read studies and we co-design, there's a new space I think over the next 5 to 10 years where how do we define this in a transparent way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I think you're right. I know that we're getting long, but I just want to say one other thing about that, which is that you're right. If we're bringing patients in to be partners, then we have to treat each other that way. We have to acknowledge- I think this issue that you raise about compensation and about paying people for their time or acknowledging people for their time, I think that's really important and very under-discussed. Liz and I were at the annual meeting for the PE-CGS and someone was there giving a talk about- this was a guest speaker that was giving a talk about a very large high impact grant and that included a patient advocacy kind of module, let's say. And they put in a specific funding and budget for that component that included compensation for the people- from the people in the advocacy community that were spending their time. And the PI of this project, again, not to get into the details of it, but they were sharing that they got a fair bit of pushback on that. But the PI pushed back and said, “Listen, we're compensating other people for their time. These guys, we want them to be partners, we need to treat them as such.” And I think that also again, kind of we're in a new space, but if we're going to do it right, then we have to acknowledge that we're partners. Dr. Davide Soldato: But I think that maybe an experience like the PE-CGS probably can be also a network for expanding awareness for patient advocates and also for creating sort of a new culture about what does that mean and how can we also improve on that part. Because in the end, if we want to engage, we also need to provide patients with the instruments to engage in a way that we think it's both useful for them, that can make research better, but can also make them at the exact same level as everyone who is participating in that research, which I think it's the bottom line of all the concepts that we are discussing right now. Liz Salmi: Yep. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, I agree. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I think we have covered a lot of things. Just wanted to make one last reference to a point that Suzanne mentioned earlier, which is the interoperability of systems. And I think that when we come to the cancer genome, that is very important, being able to share information, especially for those diverse and less common cancer types that we were discussing earlier. There is a lot of work in gaining all that information and we need to be able to gather all of that information in the same place to advance research. You were mentioning before that the process is actually very complicated and I was wondering if in the network you are already working on some potential ways to address this type of issue. Dr. Suzanne George: I think our first step is really just calling it out, acknowledging how hard this is and what the barriers are. Oftentimes I think in research, we don't talk enough about what our methodologic barriers are. We talk more about what our results are, but not like how hard it is. But like in our projects, the Count Me In project, my network that I'm involved with, we're doing rare tumors. We can only do the United States and Canada because of privacy issues. And we're doing a completely web based platform. So we have the technology. But the privacy laws are impeding our ability to involve other parts of the world. And even within the United States, it's not as easy as we would like to get records. For example, despite the fact that people are saying, “Yes, use my records.” But then it's like, “Okay. Well, that's not that easy. How are we going to get them?” We had to hire a third party vendor in order to get the records, in order to manage all the different consents and releases that were needed across all these different hospital systems. So I think the first question is just calling it out and then from there working together as a community to try to see what the solutions can be, because we need to come up with those solutions. Liz Salmi: Yeah, we're in the same camp as Dr. George and the fact that of the five partners, we're not associated with one particular institution. So we can reach out around the country and get access to those records. And we need them at multiple points in time, over time and it takes a lot of effort and work. And it's not like you could just, say, call hospital A and they have all the information. It's like all of the calls to all of the other sites. And it's not just from one surgery, it's from two or more surgeries. But also the way that people stay involved, and, by people, I mean patients and family members, there's this promise that at some point you're going to get some sort of information in response. Like, it's the “what's in it for me?” aspect of it. We do interviews with those who've been enrolled in the study, those who could be potential enrollees in the future because they've only had one surgery. And what we're learning overall is there's this altruistic nature that people have of- they want to participate in the research because they're like, “Here's my horrible cancer experience. I know other people are going to go through this as well.” There's this guiding light of “I want to do something, and I'm not going to be the person that creates the cure, discovers the genome or whatever for this particular cancer type. But my little bit of participation in this multiplied by 20, 30, 100, 1000 people, is what is going to lead us to the next phase in development and is going to move the needle for this particular tumor type or other cancer types.” And so what I think the impact in this space and participant engagement isn't just something we figure out, like a little research method and a little finding for one small tumor type, it's like the methods to do that is the big impact. The method around participant engagement can impact even beyond the cancer community. Dr. Davide Soldato: Yeah. As Suzanne was saying, we need to be in a system that really helps us and allows us to do that. So I think that you really have a lot of things to work on inside of the network. Dr. Suzanne George: I think one thing that I would say is I think that this issue of interoperability is acknowledged as a challenge. We refer to several different initiatives across the US where this is supposed to ideally change over time. I think people want it to change over time. I think investigators at the ERTC want it to change over time. I think different countries are working on this. And I think, again, the first step is getting us at the table talking about it, and then figuring out ways to move it forward. And I think it's there. I think that there is the will. We just have to figure out the how and continue to work on that together, because there's just a tremendous opportunity. I live in the rare tumor space, and between the FDA and the EMA and the regulatory, the national and the international research groups, the patient communities, people want this to be solved and I do hope that we will be able to get there. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I would like to thank Liz and Suzanne for joining us today. Dr. Suzanne George: Thanks for having us. Liz Salmi: Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato: Suzanne, Liz, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     DISCLOSURES Liz Salmi Speaking Honoria: Medscape. Research Funding (Inst): Abridge AI, Inc., Yosemite. Dr. Suzanne George Honoraria CStone Pharmaceuticals Consulting or Advisory Role Blueprint Medicines, deciphera, Bayer,  Lilly, UpToDate, Research to Practice, MORE Health, Daiichi, Kayothera, Immunicum, BioAtla   Research Funding Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Daiichi Sankyo RD Novare, Merck, Eisai, SpringWorks Therapeutics, TRACON Pharma, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, BioAtla, IDRx, NewBay Pharma, Acrivon Therapeutics   Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Company name: UptoDate Stock and Other Ownership Interests Abbott Laboratories and Pfizer Recipient: An Immediate Family Member

Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. John Sweetenham discuss the evolving landscape of oncology in 2025 and the challenges oncologists will be facing, including the impact of Medicare drug price negotiations, ongoing drug shortages, and the promising role of AI and telehealth in improving patient outcomes and access to clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. 2025 promises to be a year of continued progress in drug development, patient care, and technological innovations that will shape the future of cancer care. Oncologists will also be grappling with some familiar challenges in oncology practice and probably face a few new ones as well. I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Nathan Pennell to discuss some of these challenges. Dr. Pennell is the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center. He also serves as the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Nate, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks for inviting me, John. I'm excited to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks. So, Nate, we've been hearing a lot recently about implementation science in oncology particularly. This has been the case, I would say, over the past decade and of course the goal is to how do we figure out the best way to integrate evidence-based practice into oncology care? There's been a lot of very good guidance from organizations like ASCO and every year we're reminded of the need for clinical decision support for practicing oncologists at the point of care. Although I think we all agree it is the right thing to do, and this has been a matter of discussion for probably more than 10 years, for the most part, I don't think we've really got there. Some big practices probably have a truly well-integrated clinical decision support tool, but for many of us this is still lacking in the field. I wonder whether we do need some kind of global clinical decision support tool. What do you think about the future of clinical decision support at the point of care? And do you think this is going to continue to be a need? Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think that's a fantastic question and it absolutely is something we're going to continue to work towards. We're in an incredibly exciting time in oncology. We've got all these exciting predictive biomarkers, effective treatments that are working better than anything we've had in our careers up to this point. But when we actually look to see who is benefiting from them, what we find is that outside of clinical trial populations, many of our patients aren't actually accessing these. And so publications that look at real-world use of these, one that jumps to mind for me is a publication looking at biomarker testing for driver oncogenes in lung cancer showed that while everyone who treats lung cancer says, “Absolutely, we need to test for biomarkers such as EGFR mutations,” in the real world, probably only slightly over a third of people ever access these drugs because there are so many different gaps in care that fall through the cracks. And so decision support is absolutely critical.  You mentioned this has been going on for a decade. Actually, the Institute of Medicine in 2013 recommended that with the uptake of electronic medical records, that we move forward with building these true learning health care systems that would improve quality and use every patient's information to help inform their care. And in 2023, as a representative of ASCO, I was able to look back at the last decade, and the uniform conclusion was that we had failed to build this learning health care system. So, what can we do going forward? The good news is there are improvements in technology. There are, for better or for worse, some consolidation of electronic medical records that has allowed larger numbers of patients to sort of have data sets shared. ASCO started CancerLinQ to try to improve quality, which is now part of OpenAI, and is still working on technology solutions to help provide decision support as we are better able to access patient data. And I think we're going to talk a little bit later about some of the technological advances that are going on in artificial intelligence that are really going to help improve this. So I think this is very close to impacting patient care and improving quality of care. I think for, as you'd mentioned, large health care systems and users of the major EMRs, this is going to be extremely close. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Nate. And just to extend the conversation into another area, one of the constant, I think, pain points for practicing oncologists has been the issue of prior authorization and the amount of time and energy it takes to deal with insurance denials in cancer care. And I think in a way, these two things are linked in as much as if we had clinical decision support tools at the point of care which were truly functional, then hopefully there would be a more facile way for an oncologist to be able to determine whether the patient in front of him or her is actually covered for the treatment that the oncologist wants to prescribe. But nevertheless, we're really not there yet, although, I think we're on the way to being there. But it does remain, like I said, a real pain point for oncologists.  I wonder if you have any thoughts on the issue of prior authorization and whether you see in the coming year anything which is going to help practicing oncologists to overcome the time and effort that they spend in this space. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think many oncologists would have to list this among, if not the least favorite aspects of our job these days is dealing with insurance, dealing with prior authorizations. We understand that health care is incredibly expensive. We understand that oncology drugs and tests are even more expensive, probably among, if not the most rapidly growing costs to the health care system in the U.S., which is already at about 20% of our GDP every year. And so I understand the concern that costs are potentially unsustainable in the long term. Unfortunately, the major efforts to contain these costs seem to have fallen on the group that we would least like to be in charge of that, which are the payers and insurance companies, through use of prior authorization. And this is good in concept, utilization review, making sure that things are appropriate, not overutilizing our expensive treatments, that makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, it's moved beyond expensive treatments that have limited utility to more or less everything, no matter how inexpensive or standard. And there's now multiple publications suggesting that this is taking on massive amounts of time. Some even estimated that for each physician it's a full 40-hour work week per physician from someone to manage prior authorizations, which costs billions of dollars for practices every year. And so this is definitely a major pain point.  It is, however, an area where I'm kind of optimistic, maybe not necessarily in 2025, but in the coming several years with some of the technology solutions that are coming out, as we've talked about, with things like clinical pathways and whatnot, where the insurance company approvals can be tied directly to some of these guideline concordance pathway tools. So the recent publication at the ASCO Quality [Care] Symposium looking at a radiation oncology practice that had a guideline concordant prior auth tool that showed there was massive decrease in denials by using this. And as this gets rolled out more broadly, I think that this can increase the concept of gold carding, where if practices follow these clinical guidelines to a certain extent, they may be even exempt from prior authorization. I think I can envision that this is very close to potentially removing this as a major problem. I know that ASCO certainly has advocated on the national level for changes to this through, for example, advocating for the Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act. But I think, unfortunately, the recent election, I'm not sure how much progress will be made on the national level for progress in this. So I think that the market solutions with some of the technology interventions may be the best hope. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks. You raised a couple of other important points in that answer, Nate, which I'll pick up on now. You mentioned drug prices, and of course, during 2025, we're going to see Medicare negotiating drug prices. And we've already seen, I think, early effects from that. But I think it's going to be really interesting to see how this rolls out for our cancer patients in 2025. And of course, the thing that we can't really tell at the moment that you've alluded to is how all this is going to evolve with the new administration of President Trump. I understand, of course, that none of us really knows at this point; it's too early to know what the new administration will do. But would you care to comment on this in any way and about your concerns and hopes for Medicare specifically and what the administration will do to cancer care in general? Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think all of us are naturally a little bit anxious about what's going to happen under the new administration. The good news, if there's good news, is that under the first Trump administration, the National Cancer Institute and cancer care in general was pretty broadly supported both in Congress and by the administration. And if we look at specifically negotiating drug prices by Medicare, you can envision that having a businessman president who prides himself in negotiations might be something that would be supported and perhaps even expanded under the incoming Trump administration. So I think that's not too hard to imagine, although we don't really know. On the other hand, there are very valid concerns about what's going to happen with the Affordable Care Act, with Medicaid expansion, with protections for preexisting conditions, which impact our patients with cancer. And obviously there are potential people in the new administration who perhaps lack trust in traditional evidence-based medicine, vaccines, things like that, which we're not sure where they're going to fall in terms of the health care landscape, but certainly something we'll have to watch out for. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. Certainly, when we regroup to record next year's podcast, we may have a clearer picture of how that's going to play out. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I mean, if there's anything good from this, it's that cancer has always been a bipartisan issue that people support. And so I don't want to be too negative about this. I do think that public support for cancer is likely to continue. And so overall, I think we'll probably be okay. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree with that. And I think one of the things that's important to remember, I do remember that one of the institutions I've worked at previously that there from time to time was some discussion about politics and cancer care. And the quote that I always remember is “We all belong to the cancer party,” and that's what's really important. So let's just keep our eye on the board. I hope that we can do that.  I'm going to switch gears just a little bit now because another issue which has been quite prominent in 2024 and in a few years before that has been supply chain issues and drug shortages. We've seen this over many years now, but obviously the problems have apparently been exacerbated in recent years, particularly by climate events. But certainly ASCO has published some recommendations in terms of quality care delivery for patients with cancer. Can you tell us a little bit about how you think this will go in the coming year and what we can do to address some of the concerns that are there over drug shortages? Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah. This continues to be, I think, a surprising issue for many oncologists because it has been going on for a long time, but really hasn't been in the public eye. The general problem is that once drugs go off patent and become generic, they often have limited manufacturers that are often outside the U.S. sometimes even a single manufacturer, which leaves them extremely vulnerable to supply chain disruption issues or regulatory issues. So situations where the FDA inspects and decides that they're not manufacturing things up to snuff and suddenly the only manufacturer is temporarily shut down. And then as you mentioned, things like extreme weather events where we had Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico and suddenly we have no bags of saline for several months. And so these are major issues which I think have benefited from being in the public eye.  ASCO, on the one hand, has, I think, done an excellent job leading on what to do in scenarios where there are shortages. But I think more importantly, we need more attention on a national level to policy changes that would help prevent this in the future. Some suggestions have been to increase some of the oversight of the FDA into supply chain issues and generic drugs, perhaps forming more of an early warning system to anticipate shortages so that we can find workarounds, find alternative suppliers that perhaps aren't currently being widely utilized. We can advocate for our legislators to pass legislation to support drug production for vital agents through things like long term contracts or even guaranteed pricing that might also even encourage U.S. manufacturers to take back up generic drugs if they were able to make it profitable. And then finally, I think just more of a national coordinated approach rather than the piecemeal approach we've done in the past. I remember when we had a platinum [drug] shortage last year. Our institution, with massive resources in our pharmacy, really did an excellent job of making sure that we always had enough supply. We never actually saw that shortage in real time, but I know a lot of places did not have those resources and therefore were really struggling. And so I think more of a coordinated approach with communication and awareness so that we can try to prevent this from happening. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Nate. And you raised the issue of major weather events, and I'd like to pick up on that for just a moment to talk about climate change. We now know that there is a growing body of evidence showing that climate change impacts cancer care. And it does it in a lot of ways. I mean, the most obvious is disrupting care delivery during one of these major events. But there are also issues about increased exposure to carcinogens, reduced access to food, reduced access to cancer screenings during these major disasters. And the recent hurricanes, of course, have highlighted the need for cancer centers to have robust disaster preparedness plans. In addition to that, obviously there are questions about greenhouse gas emissions and how cancer centers and health care organizations handle that.  But what do you see for 2025 in this regard? And what's your thinking about how well we're prepared as deliverers of cancer care to deal with these climate change issues? Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, that is sobering to look at some of the things that have happened with climate change in recent years. I would love to say that I think that from a national level, we will see these changes and proactively work to reduce greenhouse emissions so that we can reduce these issues in the future. I'm not sure what we're going to see from the incoming administration and current government in terms of national policy on changes for fossil fuel use and climate change. I worry that there's a chance that we may see less done on the national level. I know the NCI certainly has policies in place to try to study climate change impact on cancer. It's possible that even that policy could be impacted by the incoming administration. So we'll have to see.  So, unfortunately, I worry that we may be still dealing in a reactive way to the impacts of this. So, obviously, wildfires causing carcinogens, pollution leading to increased cancer incidence, obviously, major weather events leading to physical disruptions, where cancer centers definitely have to have plans in place to help people maintain their treatment during those periods. As an individual, we can certainly make our impact on climate change. There are certainly organizations like Oncologists United for Climate and Health, or so-called OUCH, led by Dr. Joan Schiller, a friend of mine in the lung cancer world, where oncologists are advocating for policies to reduce use of fossil fuels. But I don't know, John, I don't know if I'm hopeful that there's going to be major policy changes on this in the coming year. Dr. John Sweetenham: I suspect you're right about that, although I think on the positive side, I think the issue as a whole is getting a lot more attention than it was maybe even two or three years ago. So that has to be a good thing that there's more advocacy and more attention out there now.  Nate, before we go on to the last question, because I do want to finish on a positive note, I just wanted to mention briefly that there are a couple of ongoing issues which, when we do this podcast each year, we normally address, and they certainly haven't gone away. But we know that burnout and workforce issues in oncology will continue to be a big challenge. The workforce issues may or may not be exacerbated by whatever the new administration's approach to immigration is going to be, because that could easily significantly affect the workforce in oncology. So that's one issue around workforce and burnout that we are not addressing in detail this year. But I wanted to raise it just because it certainly hasn't gone away and is going to continue to challenge us in 2025.  And then the other one, which I kind of put in the same category, is that of disparities. We continue to see ethnic and racial disparities of care. We continue to see disparities in rural areas. And I certainly wouldn't want to minimize the challenges that these are likely to continue to present in 2025. I wonder if you just have any brief comments you'd like to make and whether you think we're headed in the right direction with those issues. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, I'm somewhat optimistic in some ways about burnout. And I think when we get to our final topic, I think some of that may help. There may be some technology changes that may help reduce some of the influences of burnout. Disparities in care, obviously, I think similarly to some of the other issues we talked about have really benefited from just a lot of attention being cast on that. But again, I actually am optimistic that there are some technology changes that are going to help reduce some disparities in care. Dr. John Sweetenham: It's always great to finish one of these conversations on a positive note, and I think there is a lot to be very positive about. As you mentioned right at the beginning of the podcast, we continue to see quite extraordinary advances, remarkable advances in all fields of oncology in the therapeutic area, with just a massive expansion in not only our understanding, but also resulting from that improved understanding of the biology of the disease, the treatment advances that have come along. And so I think undoubtedly, we're going to see continued progress during 2025. And I know that there are technology solutions that you've mentioned already that you're very excited about. So, I'd really like to finish today by asking you if you could tell us a little about those and in particular what you're excited about for 2025. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah. It's always dangerous to ask me to nerd out a little bit about some of these technology things, but I don't think that we can end any conversation about technology and not discuss the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) in health care and oncology. AI is sort of everywhere in the media and sort of already worked its way into our lives in our phones and apps that we're using and whatnot. But some of what I am seeing in tools that are probably going to be here very soon and, in some cases, already arriving, are pretty remarkable.  So some of the advances in natural language processing, or NLP, which in the past has been a barrier to really mining the vast amounts of patient information in the electronic medical record, is so much better now. So now, we can actually use technology to read doctor's notes, to read through scanned PDFs in our EMRs. And we can imagine that it's going to become very soon, much harder to miss abnormal labs, going to be much harder to miss findings on scans such as pulmonary nodules that get picked up incidentally. It's going to be much easier to keep up with new developments as clinical guidelines get worked in and decision support tools start reminding patients and physicians about evidence-based, high-quality recommendations. Being able to identify patients who are eligible for clinical trials is going to become much more easy.  And that leads me to the second thing, which is, throughout the pandemic we have greatly increased our use of telehealth, and this really has the potential to reduce disparities in care by reaching patients basically wherever they are. This is going to disproportionately allow us to access rural patients, patients that are currently underrepresented in clinical trials and whatnot, being able to present patients for clinical trials. In the recent “State of Cancer Care in America” report from ASCO, more than 60% of patients in the U.S. did not have access to clinical trials. And now we have the technology to screen them, identify them and reach out to and potentially enroll them in trials through use of decentralized elements for clinical trials. And so I'm very optimistic that not just good quality standard cancer care, but also clinical research is going to be greatly expanded with the use of AI and telehealth. Dr. John Sweetenham: Really encouraging to hear that. Nate, it's been a real pleasure speaking with you today and I want to thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: I also want to say thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Nathan Pennell @n8pennell   Dr. John Sweetenham   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness   Dr. Nathan Pennell:     Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron    Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi  

The word "bureaucracy" conjures up images of red tape and long lines at the DMV, not cutting-edge innovation. But some of the most significant scientific and health innovations of the past century have actually come from scientist-bureaucrats at government research institutes.  On this episode, host Jason Lloyd is joined by Natalie Aviles, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and author of An Ungovernable Foe: Science and Policy Innovation in the US National Cancer Institute. Aviles explains what the National Cancer Institute does and how the mission and culture of the agency have enabled its scientist-bureaucrats to conduct pioneering cancer research, such as the invention of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine.  Resources: Check out Natalie Aviles's book, An Ungovernable Foe: Science and Policy Innovation in the U.S. National Cancer Institute, to learn more about the NCI.  Read “How Federal Science Agencies Innovate in the Public Interest” at Issues.org to learn more about the development of the HPV vaccine and the importance of agency discretion. 

Artificial Intelligence is empowering the Small Business Innovation Research Development Center at the National Cancer Institute to save the lives of women who have been diagnosed with common cancers. Brittany Connors, SBIR director of investor relations at NCI, discussed how she is working with startups to develop the technology that better detects breast cancer and cervical cancer in their early stages. Connors also highlighted NCI's partnerships with biotech companies and the progress that is being made with the world's first AI-driven platform that uses an automated ultrasound to screen for breast cancer without radiation.

Show Notes: Raymond Lei Yin moved to New York after graduating and has worked at Goldman Sachs for over 20 years, primarily in Hong Kong and Shanghai, China. He worked in China with a private fund for three and a half years and for UBS Asset Management as the Head of Asia Pacific and Head of China for the past 6 years. Now retired from UBS Asset Management, Raymond  is currently traveling around the world, visiting his parents and enjoying the outdoors. He is also looking for opportunities to get involved with communities, businesses or organizations where he can contribute his expertise. Capital Markets War Stories  Raymond shares many war stories from his time in Hong Kong, China, and the capital markets during the financial crisis. He started at Goldman Sachs in New York and eventually moved to Asia. He was a program analyst in 1992 and supported the international trading desk at Goldman. This experience was interesting, as the traders he worked with at the time were hires from Salomon Brothers and Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB). He likens this time to working in a jungle where his goal was to survive each day.  Raymond's journey has been filled with challenges and opportunities, but he is now focused on pursuing his passion for learning (especially in AI) and helping other businesses to grow. Working in Equity Capital MarketsRaymond began his career in Hong Kong after realizing that the core part of Goldman's business was financial advisory and trading. He decided to look for a job outside Goldman and was about to resign when he was offered a position by a senior MD looking for a Chinese speaking analyst based in Hong Kong. He flew to London for interviews and was hired to work in equity capital markets, which he knew little about. Equity capital markets is an interesting area that straddles between investment banking and equity sales and trading. Raymond was trained by Eric Dobkin, the man who  introduced the concept of the Equity Capital Markets (ECM), which orchestrated IPOs and worked with both issuers and investors to set the price. During the Red Chip Boom in 1993, there was a huge demand for Chinese speaking bankers in Hong Kong, as there were not many Chinese bankers at that time. As the first full-time equity capital markets person based in Hong Kong, Raymond worked tirelessly to keep up with the pace of IPOs. Lesson Learned from the MarketOne lesson that Raymond learned during this time was that the market can be irrational. During the Red Chip Boom, Chinese IPOs were richly valued, due to scarcity of Chinese papers and the high demand for Chinese investments. However, since then, the market has seen several cycles of price fluctuations. To make money in the equity market, he believes that one must be a contrarian, have a long sustained power, and be liquid. In the early 90s, Hong Kong had an open market with many foreign capitals and traditional institutions representing their firms in London or New York. Goldman helped Chinese companies raise money in international capital markets through IPOs, global deposit receipts (GDRs), and convertible bonds (CBs). The Chinese government was involved in these deals, as they were selling their best assets to global investors in exchange for professional management and market discipline. The first deal was with Tsingtao Breweries, a famous beer company, and later with Shanghai Petrochemical and China Mobile and PetroChina. These companies were majority-held by the Chinese government, and Goldman had an edge in winning these deals. Goldman also worked on Korean companies like POSCO Steel and Samsung Electronics, as well as Thai and Indonesian companies. The Asian Financial Crisis The Asian financial crisis occurred in 1997, when the devaluation of the Thai Bhat and Indonesian Rupiah led to a massive attack in Hong Kong markets. For a few days, the entire HK equity market was dominated by one buyer, the Hong Kong government.  Raymond saw the government's bid for 100 million shares of Hong Kong telecom got hit within 2 seconds. This could mark the end of capital markets in Hong Kong, as the government was buying the significant part of HK equity market.  However, in hindsight this was the single best time to buy Hong Kong equities, as the Hong Kong government made a lot of money that day. In subsequent years, Goldman helped the Hong Kong government sell these stocks at a profit, returning the market to private investors.  One company Raymond worked with was PetroChina where Goldman took the company public and Raymond helped to introduce the team management to global investors. It was during the dotcom bubble era, there was ver little investor appetite for oil stocks.  Eventually, the IPO was done as a discount valuation.  Investors who bought at PetroChina IPO all made money if they hold on to their shares. From Goldman to Private Funds to UBS Asset ManagementRaymond's next move was to the buy side - a China based  private fund.  He spent three and a half years traveling between Shanghai and Hong Kong to help them set up their international operation, hire people, lease office space, get the Type 9 license, and set up their Hong Kong office. He later joined UBS Asset Management first as Head of China then later as Head of Asia Pacific.  He worked at UBS Asset Management for the past 6 years.   Influential Harvard Professors and CoursesRaymond shares that his Art History course at Harvard was one of the most useful, as it allowed him to appreciate artwork and visit museums worldwide. He also enjoyed the core course Cultural Revolution taught by Professor Roderick MacFarquar, which was not offered in China. Timestamps: 04:15: Early Career at Goldman Sachs  09:51: Experience in Hong Kong and Equity Capital Markets  14:46: The Asian Financial Crisis and Market Lessons 26:31: Building Sales and Trading Operations in China  28:44: Transition to the Buy Side and Final Steps at Goldman  31:11: Personal Life and Interests  38:19: Reflections on Harvard and Career Advice  Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-yin-cfa-613a017a/ Email: yinraymond@yahood.com Featured Non-profit: This week's featured non-profit is Alex's Lemonade Stand, recommended by Catherine Marcus Rose who reports: Hi. I'm Catherine Marcus Rose, class of 1992 the featured nonprofit of this episode of The 92 report is Alex's Lemonade Stand, foundation for Children's Cancer. Alex's Lemonade Stand focuses on impacting lives of children with cancer through fundraising for critical research and awareness raising support for families and children with cancer. I love the work of this organization and have been a regular donor for a few years. When our youngest son, age 21 was diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma last December, this organization became even more important to us. Only four cents of every dollar spent on cancer research at the NCI goes to research in pediatric cancers. So the work of this organization has taken on extra meaning for us. You can learn more about their work at Alex's lemonade.org, a l e x, s, L E, M o, n, a, de.org and now here is Will Bachman with this week's episode. To learn more about their work visit: https://www.alexslemonade.org/  

Dr. Ryan Augustin and Dr. Jason Luke discuss neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, promising new TIL therapy for advanced melanoma, and the emerging role of CD3 engagers in treatment strategies. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ryan Augustin: Hello, I'm Dr. Ryan Augustin, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a medical oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Joining me today is Dr. Jason Luke, an associate professor of medicine and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center. I had the privilege of working as a postdoc in Jason's translational bioinformatics lab, where we investigated mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy in melanoma and other cancers.  Today, we'll be discussing 3 important topics, including neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, the impact and practical considerations for incorporating TIL therapy into melanoma, and the current and future use of CD3 engagers in both uveal and cutaneous melanoma.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it's great to have this opportunity to speak with you today. Dr. Jason Luke: Absolutely. Thanks, Ryan. It's great to see you. Dr. Ryan Augustin: So, to kick things off, Jason, we, of course, have seen tremendous advances in cancer immunotherapy, not only in metastatic disease but also the perioperative setting. Recent data have shown that the use of neoadjuvant therapy can provide not only critical prognostic information but can also help individualize post-resection treatment strategies and potentially even eliminate adjuvant therapy altogether in patients who achieve a pathologic, complete response. This signifies a conceptual shift in oncology with the goal of curing patients with immunotherapy. In triple-negative breast cancer, the KEYNOTE-522 regimen with pembrolizumab is standard of care. In non-small cell lung cancer, there are now four FDA approved chemo-IO regimens in both the neoadjuvant and perioperative settings. And, of course, in melanoma, starting with SWOG S1801 utilizing pembro mono therapy, and now with combined CTLA-4 PD-1 blockade based on results from the NADINA trial, neoadjuvant IO is the new standard of care in high-risk, resectable melanoma. It's important to highlight this because whereas other tumor types have more mature multidisciplinary care, for example, patients with breast cancer are reviewed by the whole team in every center, and every patient with lung cancer certainly benefits from multidisciplinary care conferences, that's not always the case with melanoma, given the relative frequency of cases compared to other tumor types.  Jason, would you say that we have now moved into an era where the integration of a multidisciplinary team and melanoma needs to be prioritized. And why is it important to have multidisciplinary team coordination from the onset of a patient's diagnosis? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think those are great questions, Ryan, and I think they really speak to the movement in our field and the great success that we've had integrating systemic therapy, particularly immunotherapy, into our treatment paradigms. And so, before answering your question directly, I would add even a little bit more color, which is to note that over the last few years, we've additionally seen the development of adjuvant therapy into stages of melanoma that, historically speaking, were considered low-risk, and medical oncologists might not even see the patient. To that, I'm speaking specifically about the stage 2B and 2C approvals for adjuvant anti-PD-1 with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. So this has been an emerging complication.  Classically, patients are diagnosed with melanoma by either their primary care doctor or a dermatologist. Again, classically, the next step was referral to a surgeon who had removed the primary lesion, with discussion around nodal evaluation as well. And that paradigm has really changed now, where I think integration of medical oncology input early on in the evaluation of the appropriate treatment plan for patients with melanoma is quite a pressing issue now, both because we have FDA approvals for therapeutics that can reduce risk of recurrence, and whether or not to pursue those makes a big difference to the patient for discussion early on.  And, moreover, the use of systemic therapies now, prior to surgery, of course, then, of course, requires the involvement of medical oncology. And just for an emphasis point on this, it's classically the case, for good reason, that surgeons complete their surgery and then feel confident to tell the patient, “Well, we got it all, and you're just in really good shape.” And while I understand where that's coming from, that often leaves aside the risk of recurrence. So you can have the most perfect surgery in the world and yet still be at very high risk of recurrence. And so it's commonly the case that we get patients referred to us after surgery who think they're just in totally good shape, quite surprised to find out that, in fact, they might have a 20% to 50% risk of recurrence. And so that's where this multidisciplinary integration for patient management really does make a big difference.  And so I would really emphasize the point you were making before, which is that we need multidisciplinary teams of med onc with derm, with surgery early on, to discuss “What are the treatment plans going to be for patients?” And that's true for neoadjuvant therapy, so, for palpable stage 3, where we might give checkpoint inhibitors or combinations before surgery. But it's true even in any reasonably high-risk melanoma, and I would argue in that state, anything more than stage 1 should be discussed as a group, because that communication strategy with the patient is so important from first principles, so that they have an expectation of what it's going to look like as they are followed out over time. And so we're emphasizing this point because I think it's mostly the case at most hospitals that there isn't a cutaneous oncology disease management meeting, and I think there needs to be.  It's important to point out that usually the surgeons that do this kind of surgery are actually either the GI surgeons who do colon cancer or the breast surgeons. And so, given that melanoma, it's not the most common kind of cancer, it could easily be integrated into the existing disease review groups to review these cases. And I think that's the point we really want to emphasize now. I think we're not going to belabor the data so much, but there are enormous advantages to either perioperative or adjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma. We're talking about risk reduction of more than 50%, 50-75% risk reduction. It's essential that we make sure we optimally offer that to patients. And, of course, patients will choose what they think is best for their care. But we need to message to them in a way that they can understand what the risks and benefits of those treatments are and then are well set up to understand what that treatment might look like and what their expectations would be out over time.  So I think this is a great art of medicine place to start. Instead of belaboring just the details of the trial to say, let's think about how we take care of our patients and how we communicate with them on first principles so that we can make the most out of the treatments that we do have available. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's great, Jason. Very insightful points. Thank you.  So, shifting gears now, I'd also like to ask you a little bit about TIL therapy in melanoma. So our listeners will be aware that TIL is a promising new approach for treating advanced melanoma and leverages the power of a patient's cytotoxic T cells to attack cancer cells. While we've known about the potential of this therapy for some time, based on pioneering work at the NCI, this therapy is now FDA approved under the brand AMTAGVI (Lifileucel) from Iovance Biotherapeutics, making it the first cellular therapy to be approved for a solid tumor. Now, I know TIL therapy has been administered at your institution, Jason, for several years now, under trial status primarily for uveal melanoma using an in-house processing. But for many cancer centers, the only experience with cellular therapy has come under the domain of malignant hematology with CAR T administration. At our institution, for example, we have only recently started administering TIL therapy for melanoma, which has required a tremendous multidisciplinary effort among outpatient oncology, critical care, and an inpatient hematology service that has expertise in cytokine release syndrome.  Jason, where do you see TIL therapy fitting into the metastatic space? Which patients do you think are truly candidates for this intensive therapy? And what other practical or logistical considerations do you think we should keep in mind moving forward? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks for raising this. I think the approval of lifileucel, which is the scientific name for the TIL product that's on the market now. It really is a shift, a landscape shift in oncology, and we're starting in melanoma again, as seems to be commonly the case in drug development. But it's really important to understand that this is a conceptually different kind of treatment, and therefore, it does require different considerations. Starting first with data and then actualization, maybe secondarily, when we see across the accelerated approval package that led to this being available, we quote patients that the response rate is likely in the range of 30%, maybe slightly lower than that, but a meaningful 25% to 30% response rate, and that most of those patients that do have response, it seems to be quite durable, meaning patients have been followed up to four years, and almost all the responders are still in response. And that's a really powerful thing to be able to tell a patient, particularly if the patient has already proceeded through multiple lines of prior standard therapy. So this is a very, very promising therapy.  Now, it is a complicated therapy as well. And so you highlighted that to do this, you have to have a tumor that's amenable for resection, a multidisciplinary team that has done a surgery to remove the tumor, sent it off to the company. They then need to process the TIL out of the tumor and then build them up into a personalized cell product, bring it back, you have to lympho-deplete the patient, re-introduce this TIL. So this is a process that, in the standard of care setting under best circumstances, takes roughly six weeks. So how to get that done in a timely fashion, I think, is evolving within our paradigms. But I think it is very important for people who practice in settings where this isn't already available to realize that referring patients for this should be a strong consideration. And thinking about how you could build your multidisciplinary team in a way to be able to facilitate this process, I think is going to be important, because this concept of TIL is relevant to other solid tumors as well. It's not approved yet in others, but we kind of assume eventually it probably will be. And so I think, thinking through this, how could it work, how do you refer patients is very important.  Now, coming back to the science, who should we treat with this? Well, of course, it's now an air quotes “standard of care option”, so really it ought to be available to anybody. I will note that currently, the capacity across the country to make these products is not really adequate to treat all the patients that we'd want. But who would we optimally want to treat, of course, would be people who have retained a good performance status after first line therapy, people who have tumors that are easily removable and who have not manifested a really rapid disease progression course, because then, of course, that six-week timeline probably doesn't make sense. The other really interesting data point out of the clinical trials so far is it has looked like the patients who got the least amount of benefit from anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, in other words, who progressed immediately without any kind of sustained response, those patients seem to have the best response to TILs, and that's actually sort of a great biomarker. So, this drug works the best for the population of patients where checkpoint inhibitors were not effective. And so as you think about who those patients might be in your practice, as you're listening, I think prioritizing it for primary progression on anti PD-1, again and giving it ahead thought about how would you get the patient through this process or referred to this process very quickly is really important because that lag time is a problem. Patients who have melanoma tend to progress reasonably quickly, and six weeks can be a long time in melanoma land. So, thinking ahead and building those processes is going to be important moving into the future Dr. Ryan Augustin: Definitely appreciate those practical considerations. Jason, thank you.  Moving on to our final topic, I was hoping to discuss the use of immune cell engagers in melanoma. So, similar to CAR T therapy, bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs, as they're commonly known, are standard of care in refractory myeloma and lymphoma. But these antibodies engaging CD-3 on T cells and a tumor specific antigen on cancer cells are relatively new in the solid tumor space. Tarlatamab, which is a DLL-3 and CD-3 bispecific antibody, was recently approved in refractory small cell lung cancer, and, of course, tebentafusp, an HLA-directed CD-3 T cell engager was approved in uveal melanoma in 2022. Both T and NK cell engaging therapies are now offering hope in cancers where there has historically been little to offer. However, similar to our discussion with TIL therapy, bispecifics can lead to CRS and neurotoxicity, which require considerable logistical support and care coordination.  Jason, I was wondering if you could briefly discuss the current landscape of immune cell engagers in melanoma and how soon we may see these therapies enter the treatment paradigm for cutaneous disease. Dr. Jason Luke: I think it is an exciting, novel treatment strategy that I think we will only see emerge more and more. You alluded to the approval of tebentafusp in uveal melanoma, and those trials were, over the course of a decade, where those of us in solid tumor land learned how to manage cytokine release syndrome or the impact of these C3 bispecifics, in a way that we weren't used to. And what I'll caution people is that CRS, as this term, it sounds very scary because people have heard of patients that, of course, had difficult outcomes and hematological malignancies, but it's a spectrum of side effects. And so, when we think about tebentafusp, which is the approved molecule, really what we see is a lot of rash because GP100, the other tumor antigen target, is in the skin. So, patients get a rash, and then people do get fevers, but it's pretty rare to get more than that. So really what you have to have is the capacity to monitor patients for 12 hours, but it's really not more scary than that. So it really just requires treating a few people to kind of get used to these kinds of symptoms, because they're not the full-on ICU level CRS that we see with, say, CAR T-cells.  But where is the field going? Well, there's a second CD3 bispecific called brenetafusp that targets the molecule PRAME, that's in a phase 3 clinical trial now for frontline cutaneous melanoma. And tebentafusp is also being evaluated in cutaneous melanoma for refractory disease. So, it's very possible that these could be very commonly used for cutaneous melanoma, moving into, say, a two-to-four-year time horizon. And so therefore, getting used to what are these side effects, how do you manage them in an ambulatory practice for solid tumor, etc., is going to be something everyone's going to have to learn how to deal with, but I don't think it should be something that people should be afraid of.  One thing that we've seen with these molecules so far is that their kinetics of treatment effect do look slightly different than what we see with more classic oncology therapies. These drugs have a long-term benefit but doesn't always manifest as disease regression. So, we commonly see patients will have stable disease, meaning their tumor stops growing, but we don't see that it shrank a lot, but that can turn into a very meaningful long-term benefit. So that's something that we're also, as a community, going to have to get used to. It may not be the case we see tumors shrink dramatically upfront, but rather we can actually follow people with good quality- of-life over a longer period of time.  Where is the field going? You mentioned tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, and I think we're only going to see more of these as appropriate tumor antigens are identified in different tumors. And then the other piece is these CD3 engagers generally rely upon some kind of engagement with a T cell, whether CD3 engagers, and so they can be TCR or T-cell receptor-based therapies, although they can be also SCFV-based. But that then requires new biomarkers, because TCR therapy requires HLA restriction. So, understanding that now we're going to need to profile patients based on their germline in addition to the genomics of the tumor. And those two things are separate. But I would argue at this point, basically everybody with cutaneous melanoma should be being profiled for HLA-A(*)0201, which is the major T-cell receptor HLA haplotype that we would be looking for, because whether or not you can get access immediately to tebentafusp, but therefore clinical trials will become more and more important.  Finally, in that T-cell receptor vein, there are also T cell receptor-transduced T cells, which are also becoming of relevance in the oncology community and people listening will be aware in synovial sarcoma of the first approval for a TCR-transduced T cell with afamitresgene autoleucel. And in melanoma, we similarly have TCR-transduced T cells that are coming forward in clinical trials into phase 3, the IMA203 PRAME-directed molecule particularly. And leveraging our prior conversation about TILs, we're going to have more and more cellular based therapies coming forward, which is going to make it important to understand what are the biomarkers that go with those, what are the side effect profiles of these, and how do you build your practice in a way that you can optimally get your patients access to all of these different treatments, because it will become more logistically complicated, kind of as more of these therapies come online over the next, like we said, two to four years kind of time horizon. So, it's very exciting, but there is more to do, both logistically and scientifically. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's excellent. Thanks, Jason, and thank you so much for sharing your great insight with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the opportunity. Dr. Ryan Augustin: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode, and you can follow Dr. Luke on X, formerly known as Twitter, @jasonlukemd. And you can find me, @RyanAugustinMD. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers: @ryanaugustinmd Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd   Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Ryan Augustin: No relationships to disclose Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

The National Cancer Institute's new Artificial Intelligence Resource (AIR) program is helping clinicians better diagnose and treat cancer patients.  AIR enables researchers to build AI models that help to better detect cancer through imaging and determine the best treatment options. Dr. Baris Turkbey, senior clinician and radiologist with the Molecular Imaging Branch at NCI, explained the role AI algorithms play in classifying bone lesions in metastatic prostate cancer as well as how AI impacts the radiation dose in CT scans. Turkbey also shares details about a new concept NCI is researching called multimodal AI, which processes data from multiple modalities and sources to create more robust outputs.

Hashdex co-developed the Nasdaq Crypto Index™ (NCI™) to provide global investors with a dynamic benchmark for crypto assets. The Fund adheres to strict operational and governance protocols to track the NCI™, providing investors with regulated access to the most liquid and dynamic assets in the crypto ecosystem.Guest: Samir Kerbage, CIO at HashdexHashdex website ➜ https://hashdex.com/en-KY/products/hdexbh00:00 Intro00:20 Paul Tudor Jones talks inflation1:33 Hashdex update03:00 Crypto ETFs across the globe04:45 BlackRock06:50 Nasdaq Crypto Index (NCI)09:30 ETFs & the elections12:44 Gold vs Bitcoin ETFs14:35 Stablecoins17:00 Outro#Crypto #bitcoin #ethereum~Crypto Index ETF Demand Will Explode

Kathryn H Schmitz, Ph.D., M.P.H., FACSM, FSBM, FTOS, FNAK, FSEM, is aProfessor in the division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She serves as the Associate Director of Population Science, Co-leader of the Biobehavioral Cancer Control program, Co-leader of the UPMC Hillman Survivorship program and Director of the Moving Through Cancer Exercise Oncology Program for the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center.  Dr. Schmitz's research focuses on people living with and beyond cancer andinvestigates the role of exercise in improving physiologic and psychosocial outcomes, including symptoms, treatment tolerance, and other chronic diseases. In addition, Dr. Schmitz studies technology based supportive care interventions (that include physical activity) to improve outcomes among advanced cancer patients. She has held NCI funding consistently since 2001. She has published over 350 scientific peer reviewed papers, some in prestigious journals such as JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Journal of Clinical Oncology. Her well regarded research on resistance exercise and breast cancer related lymphedema has been translated into a physical therapy delivered program called ‘Strength After Breast Cancer' that is available in over 1000 locations across the United States and beyond. Dr. Schmitz was the moving force behind two American College of Sports Medicine development processes for exercise and cancer guidelines for patients in 2010 and 2018. She founded the Moving Through Cancer initiative of the American College ofSports Medicine, which has a bold goal of making exercise standard of care in oncology by 2029. She has written a popular press book to raise awareness about exercise for cancer patients and survivors entitled ‘Moving Through Cancer' that was released by Chronicle Books in October 2021. She is the winner of numerous awards, most notably the Distinguished Scientist Award from the Society of Behavioral Medicine, the Citation Award from the American College of Sports Medicine, and the Clinical Research Professorship from the American Cancer Society. In fall 2023, she was inducted as an Honorary Fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh, Scotland. She is the past president of the American College of Sports Medicine.Support the show

Ever feel like you're chained to your stethoscope? I get it. But imagine a life where your income isn't completely dependent on seeing patients. That's the beauty of Non-Clinical Income (NCI)! It's been a game-changer for me.In this episode, I'm sharing my personal journey and the strategies I've used to build NCI. It's about liberating yourself from financial stress and designing a life with true freedom and flexibility – so you can actually pursue those passions you've been putting off!I'll break down how I optimized my clinical income, explored different investments (both passive and active!), and started building assets that generate real wealth. Plus, I'll share the three financial milestones I've used to achieve stability, independence, and ultimately, freedom. It's a roadmap you can follow too!"Non-clinical income will make you free...It's where your stethoscope is not working for you, but it's your brain that's working for you." In This Episode:- What is NCI, and why does it matter to doctors?- How I optimized my clinical income- Passive & active investments- Why NCI is so important for physicians- The 3 levels of financial achievementResources:➡️ Free community of high-performing physicians: the Physician Wealth Accelerator - https://limitless-md.mn.co/ ➡️ Check out my programs - https://vikramraya.com/coaching-tab-revamp/ ➡️ Join our Mastermind - www.i8mastermind.com ➡️ Learn Small Multifamily Real Estate - www.MDTycoon.com Connect with Vikram Raya:

Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, turns over hosting responsibilities to Errol Weiss, the Chief Security Officer (CSO) of the HEALTH-ISAC and one of the original contributors to the N2K CyberWire Hash Table. He will make the business case for information sharing. References: White and Williams LLP, Staff Osborne Clarke LLP , 2018. Threat Information Sharing and GDPR [Legal Review]. FS-ISAC. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), 2015. S.754 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): To improve cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes [Law]. Library of Congress. Staff, n.d. National Council of ISACs [Website]. NCI. Staff, 2020. Guidance to Assist Non-Federal Entities to Share Cyber Threat Indicators and Defensive Measures with Federal Entities under the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 [Guidance]. CISA. Staff, 2023. Information Sharing Best Practices [White paper]. Health-ISAC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Jason Phillips says “everything is possible,” he speaks from experience. From representing the U.S U16 soccer team to exiting his nutrition coaching company for 8-figures, Jason has spent his life defying expectations and chasing his passions with unwavering commitment.  But for years, Jason struggled to commit fully to entrepreneurship. Haunted by his parents' disapproval of his “internet thing,” he bounced between corporate jobs that left him feeling stuck and unfulfilled. It wasn't until hitting financial rock bottom in 2014 that he realized he had to make a decision: figure out the online business game or resign himself to a life of mediocrity. Twelve months later, he'd hit 7-figures. The secret? Doubling down on genuine client connections. Soon, his nutritional coaching institute was generating over $300k/month. But rapid growth brought new challenges - like hiring missteps that cost him $700k, burning down a 4-year relationship, and an emotional rollercoaster of negotiating with private equity firms. Today, Jason shares it all. The lessons from building and exiting such a massive business, the identity crisis of selling your “baby,” and why entrepreneurs must stay true to their vision and “choose yourself” every step of the way. "Your personal desires are not wrong. I think society has told us so many things are wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to choose yourself." ~ Jason Phillips In This Episode: - Early life and aspirations - Struggles and breakthroughs - The turning point - Building a successful online coaching business - Navigating entrepreneurial pivots - The cost of success  - Building and growing NCI: lessons from rapid growth - The acquisition journey - Embracing new beginnings About Jason Phillips: Jason Phillips is the founder of the Nutritional Coaching Institute, an 8-figure certification company dedicated to advancing the craft of wellness coaching. After nearly dying from anorexia in his early 20s, Jason discovered the power of online coaching to transform lives and became obsessed with mastering client connection. Within five years, Jason had scaled NCI to $300k/month by treating each client's success as his own. Known for his contagious belief in human potential, Jason has since certified over 1500 coaches in cutting-edge practices around mindset, hormones, and behavior change. After exiting NCI, Jason now serves as a strategic advisor and angel investor to mission-driven entrepreneurs. His life philosophy is simple: "Everything is possible if you never stop choosing yourself and being of service." IG: https://www.instagram.com/realjasonphillips/  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/JasonPhillips  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonphillipsfitness/  Where to find me: IG: https://www.instagram.com/jen_gottlieb/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jen_gottlieb  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Jenleahgottlieb  Website: https://jengottlieb.com/  My business: https://www.superconnectormedia.com/  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@jen_gottlieb  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin answer four Pump Head questions drawn from last Sunday's Quah post on the @mindpumpmedia Instagram page.  Mind Pump Fit Tip: Does the ‘pump' build muscle and should you chase it? (1:42) Oxytocin with Mom's and Dad's.  (8:49) Things the guys do better than their partners. (10:38) Culture is VERY important when it comes to obesity. (15:58) Good gut health is good brain health. (25:35) The mental challenges with cutting and bulking. (27:11) Mind Pump's favorite types of people in the gym. (36:51) Off the rack with State & Liberty. (39:13) What is in the water there?! (43:23) Why does war breed more boys? (47:07) The bio-hacking space is interesting. (51:22) Shout out to the NCI x Mind Pump Tahoe Event! (56:57) #Quah question #1 - Should you eat fewer calories on rest days? If so, how many fewer? (58:03) #Quah question #2 - How important is having a strong core for the main lifts? Is there a certain percentage more you can expect to lift by strengthening the core? (1:01:55) #Quah question #3 - How can I stop trap engagement while doing back exercises? (1:08:44) #Quah question #4 - How do you teach your kids about health and fitness? I want my kids to be healthy, but I don't want them to develop an unhealthy relationship with exercise, diet, or their bodies. (1:13:28) Related Links/Products Mentioned Visit Organifi for the exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off** Visit State & Liberty for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Discount is now automatically applied at checkout 15% off your first order! ** July Promotion: MAPS Split | Sexy Athlete Bundle 50% off! ** Code JULY50 at checkout ** This is your brain on fatherhood: Dads experience hormonal changes too, research shows Expanding options for tackling obesity in Japan - Nature Mind Pump #2360: What You Need To Know About GLP-1 With Dr. Tyna Moore Mind Pump #2382: The 5 Biggest Challenges With Cutting & Bulking Mind Pump #2345: The Muscle Mommy Revolution Why Does War Breed More Boys? - Popular Science The Returning Soldier Effect I: Why Are More Boys Born During and After Wars? Does Performing Resistance Exercise with a Partial Range of Motion at Long Muscle Lengths Maximize Muscle Hypertrophic Adaptations to Training? NCI x Mind Pump 2 Day Truckee Experience Visit ZBiotics for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Promo code MINDPUMP24 for 15% off first-time purchasers on either one-time purchases, (3, 6, 12-packs) or subscriptions (6, 12-pack) ** How to Undulate Your Calories for Faster Weight Loss & an Improved Metabolism Mind Pump #2085: Abs & Core Masterclass How to Fix Rounded Shoulders (GONE IN 4 STEPS!) | MIND PUMP What Are The Best Mobility Exercises For Shoulders? Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Robb Wolf (@dasrobbwolf) Instagram Olivier Rioux (@olivier.rioux) Instagram Holly Tiarne Baxter (@hollytbaxter) Instagram Jeff Nippard (@jeffnippard) Instagram Gary Brecka (@garybrecka) Instagram Layne Norton, Ph.D. (@biolayne) Instagram Andrew Huberman, Ph.D. (@hubermanlab) Instagram  

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin coach four Pump Heads via Zoom. Email live@mindpumpmedia.com if you want to be considered to ask your question on the show. Mind Pump Fit Tip: Is ‘cozy cardio' valuable? (2:40) Max's first experience at Universal Studios. (13:06) Embracing the moment and being patient as a parent. (19:06) An unregulated and wild weekend with the Andrews. (25:26) The Simpsons has always been edgy. (28:12) Fireworks and crowds. (29:48) Erroring with caution being a fitness fanatic around your kids. (31:47) Phases of life with your children. (36:27) Navigating challenging your ideas with your kids. (40:04) What you do is WAY more impactful than what you say. (47:01) Brilliant capitalism. (49:28) Cannabis is NOT so taboo anymore. (50:33) The chemistry and serendipity of Mind Pump Media. (55:57) Shout out to the NCI x Mind Pump Tahoe Event! (59:27) #ListenerLive question #1 - I have important questions about the MAPS Muscle Mommy program. Please help! (1:03:01) #ListenerLive question #2 - Is there something I can do to grow the inside of my legs and get more definition? (1:18:02) #ListenerLive question #3 - What are your thoughts on the importance of having protein right after a workout? (1:31:32) #ListenerLive question #4 - If I were to return to rowing, what would you advise for suggested time off? (1:35:58) Related Links/Products Mentioned Ask a question to Mind Pump, live! Email: live@mindpumpmedia.com Visit Joovv for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Code MINDPUMP to get $50 off your first purchase. ** Visit Caldera Lab for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off your first order of their best products ** July Promotion: MAPS Split | Sexy Athlete Bundle 50% off! ** Code JULY50 at checkout ** What Is Cozy Cardio? Learn About the Fitness Trend and Try It Yourself Mind Pump #2220: How To Stay Consistent With Your Workouts The NCAA looks to weed out marijuana from its banned drug list Mind Pump #1507: Everything You Need To Know About Steroids With John Romano What to know about cannabis consumption at California State Fair NCI x Mind Pump 2 Day Truckee Experience Visit Xero Shoes for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Enter to win one of FIVE FREE pairs of Xero Shoes! ** MAPS Prime Webinar MAPS Prime Pro Webinar Mind Pump #1080: 21 Commandments Of Gym Etiquette Lateral Lunge with Hop Mobility Session - YouTube COSSACK SQUAT - Increase Mobility & Leg Strength (TRY THIS SQUAT) Mind Pump #1757: The Truth About The Anabolic Window & Protein Timing Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Layne Norton, Ph.D. (@biolayne) Instagram Dr. Becky Kennedy | Parenting (@drbeckyatgoodinside) Instagram Jason Phillips (@realjasonphillips) Instagram  

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin answer four Pump Head questions drawn from last Sunday's Quah post on the @mindpumpmedia Instagram page.  Mind Pump Fit Tip: The exercise that you suck the most at is where all the gains are! (2:01) Adam's embarrassing bowling injury. (12:23) Putting the chicken nuggets from Butcher Box through the ultimate test! (19:35) I got my friends back! (24:14) When your AI clone goes dark. (29:30) Speculating on the future of education. (30:57) The human nature learning curve of adopting AI. (34:08) Cool technology. (42:37) Weighing the pros and cons of assisted suicide. (44:26) Making your property a cemetery. (49:23) USA's football blunder. (53:49) Is Pat McAfee a sore loser? (56:41) Shout out to the NCI x Mind Pump Tahoe Event! (59:44) #Quah question #1 - How do you determine that you have spent enough time building muscle and will have something to reveal once you go into a deficit? Do you base it on time spent building or weight gain or something else? (1:02:04) #Quah question #2 - Can you reverse diet after a show without putting on insane amounts of body fat? (1:06:39) #Quah question #3 - What's your take on exercise snacks? Besides pull-ups and pushups, what other exercises are great to do during your breaks? (1:10:15) #Quah question #4 - I've tried for 2 years to build the inner part of my bicep and nothing seems to work. When my arms are down to their sides, the part of the bicep that rests against my body looks awful! I work out 4x a week, and could lose 8-10 lbs. so nothing drastic…. I hate that part of my arms and I cover them up even in this heat. HELP! I want to go sleeveless! (1:14:20) Related Links/Products Mentioned Visit Butcher Box for this month's exclusive Mind Pump offer!  ** Your choice of bone-in chicken thighs, top sirloins, or salmon in every box for an entire year, plus get $20 off! ** Visit ZBiotics for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Promo code MINDPUMP24 for 15% off first-time purchasers on either one-time purchases, (3, 6, 12-packs) or subscriptions (6, 12-pack) ** July Promotion: MAPS Split | Sexy Athlete Bundle 50% off! ** Code JULY50 at checkout ** Mind Pump #2145: Forgotten Muscle & Strength Building Secrets Mind Pump #1897: Why Phasing Your Workouts Is So Important & How To Properly Switch It Up The Importance of Incorporating Mobility Training to Avoid Injury Influencer Disturbed When Her “AI Clone” Starts Engaging in Dark Fantasies Alpha School China builds robot with lab-grown HUMAN BRAIN dubbed ‘Organoid' in Frankenstein experiment to create ‘hybrid machines' The Revolving Toilet by Sanitronics, a revolutionary self cleaning toilet, by Business Insider NATIONAL DISASTER: Japan Beats Team USA National Team In Football... HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?! Caitlin Clark SUES Pat Macafee NCI x Mind Pump 2 Day Truckee Experience Visit Seed for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code 25MINDPUMP at checkout for 25% off your first month's supply of Seed's DS-01® Daily Synbiotic** The Most Overlooked Muscle Building Principle - Mind Pump Media Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Mark Sisson (@marksissonprimal) Instagram  

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin coach four Pump Heads via Zoom. Email live@mindpumpmedia.com if you want to be considered to ask your question on the show. Mind Pump Fit Tip: One of the BIGGEST mistakes people make when trying to bring up a lagging body part. (2:30) Adam's a BIG golf guy. (11:43) The insanity of politics. (18:50) Using the GHK-CU peptide to heal the skin. (26:56) The Brain Blend from Ned: A nice clean, euphoric feeling. (28:21) Mind Pump cashing in on GLP-1s? (29:21) Fun Facts with Justin: The ultimate time-share scam! (36:45) Adam's dream house. (38:54) Why are Sal's daughters so violent with him? (40:14) Vacation recap. (41:42) It pays to write your own shit! (54:39) Shout out to the NCI x Mind Pump Tahoe Event! (59:08) #ListenerLive question #1 - I'm having the hardest time finding moves that activate my core and butt better.  Any advice? (1:01:37) #ListenerLive question #2 - Do you have any tips or advice on how to navigate being a father and a trainer? (1:14:27) #ListenerLive question #3 - Teens usually overtrain & I've seen fellow teenagers take it to failure. They have physiques that are impressive for their age, but I'm wondering if it could be genetics or their training volume? (1:29:45) #ListenerLive question #4 - How to transition off of Semaglutide? (1:43:36) Related Links/Products Mentioned Ask a question to Mind Pump, live! Email: live@mindpumpmedia.com Visit NED for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off ** Visit Paleovalley for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Discount is now automatically applied at checkout 15% off your first order! ** July Promotion: MAPS Split | Sexy Athlete Bundle 50% off! ** Code JULY50 at checkout ** Mind Pump #1745: How To Pack On Muscle To Your Lagging/Stubborn Body Parts Mind Pump #1790: The Secret To An Attractive & Functional Body TRANSCEND your goals! Telehealth Provider • Physician Directed GET YOUR PERSONALIZED TREATMENT PLAN! Hormone Replacement Therapy, Cognitive Function, Sleep & Fatigue, Athletic Performance and MORE. Their online process and medical experts make it simple to find out what's right for you. Interested in small group GLP-1 coaching with the Mind Pump Team? Get on the wait list… Mind Pump #2360: What You Need To Know About GLP-1 With Dr. Tyna Moore Eternal Real Estate? A Church in Mexico Is Selling Plots of Land in Heaven This Brutalist Beverly Hills mansion is being sold by the founder of Oakley for $68m! Diddy Is Still Paying Sting $5K a Day in Royalties NCI x Mind Pump 2 Day Truckee Experience Visit Hiya for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Receive 50% off your first order ** Mind Pump #2360: What You Need To Know About GLP-1 With Dr. Tyna Moore Mind Pump #1565: Why Women Should Bulk Reverse Dieting: What Is It and Should YOU Try It?? | MIND PUMP Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Dr. Tyna Moore (@drtyna) Instagram   Arthur Brooks (@arthurcbrooks) Instagram Dr. William Seeds (@williamseedsmd) Instagram  

In this short podcast episode, Bryan answers a listener-submitted question: How do inverter air conditioners work? Inverter-driven systems have variable capacity to match loads. We can provide cooling or heating BTUs to match the needs of the space without overcompensating or undercompensating and causing temperature swings. Load matching also helps us get better efficiency out of the system. High-humidity climates also benefit from load matching, as equipment doesn't dehumidify well unless it has been running the entire time. When set up and designed properly, variable frequency drives (VFDs) improve comfort, efficiency, and even dehumidification. You can "overclock" your compressor to get more BTUs out of it without oversizing, particularly when you have high heating loads due to the cold weather. Inverter-driven equipment takes AC power in, runs it through a rectifier circuit, and turns it into rough power that resembles DC power. The current is then smoothed out and goes through the inverter bridge circuit. Unlike an analog AC wave, we rely on pulse-width modulation (PWM) to simulate three-phase power and control the motor speeds according to a space's needs. We typically troubleshoot residential inverter-driven equipment by following the manufacturer flowcharts and possibly by communicating with tech support. Commercial VFDs are external to the motors and tend to be a bit more universal rather than manufacturer-specific.   Watch the livestream about VFDs & inverters with Matthew Taylor and Corey Cruz HERE, and you can also watch the livestream about cold climate heat pumps with Ross Trethewey and Russ King HERE. Learn more about NCI's High-Performance HVAC Summit at https://www.gotosummit.com/.  Have a question that you want us to answer on the podcast? Submit your questions at https://www.speakpipe.com/hvacschool.  Purchase your tickets or learn more about the 6th Annual HVACR Training Symposium at https://hvacrschool.com/symposium. Subscribe to our podcast on your iPhone or Android.   Subscribe to our YouTube channel.  Check out our handy calculators here or on the HVAC School Mobile App for Apple and Android.

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin coach four Pump Heads via Zoom. Email live@mindpumpmedia.com if you want to be considered to ask your question on the show. Mind Pump Fit Tip: (Workout of the Day) Instead of doing multiple exercises for a body part do ONE exercise for a lot of sets. (1:52) If you can't sleep due to stress and anxiety, try this. (12:53) Man's struggle to ask for help. (15:51) Moving can be stressful. (18:53) A reminder of how amazing our bodies are to adapt to their environments. (22:32) Mind Pump Recommends, Fight Inc. on Roku. (29:09) Fun Facts with Justin: Bear-hunting armor. (35:32) Do you want an AI bot? (38:17) Fake news goes crazy! (43:41) NCI x Mind Pump Tahoe Event announcement! (45:47) Why the guys are attracted to entrepreneurs who aren't attention-seeking. (47:29) Caldera's mineral-based sunscreen protects and heals! (50:38) Shout out to NCI x Mind Pump Tahoe Event! (52:54) #ListenerLive question #1 – What is the right way to wean off a GLP-1, like Semaglutide? (53:57) #ListenerLive question #2 - How often do you recommend doing a cold plunge for optimal health? (1:14:42) #ListenerLive question #3 – I was able to reverse diet a client from 1800 to 3800 calories and gained a lot of strength and size on the way but now looking to get her physique to the next level. We are struggling to see any weight loss going as little as 1900 calories. What are some things I could look into as a coach? (1:25:15) #ListenerLive question #4 – How do I incorporate MAPS Prime Pro with Anabolic? (1:39:54) Related Links/Products Mentioned Ask a question to Mind Pump, live! Email: live@mindpumpmedia.com Visit Organifi for the exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off** Visit Caldera Lab for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off your first order of their best products ** July Promotion: MAPS Split | Sexy Athlete Bundle 50% off! ** Code JULY50 at checkout ** Mind Pump Apperal 4th of July sale is live! Get 25% off Freedom tee, Rebellion tee, and Freedom flag. Our equipment and other apparel will be 20% off.  This includes Tees, the Love Yourself Collection, Socks, Headbands, and Kitchen items.  Mind Pump #1632: The Truth About German Volume Training How Do I Choose The Right Weight? (LIFT RESPONSIBLY) – YouTube Mind Pump #2347: Become A Better Husband, Wife, Father Or Mother By Discovering Your Attachment Style With Adam Lane Smith Bajau people 'evolved bigger spleens' for free-diving - BBC Watch The Deepest Breath | Netflix Official Site How to watch and stream Fight Inc: Inside the UFC - Roku A Siberian bear-hunting armor from the 1800s Are German Police Wearing Chainmail to Defend Against Refugee NCI x Mind Pump 2 Day Truckee Experience Visit Brain.fm for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners. ** Get 30 days of free access to science-backed music. ** Mind Pump #2360: What You Need To Know About GLP-1 With Dr. Tyna Moore MP Holistic Health 3 Day Mind Pump Personal Trainer Webinar Mind Pump Fitness Coaching Course Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Adam | Relationship Psychology (@attachmentadam) Instagram Jason Phillips (@realjasonphillips) Instagram   Dr. Tyna Moore (@drtyna) Instagram   Dr. William Seeds (@williamseedsmd) Instagram Dr. Stephen Cabral (@stephencabral) Instagram  

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin coach four Pump Heads via Zoom. Email live@mindpumpmedia.com if you want to be considered to ask your question on the show. Mind Pump Fit Tip: When it comes to fitness, there are three categories that you should aim for. Balance is best. (2:51) Adams shares and opens up on the scariest week of his life. (13:52) Shout out to John Delony! (51:37) #ListenerLive question #1 - How can you speed up the time to complete the "adaptation cycle?” (52:33) #ListenerLive question #2 - I try to stop my reps when my form breaks down, but sometimes I feel like I have heaps left in the tank. Should I white-knuckle another rep or add another set? (1:08:53) #ListenerLive question #3 - Any advice on how to get good at front squats to add to my skill base? (1:17:39) #ListenerLive question #4 - Would you discourage a woman from prepping for a bikini competition and if so, what would you encourage them to do instead? (1:24:48) Related Links/Products Mentioned Ask a question to Mind Pump, live! Email: live@mindpumpmedia.com Exclusively for Mind Pump Listeners, register for your chance to win a full NCI scholarship! ** The winner will be drawn on Sunday, June 23rd - so go register ASAP! ** Get your free Sample Pack with any “drink mix” purchase! Also try the new LMNT Sparkling — a bold, 16-ounce can of sparkling electrolyte water: Visit DrinkLMNT.com/MindPump Listen to the Dr. John Delony Show wherever you get your podcasts or click the link here June Promotion: MAPS 15 Minutes | Bikini Bundle | Shredded Summer Bundle 50% off! ** Code JUNE50 at checkout ** Mind Pump #1942: Lose Fat, Perform Better & Live Forever With Jason Phillips 3 Day Mind Pump Personal Trainer Webinar Mind Pump #2112: Is 15 Minutes Enough Time For An Effective Workout? MAPS Prime Pro Webinar BEST Front Squat Regression & Mobility Tips (START HERE) Front Squats- How to Place & Hold the Bar – YouTube How Do I Choose The Right Weight? (LIFT RESPONSIBLY) – YouTube Mind Pump #2180: Is Powerlifting Beneficial For Women? Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Jason Phillips (@realjasonphillips) Instagram Adeel Khan, MD (@dr.akhan) Instagram   Dr. Gabrielle Lyon (@drgabriellelyon) Instagram Bishop Robert Barron (@bishopbarron) Instagram Arthur Brooks (@arthurcbrooks) Instagram Dr. John Delony (@johndelony) Instagram  

How will GLP-1s impact the diet industry and nutrition coaches, in particular? (1:42) What makes an effective coach? (8:09) Anything that has that level of power is not going to hit the mass market. (10:01) Is the role of “coach” becoming more all-encompassing? (11:54) Will GLP-1s make a coach more or less effective? (15:46) GLP-1s, an amplifier of the current state of the industry? (20:53) Why tools by themselves are largely a waste of money. (28:39) Don't have a scarcity mindset. (34:24) Intervention needs to lead to the fundamentals. (37:00) The BEST business model for coaches and trainers. (42:43) As a new trainer or coach, how would you look at these tools? (46:45) Whenever something comes on the horizon you need to learn it and know how to apply it or argue against it. (51:07) Related Links/Products Mentioned Exclusively for Mind Pump Listeners, our friends at NCI are really hooking you up!  This month they are giving you one of their 4 masterclasses…FOR FREE!  All you have to do is text MASTERCLASS to 615-813-6320 and they will share the 4 options with you. Visit Legion Athletics for the exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Code MINDPUMP for 20% off your first order (new customers) and double rewards points for existing customers. ** June Promotion: MAPS 15 Minutes | Bikini Bundle | Shredded Summer Bundle 50% off! ** Code JUNE50 at checkout ** Mind Pump #2110: Ozempic The Miracle Fat Loss Peptide: The Truth With Dr. William Seeds Mind Pump #2187: Why Building Muscle Is More Important Than Losing Fat With Dr. Gabrielle Lyon Mind Pump #1942: Lose Fat, Perform Better & Live Forever With Jason Phillips Mind Pump #2060: Maximize Fat Loss With Continuous Glucose Monitors: Kara Collier 3 Day Mind Pump Personal Trainer Webinar Mind Pump #2302: How To Be A Successful Trainer In 2024 With Jason Phillips Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources Featured Guest/People Mentioned Jason Phillips (@nci_ceo_jason) Instagram Dr. William Seeds (@williamseedsmd) Instagram Bill Campbell PhD Jay Ferruggia (@jayferruggia) Instagram Alex Hormozi (@hormozi) Instagram  

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin coach four Pump Heads via Zoom. Mind Pump Fit Tip: BUILD MUSCLE to drastically improve your health! (1:45) Risk vs. reward when it comes to kids and contact sports. (15:19) Dispelling misinformation on Sal's tattoo. (19:25) Adam at his lowest weight since competing days. (20:42) Educating the audience on the accuracy of body fat tests. (27:55) The Happy Drops from Organifi are CRUSHING! (32:04) A wedding reception gone TERRIBLY wrong. (36:43) That one-time Justin got stuck on a rollercoaster. (37:47) Adam's embarrassing text. (39:08) Highlighting how we misunderstand studies or data. (43:06) Storytelling and teaching lessons. (46:05) How to get 10 clients in 10 days. (50:40) Shout out to Hippy Feet socks! (51:23) #ListenerLive question #1 – What sort of training/conditioning would you suggest aiding with dance lifts? (57:23) #ListenerLive question #2 – Would you have any suggestions on how to program for 75 Hard to finish strong and not be worn out or injured? (1:09:21) #ListenerLive question #3 – How do I work on body parts that are lagging? (1:24:10) #ListenerLive question #4 – I've had a string of injuries, any advice on how to remedy this? (1:37:52) Related Links/Products Mentioned Ask a question to Mind Pump, live! Email: live@mindpumpmedia.com See and hang out with Mind Pump, LIVE! Saturday, June 15 · 1pm PDT Bellagio Las Vegas. Click the link here for more details. Visit Organifi for the exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off. May 10-12th, Mother's Day Weekend - Buy 1 Get 1 Free Organifi Harmony Plus Free Shipping ** Exclusively for Mind Pump Listeners, NCI is offering access to their free guide on learning to find, close and retain 10 clients in 10 days.  May Promotion: MAPS Strong | MAPS Powerlift 50% off! ** Code MAY50 at checkout ** Trends in nutrition, lifestyle, and metabolic disease in the United States from 1900 onwards Effects of macronutrient intake in obesity: a meta-analysis of low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on markers of the metabolic syndrome Strength Of Grip Declines In Young Adults Mind Pump #1877: Obesity, It's Not Your Genetics Guardian Caps: Are the soft-shelled football helmet covers effective at limiting head injuries? Mind Pump #2320: Throw Away The Scale! An 8-Week Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of 3 Vilazodone Dose-Initiation Strategies Following Switch From SSRIs and SNRIs in Major Depressive Disorder The wedding menu that put 80 guests in hospital and left more than 100 people vomiting is revealed - as one attendee says men and women were given different food, but all ended up sick Giving Birth Later in Life Linked to Longer Life | TIME Children's Books by Andy Frisella The Very Hungry Caterpillar book hand2mind Numberblocks Friends One to Five Figures, Toy Figures Collectibles, Small Cartoon Figurines for Kids, Mini Action Figures, Character Figures, Play Figure Playsets, Imaginative Play Toys All Hippy Feet Products - American Made & Eco-Friendly Body Brokers | Rotten Tomatoes California fails to track how billions are spent to fight homelessness Visit Seed for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code 25MINDPUMP at checkout for 25% off your first month's supply of Seed's DS-01® Daily Synbiotic** Improve Your Overhead Press & Build Your Shoulders with Unilateral Kettlebell Carries – Mind Pump TV Chaos Band Training: How To, Benefits, Variations - Muscle & Fitness Using The Earthquake Bar | Westside Barbell Mind Pump #2290: Becoming A Better Man With Jason Khalipa Mind Pump #2220: How To Stay Consistent With Your Workouts Ask Mind Pump Mind Pump #2322: Why Your Butt Won't Grow Mind Pump #1872: Eight Benefits Of Lifting With Light Weight Sore muscles…what does it mean? – Mind Pump Blog Mind Pump #2312: Five Steps To Bounce Back From Overtraining MAPS Prime Pro Webinar Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Drew Canole (@drewcanole) Instagram Mark Hyman, M.D. (@drmarkhyman) Instagram Mike Matthews (@muscleforlifefitness) Instagram Andy Frisella (@andyfrisella) Instagram Joe DeFranco (@defrancosgym)  Instagram James Smith (@smittydiesel)  Instagram Jason Khalipa (@jasonkhalipa) Instagram  

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin answer four Pump Head questions drawn from last Sunday's Quah post on the @mindpumpmedia Instagram page.  Mind Pump Fit Tip: If you're going to talk good to anybody, talk good to yourself. (1:40) Reacting to the latest TikTok trend, Trad Wives. (16:00) Trauma lust. (25:04) The evolutionary theory behind strongmen dating tiny women. (33:17) Growth spurts. (35:22) The growth mindset is attached to being a successful personal trainer. (38:54) When people go viral due to hate. (40:52) Shout out to Mind Pump's FREE Peptide Guide. (51:33) #Quah question #1 - How much volume is considered “too much?” How many sets per muscle group should we aim for? 6? 8? 12? (52:41) #Quah question #2 - Do you build cheat days into your nutrition plan? Especially around Birthdays and holidays? (58:51) #Quah question #3 - Can you discuss the differences between processed “unhealthy” foods vs non-processed “unhealthy” foods? I notice there is a massive difference in how I feel having a homemade dessert vs prepackaged and processed. (1:02:55) #Quah question #4 - Is it better to move more and eat more or to move less and eat less? (1:06:24) Related Links/Products Mentioned Exclusively for Mind Pump Listeners, NCI has put together the ultimate starter kit full of resources that will help you do everything from creating an irresistible offer to properly intake and onboarding a new client.   Visit Butcher Box for this month's exclusive Mind Pump offer!  ** New users will get $20 off your first order ** Tiktok's 'Trad Wife' Influencers Think The Kitchen Is Pretty Neat 3 Day Mind Pump Personal Trainer Webinar Hippie rapper Shanin Blake Mind Pump #2217: Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Peptide Therapy - Guide to Unlocking Your Body's Potential Visit Seed for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code 25MINDPUMP at checkout for 25% off your first month's supply of Seed's DS-01® Daily Synbiotic** Why Your Tempo Matters When You Workout! – Mind Pump TV Should I Do a Cheat Day While I'm Training? - Mind Pump Blog Mind Pump #1037: How Ultra-Processed Foods Are Making You Fat, Sick, & Weak Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned shanin blake (@shaninblake) Instagram   Jordan B. Peterson (@JordanBPeterson) X  

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin coach four Pump Heads via Zoom. Mind Pump Fit Tip: When it comes to fitness success, the WHY is more important than how or the what. (1:45) The best compliment a man can get? (15:29) Knowing what you like and don't like. (16:42) Laughter is such a powerful thing. (21:57) One of the BEST exercises/machines to improve squat mobility. (27:40) The dangers of social media for kids. (30:42) Should the US be able to advertise pharmaceutical drugs? (33:57) There is a trust issue with A.I. (43:03) Why the guys love Jason Phillips and NCI. (49:26) Fun Facts with Justin: Leather Canary. (51:40) Shout out to the Mind Pump Park City Rental. (55:03) #ListenerLive question #1 – As I'm already kind of muscular and looking to lean out, should I just focus on figuring out what my maintenance is and then start my cut or should I focus on bulking even though that's what I've done my entire life? (56:31) #ListenerLive question #2 - How can I increase my protein intake on a vegetarian diet? (1:05:38) #ListenerLive question #3 - Any advice on how to transition from being a professional athlete to working a desk job? (1:15:58) #ListenerLive question #4 - I'm looking to lose body fat and improve my sleep habits, any advice or tips? (1:29:46) Related Links/Products Mentioned Ask a question to Mind Pump, live! Email: live@mindpumpmedia.com Visit Caldera Lab for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off your first order of their best products ** Visit NCI Coaching Con for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump Listeners! ** The event is April 3-6 in Orlando, FL. Secure your spot now - the future of fitness coaching is in your hands! Also, don't miss our LIVE Q&A while we're there! ** March Promotion: MAPS Anabolic | MAPS Anabolic Advanced 50% off! ** Code MARCH50 at checkout ** Mind Pump #2220: How To Stay Consistent With Your Workouts Mind Pump #1912: The Science Of Successful Marriages & Relationships With Drs. John And Julie Gottman Belt Squat: A Simple Squat Variation That Can Change EVERYTHING Florida lawmakers pass bill to ban social media for anyone under 16 Pharma DTC ad spend in the U.S. 2021 | Statista Dr. Phil Educates 'The View' Hosts on Covid - MSN Google CEO Pichai says Gemini's AI image results "offended our users" South Park: Joining the Panderverse (TV Movie 2023) - IMDb Details You Didn't Know About Steely Dan - Grunge Mind Pump Rentals – Utah Property Visit Seed for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code 25MINDPUMP at checkout for 25% off your first month's supply of Seed's DS-01® Daily Synbiotic** Visit Kreatures of Habit: Meal One for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Code MP25 at checkout** Visit Organifi for the exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout** For a limited time only, Mind Pump listeners get a free LMNT Sample Pack with any purchase: Visit DrinkLMNT.com/MindPump Mind Pump #2275: The 8 People Most Likely To Overtrain Mind Pump #1237: Why Most Group Exercise Classes Suck Mind Pump #1345: 6 Ways To Optimize Sleep For Faster Muscle Gain And Fat Loss Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Dr. Phil (@drphil) Instagram Jason Phillips (@nci_ceo_jason) Instagram