Podcasts about nih

What happens when a powerhouse research enterprise, a statewide health system, and a relentless push for access all meet at the same table? Our conversation with Dr. David Miller, CEO of Michigan Medicine, opens the door to a candid look at how precision care, digital tools, and financial reality collide—and how smart leadership turns that collision into progress.We dig into the new map of Michigan Medicine: the academic medical center in Ann Arbor, integrated hospitals in Lansing and West Michigan, and partnerships that extend specialty expertise across the state. Then we follow the research-to-care pipeline, from NIH-backed labs to clinical trials to real-world therapies. You'll hear how next-generation sequencing is making targeted cancer treatments more accessible, and why histotripsy—a noninvasive, ultrasound-based approach to treating liver tumors—is a model for bringing breakthroughs from engineering benches to exam rooms.Technology is more than a buzzword here. Dr. Miller explains how generative AI is cutting documentation time with ambient notes, speeding routine approvals, and supporting clinical decisions, all while keeping a human in the loop. We talk training the next wave of physicians to be technology fluent, and how virtual visits and remote monitoring expand access without trading away empathy. On payment and policy, we confront the hard parts: Medicaid churn, prior authorization friction, and the need for value-based insurance design that lowers barriers to high-value care. The throughline is simple and urgent—make it easier for patients to get the right care at the right time, and align incentives so innovation actually reaches people.If you care about healthcare that is precise, humane, and actually reachable, this conversation will give you a practical, hopeful blueprint. Subscribe, share with a friend who's navigating care, and leave a review to help more listeners find the show. Your feedback keeps this community sharp—and pushes the system toward what works.Support the showEngage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!

Do the many clinical trials into high-dose vitamin C prove it can actually treat the common cold and cancer, rather than just boost the immune system? Why is there ongoing scepticism? Why are multifactorial chronic diseases so hard to study in clinical trials? What is the right dosage to get the best results from vitamin C?In this episode we have the often misunderstood topic of Vitamin C as an antioxidant to get clear on, particular the high-dose approach and particularly delivered intravenously. Despite a very clear consensus that Vitamin C is a great booster to immune function, research that shows that it helps fight the common cold or flu have been dismissed by doctors and medical researchers; as well as claims that higher doses can increase its efficacy. Other claims that Vitamin C can help fight cardio-vascular disease and even cancer have been with even greater scepticism. So what exactly can vitamin C do to assist our immune function to fight disease, and why is there so much confusion about the answer given the high quantity of clinical trials data?Fortunately today's guest has exactly the right skill set and research knowledge to separate the science from the here-say, medical doctor and orthomolecular medicine researcher, Dr. Richard Z Cheng. Dr. Cheng has a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology; he's served as a doctor in the US military; he has consulted for the National Cancer Institute, and presented at the National Institute of Health (NIH); he has conducted clinical trials; He is the editor in Chief of the Orthmolecular Medicine New Service; He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Anti- Aging medicine; and has run anti-aging and regenerative medicine clinics in both China and the US for over 20 years.What we discuss:00:00 Intro05:15 Most animals produce Vitamin C in the body, but not primates.06:00 Oxidation & Redox: Giving or receiving an electron.11:00 After reducing oxidation the body recycles it back into vitamin C.14:00 Teamwork: sharing electrons between nutrients and vitamins.18:20 Conventional consensus: good for prevention but not treatment.21:00 Over 80K papers on Vit C on Pub Med!21:30 Linus Pauling Intravenous Vitamin C for cancer and heart disease.27:00 Shortening of common cold and lowering of symptoms - Harri Hemila.29:00 Low dose studies dilute the data on the efficacy of the high dose studies.31:00 Intravenous treatment allows much higher doses safely.33:00 Differences in absorption between IV and oral application.35:20 Pro-oxidant effect only possible at IV high dose.36:30 IV clinical trials.39:20 Cytokine storm cascades in acute respiratory distress.44:00 High Dose IV Vitamin C saved lives in China during Covid 19.50:00 Attacks following Richard's NIH presentation on Vitamin C during covid.57:00 Cardio vascular disease - Vit. C research history.01:01:00 Collagen Synthesis for vascular walls & Vitamin C deficiency.01:07:20 Is the taboo for life style medicine lifting?01:09:30 Issues of gold standard RCT trials not working for multifactorial integrative interventions.01:16:00 Recommendations for preventative use of Vitamin C for listeners. References:E Cameron & Linus Pauling - 'Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: Prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer', 1976E.T. Creagan, 'Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer', 1979Harri Hemilä - over 200 meta-analyses and clinical trialsPing Chen et al. 'Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Intravenous Vitamin C'Richard Z Cheng, ‘Can early and high intravenous dose of vitamin C prevent and treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?'KU Cancer Center researchers announce study of high-dose intravenous vitamin C to treat muscle-invasive bladder cancer, 2024National Cancer Institute overview of IV Vitamin C cancer research.

A former NIH director discusses the urgent need to put public health above party lines. Then, a pancreatic cancer survivor reflects on his diagnosis and the complex Whipple procedure that saved his life.

Natasha is joined by Dr. Lisa Diamond and Dr. Scout on this episode of the Natasha Helfer Podcast. This is a powerful episode as, in Lisa's words: "Scout and I have witnessed the entire birth and now destruction of the field of queer and trans mental and physical health (Scout is 60, I'm 54), so we have lived through this whole weird arc of seeing lgbtq health become a legitimate profession, and now it's being threatened—it's both personally and professionally devastating for both of us to witness this happening. "It is astounding that at a time when we recently survived a global pandemic that left so many people feeling isolated in ways that has profoundly affected our mental and physical health… and at a time when we have very clear data on the risk of suicide and lessened wellbeing for the LGBTQI+ community due to societal discrimination… that the government is choosing to dismantle and destroy so many departments/entities meant to support the health, science and data collection of ALL Americans." Dr. Diamond and Dr. Scout have created a survey for anyone affected by the current administration. Please consider filling it out. "We launched the study with zero funding, it's driven by pure love and panic, and it's affecting EVERYONE who loves or works with queer or trans people, including family members, friends, social workers, physicians, school, teachers, therapist, educators, EVERYONE. All of us are going through something, and we are going through this at the same time that the federal government has CEASED all data collection on our health. So Scout and I figured "OK, you don't wanna do this? We're just gonna have to do it ourselves." Go here to fill out the survey: https://csbsutah.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9WyKRPONJuL67Yy?fbclid=IwY2xjawOEdthleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFoOW43aDJMdnNGb1kwSThZc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHkWvMqhUx7OYFY_0kbvt2yVu911j1Ch5DAnsBloLDDgUw1CHSZ3BRNwBhq3A_aem_2e27bX8Xk_kP7utbPv482g Also, if you're an organization that would like to partner with this project reach out to: research@cancer-network.com From Natasha: I loved Lisa's reminder that we survive oppression and destruction through connection. This is a small thing we can do to make a difference and that in of itself is healing and empowering. Please take the 20-25 minutes to fill out this survey. And please forward it to anyone you know who is impacted. Scout, PhD (they/he) is the Executive Director of the National LGBTQI+ Cancer Network and the principal investigator of both the CDC-funded LGBTQI+ tobacco-related cancer disparity network and Out: The National Cancer Survey. They spend much of their time providing technical assistance for tobacco and cancer focusing agencies expanding their reach and engagement with LGBTQI+ populations. Scout has a long history in health policy analysis and a particular interest in ensuring research and surveillance activities include LGBTQI+ people. They have faculty appointments at Dartmouth Cancer Center and Boston University's school of public health. They are a member of FDA's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, on the Advisory Panel for NIH's All of Us initiative, and a former member of NIH Council of Councils as well as former Co-Chair of the NIH Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office Work Group. Their work has won them recognition from the U.S. House of Representatives, two state governments, and many city governments. Scout is an openly nonbinary and trans father of three, an avid hiker, and is currently training for the aptly named Dopey Challenge races at Disney. Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D., is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies at the University of Utah and a past president of the International Academy for Sex Research. For nearly 30 years, she has studied gender and sexuality across the lifespan, with current work centered on social safety and its impact on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. Dr. Diamond is internationally recognized for her pioneering research on sexual fluidity, including her award-winning book Sexual Fluidity (Harvard University Press). She co-edited the first APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, is a fellow of two APA divisions, and has published over 150 scholarly works. Her research has been supported by major national foundations, and she has delivered more than 200 invited talks worldwide, including a TED Talk with over 700,000 views. — Join Natasha February 11-17th 2026 on a cruise leaving out of Tampa, Florida. You can grab a package and work with Natasha on the ship. Sign up before January 1st and you get the early bird special: Natasha packages: $750 per couple $675 per couple - early bird (before January 1st) Payment plans are available. For further questions, email Mimi at unleashedvacations@gmail.com. Book now to make sure you don't miss out! See you on board. — To help keep this podcast going, please consider donating at natashahelfer.com and share this episode. To watch the video of this podcast, you can subscribe to Natasha's channel on Youtube and follow her professional Facebook page at natashahelfer LCMFT, CST-S. You can find all her cool resources at natashahelfer.com.  The information shared on this program is informational and should not be considered therapy. This podcast addresses many topics around mental health and sexuality and may not be suitable for minors. Some topics may elicit a trigger or emotional response so please care for yourself accordingly. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed by our guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or feelings of Natasha Helfer or the Natasha Helfer Podcast. We provide a platform for open and diverse discussions, and it is important to recognize that different perspectives may be shared. We encourage our listeners to engage in critical thinking and form their own opinions. The intro and outro music for these episodes is by Otter Creek. Thank you for listening. And remember: Symmetry is now offering Ketamine services. To find out more, go to symcounseling.com/ketamine-services. There are also several upcoming workshops. Visit natashahelfer.com or symcounseling.com to find out more.

What if the biggest threat to our survival isn't the next virus, but our failure to learn from the last one? In this episode, Dr. Michael Osterholm, Regents Professor and Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, explains why America's public health system is dangerously underprepared for the next major outbreak. He shares how misinformation and political interference have eroded confidence in science, leaving critical institutions like the CDC and NIH struggling to fulfill their missions. Dr. Osterholm discusses lessons from COVID-19 and why failing to apply them could cost millions of lives in the future. He also explores the promise of universal vaccines, the need for sustained investment in pandemic defense, and how rebuilding public trust starts with humility, transparency, and truth-telling. Tune in to hear what it will really take to prepare for “the big one. Resources Connect with and follow Dr. Michael Osterholm on LinkedIn. Follow the University of Minnesota on LinkedIn! Follow the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) on LinkedIn and visit their website! Learn more about the Vaccine Integrity Project here! Pick up any of Dr. Osterholm's books here! Check out the Osterholm Update podcast! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the NeurologyLive® Mind Moments® podcast. Tune in to hear leaders in neurology sound off on topics that impact your clinical practice. In this episode, "NEALS 2025: Takeaways That Matter for ALS Care," ALS experts Jinsy Andrews, MD, MSc, and James Berry, MD, MPH, reflect on key themes from the 2025 NEALS Annual Meeting, now reintroduced as the Network of Excellence for ALS. They discuss format changes that elevated lightning science, the expanding gene therapy pipeline, and a growing slate of NEALS-affiliated trials. The conversation highlights updates from the HEALEY Platform Trial, the MY-MATCH biomarker-guided precision trial, SOD1 program data, and new antisense and viral vector therapies aimed at sporadic ALS. They also explore the impact of Act for ALS on trial access, the ALL ALS biospecimen repository, and NIH-supported expanded access cohorts. The discussion closes with insights on combination therapy strategies, genetic subtypes, presymptomatic enrollment, and how new collaborations, digital endpoints, and infrastructure advances are shaping momentum heading into 2026. Looking for more Neuromuscular discussion? Check out the NeurologyLive® Neuromuscular clinical focus page. Episode Breakdown: 1:05 – Reflections on meeting highlights and NEALS rebranding into a global network 5:00 – Notable NEALS-affiliated trials and promising new mechanisms in ALS care 12:45 – Combination therapy strategies and future approaches in ALS research 15:20 – Neurology News Minute 18:00 – Expanding clinical trial access for rare and genetic ALS subtypes 22:10 – Building momentum and expectations for the 2026 NEALS Annual Meeting The stories featured in this week's Neurology News Minute, which will give you quick updates on the following developments in neurology, are further detailed here: FDA Approves Doxecitine and Doxribtimine Combination Therapy as First Treatment for Thymidine Kinase 2 Deficiency Supplemental New Drug Application Submitted for AXS-05 as Treatment for Alzheimer Disease Agitation BTK Inhibitor Fenebrutinib Meets Primary End Points in Phase 3 Trials for Both Relapsing and Primary Progressive MS  Thanks for listening to the NeurologyLive® Mind Moments® podcast. To support the show, be sure to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. For more neurology news and expert-driven content, visit neurologylive.com.

Aujourd'hui, Coach Lee & Coach Sim sont seuls pour apporter quelques réflexions sur le mindset de Chris Bumstead suite à sa retraite du bodybuidling que tout le monde peut appliquer à sa vie.Dans cet épisode, on discute de:- Il est possible, et même normal, de vivre deux émotions opposées en même temps- C'est facile de dire que tu te fous de quelque chose quand ça va bien- Les raisons pourquoi tu commences et les raisons pourquoi tu continues peuvent changer- Plaisir vs motivation- Être authentique ou être accepté- Bien plus!Bonne écoute!Pour nous suivre: Coach Lee: @coach.lee__ Coach Sim: @coachsim.lat Utilisez le code "WUACV10" pour économiser 10% sur votre commande NIH sur le site ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://nihsupp.com

What if blockbuster weight-loss drugs and a broken food system are two sides of the same story? We sit down with Dr. David Harlan—physician, researcher, and former NIH diabetes branch chief—to trace the unlikely path from the “incretin effect” to GLP-1 therapies that are transforming care for type 2 diabetes and obesity. Along the way, we ask harder questions about incentives, access, and why lifestyle still matters even when the medicine is powerful.Dr. Harlan breaks down how GLP-1 receptor agonists amplify insulin release, quiet cravings, and drive meaningful weight loss—often alongside better blood pressure, improved A1C, and fewer heart events. He explains the Gila monster connection, why weekly injections replaced multiple daily shots, and what the latest safety data actually shows. We get candid about what happens when people stop these drugs, why genetics complicate the “just try harder” narrative, and how brain chemistry shapes appetite, compulsion, and energy.Then we zoom out to the policy level: the rise of food deserts, cheap ultra-processed calories, and the paradox of publicly funding both the problem and the fix. We explore practical steps that work in the real world—SKU-controlled health savings accounts, everyday movement campaigns, healthier default options in public spaces, and community gardens and sidewalks that make active living normal again. The throughline is simple and human: use the science to help people now, and rebuild the environment so fewer need the medicine later.If you care about diabetes, obesity, prevention, or the economics shaping our plates and prescriptions, this conversation offers clarity and a path forward. Support the show by subscribing, sharing with a friend, and leaving a review with the one insight you'll apply this week.Support the showEngage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!

About this episode: Between lawsuits, layoffs, and lags in funding, NIH has undergone significant changes in how it reviews and approves grant proposals for critical research. In this episode: Jeremy Berg, a former NIH leader, talks about what's changed and what's to come for indirect cost reimbursements, funding approvals, and the scientific research ecosystem as a whole. Guests: Jeremy M. Berg, PhD, is a professor of computational and systems biology at the University of Pittsburgh, where he is also the Associate Senior Vice Chancellor of Science Strategy and Planning. He previously served as the Director of the National Institute for General Medical Sciences at NIH. Host: Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast, an editor for Expert Insights, and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: Appeals court judges seem skeptical of Trump administration's defense of capping NIH overhead payments—STAT Trump order gives political appointees vast powers over research grants—Nature Life-saving medicines begin in the basic research DOGE wants to stop funding—Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Transcript information: Looking for episode transcripts? Open our podcast on the Apple Podcasts app (desktop or mobile) or the Spotify mobile app to access an auto-generated transcript of any episode. Closed captioning is also available for every episode on our YouTube channel. Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed Note: These podcasts are a conversation between the participants, and do not represent the position of Johns Hopkins University.

Pre-Order The Forever Strong PLAYBOOK and receive exclusive bonuses: https://drgabriellelyon.com/playbook/Want ad-free episodes, exclusives and access to community Q&As? Subscribe to Forever Strong Insider: https://foreverstrong.supercast.comIn this fascinating episode, Dr. Gabrielle Lyon talks with neuroscientist Dr. Ben Rein, PhD (author of Why Brains Need Friends), about the science of social connection, emotion, and cognitive health. Dr. Rein, an expert in neurobiology and psychedelic research, reveals the cutting-edge studies that explain why loneliness is as damaging as smoking and how our digital world is affecting our brain's ability to connect.They discuss the neurochemistry of love, the controversial use of MDMA in therapy, and whether AI can ever truly replace human intimacy. This conversation provides an essential look at the biological drivers of happiness, performance, and long-term brain health.Chapter Markers:0:00 - MDMA (Molly): The History & Therapeutic Benefits 5:59 - The Legal Status of MDMA for PTSD 6:44 - The Safety and Effectiveness of MDMA in Clinical Trials 8:29 - PTSD (The Amygdala Alarm) 9:41 - How MDMA Soothes the Amygdala to Access Memory 11:42 - Is There an Alternative to MDMA? (Ketamine's Mechanism) 13:16 - Ketamine and Neuroplasticity for Depression 15:48 - Botox and Empathy: 18:12 - The Problem of Volume: How Screens Depersonalize Interaction 19:48 - The Virtual Disengagement Hypothesis Explained 25:00 - Defining Cognitive and Emotional Empathy 29:43 - MDMA's Link to Serotonin & Social Reward 31:04 - Do SSRIs Have Pro-Social Effects? 36:10 - The Science of Likability and "Easy to Read" Faces 40:10 - Top 3 Ways to Be More Likable49:49 - The Likability Gap: Why You Underestimate How Well-Liked You Are 56:59 - The Neurobiology of Oxytocin, Dopamine, and Serotonin1:09:23 - The Goldilocks Zone of Empathy 1:15:58 - Narcolepsy 1:18:16 - Alcohol: Why the Neurotoxin is Bad for Brain Health 1:21:47 - Exercise and Neurogenesis1:22:27 - Sex, Orgasm, and Oxytocin Release 1:25:06 - Oxytocin During Childbirth Who is Ben Rein:Dr. Ben Rein is an award-winning neuroscientist and Chief Science Officer of the Mind Science Foundation, where he supports early-career researchers in neuroscience. He earned his PhD from SUNY Buffalo and completed postdoctoral training at Stanford University, publishing over 20 peer-reviewed papers on autism, empathy, MDMA, and digital behavior. Recognized by the NIH, the Society for Neuroscience, and Sigma Xi, he also serves as a scientific advisor to more than 20 organizations. With over one million followers and 75 million video views, Dr. Rein is celebrated for making neuroscience accessible to the public and has been featured by outlets such as Good Morning America, ABC News, and PopularMechanics.Thank you to our sponsors:BodyHealth: Use code LYON20 to get 20% off your first order https://www.bodyhealthaffiliates.com/73L4QL3/7XDN2/BON CHARGE Holiday Sale https://boncharge.com for 25% off Pique 20% off for life: https://Piquelife.com/DRLYONFind Ben Rein at: Website: https://www.benrein.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dr.benrein/#TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@dr.benrein?lang=enFacebook:

Behind every medical breakthrough for kids is usually a long history of research advances. Research is incremental, and new therapies exist, thanks to questions that are asked in science laboratories. Those investigators not only asked the hard questions but also found the funding to answer them. What happens when that funding starts to disappear? Research drives progress in pediatric medicine from vaccines to breakthrough treatments for rare diseases. That progress is currently at risk. Cuts and cancellations in key federal research programs, including CDC and NIH funding, threaten to stall discoveries and disproportionately impact pediatric investigators. In this episode, we dig into what's happening with child health research funding, why it matters for every pediatrician, and where the greatest opportunities for advocacy lie. For this episode, we are joined by two experts at the forefront of this conversation. Joe St. Geme, MD, is the Physician in Chief at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, as well as the President of the CHOP Practice Association. He is also a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Zach Zaslow is the Vice President of Advocacy and Community Health at Children's Hospital Colorado. Some highlights from this episode include:  The status of pediatric research funding  How pediatric research directly impacts community pediatricians  What current threats exist  How providers can advocate for their patients and families   For more information on Children's Colorado, visit: childrenscolorado.org. 

Want to share your feedback? Send us a message!Dr. Shahriar SheikhBahaei, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Behavior at Stony Brook University, joins host Sara MacIntyre, M.A., CCC-SLP, to discuss emerging research exploring the cellular and neurobiological mechanisms underlying stuttering. Dr. SheikhBahaei shares his journey from lived experience with stuttering to leading a neuroscience research lab investigating how glial cells, particularly astrocytes, contribute to motor control and speech-related circuits.The conversation delves into several recent studies from his lab that utilize mouse models to uncover how alterations in astrocyte function and iron regulation may relate to the neural pathways involved in stuttering. Dr. SheikhBahaei walks listeners through the background, scientific rationale, and key findings of these studies, highlighting what they reveal about the non-vocal motor aspects of stuttering and how this basic science may inform future directions in understanding and treatment.The episode concludes with reflections on bridging laboratory research with the lived experiences of people who stutter and fostering collaboration among scientists, clinicians, and the stuttering community.Resources discussed:SheikhBahaei, S., et al. (2025). Non-vocal motor deficits in a transgenic mouse model linked to stuttering disorders. bioRxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.08.669441v2SheikhBahaei, S., et al. (2025). Iron dysregulation in mice engineered with a mutation associated with stuttering. bioRxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.30.667752v1SheikhBahaei, S., et al. (2024). Scientists, society, and stuttering: A multi-stakeholder approach. International Journal of Clinical Practice. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijcp.13678Shahriar SheikhBahaei, Ph.D., is a neuroscientist and faculty member at Stony Brook University. His research focuses on how the brain controls complex motor behaviors such as speech and breathing, particularly focusing on the role of astrocytes in neural circuits. Growing up with stuttering has influenced his lifelong pursuit to understand the neurobiology of speech and communication. He completed his Ph.D. in Neuroscience through a joint program at University College London and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He later became one of the first Independent Research Scholars at NIH, where he established his own lab. At Stony Brook University, he continues to investigate the cellular and circuit foundations of speech disorders while also mentoring the next generation of scientists and advocating for more inclusive perspectives on communication.

Headlines shout certainty while the data whispers, and that gap can cost us wisdom. We dive into what real research looks like, how to separate signal from noise, and why the difference between correlation and causation matters for your health, your choices, and your credibility. From flashy anecdotes and AI-polished videos to the quiet rigor of controls, sample sizes, and replication, we walk through a practical, plain-language guide to spotting trustworthy studies without getting lost in jargon.We talk about the strengths and limits of meta-analyses, the importance of peer review, and why timeframes can make or break a claim—short-term happiness can look very different seven years later. Funding isn't neutral either, so we show you how incentives shape headlines and why early “breakthroughs” often fade when larger trials arrive. You'll hear how to use public resources like NIH repositories, when to lean on academic libraries, and how to ask better questions of your doctor or any expert you trust. Along the way, we call out common logical fallacies, the lure of echo chambers, and the subtle ways our pride and emotions tug us toward bad conclusions.Underneath it all is a deeper commitment: caring about truth is an act of stewardship. We want to make decisions with integrity, serve our neighbors with reliable information, and admit honestly when the evidence just isn't there yet. That blend of diligence and humility keeps us grounded—pursuing knowledge while recognizing our limits, weighing evidence without surrendering compassion, and trusting God when certainty runs out.If this conversation helps you think more clearly about research and real-world decisions, share it with a friend. Subscribe for more thoughtful episodes, and leave a review to tell us what question you want us to tackle next.Support the showThe ministry of Christian Life Resources promotes the sanctity of life and reaches hearts with the Gospel. We invite you to learn more about the work we're doing: https://christianliferesources.com/

Overview: In this episode, Toyin Nwafor, MD, and Christian B Ramers, MD, draw on their experience in primary care, HIV and HIV prevention to highlight missed opportunities for HIV prevention and discuss strategies to help address gaps in the HIV care continuum. The views expressed are those of the panelist(s) and not necessarily Gilead Sciences, Inc. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be and should not be understood to provide medical advice. Listeners should note that our discussions in this episode are relevant to the USA only and may not be appropriate for other regions. This episode was recorded in August 2025 and the content reflects the information available at that time. Guest: Toyin Nwafor, MD; Christian B Ramers, MD, MPH, FIDSA, AAHIVS   For more information, please visit: https://www.pri-med.com/clinical-resources/curriculum/hiv-in-focus  References AIDSVu.org. Prevalence in the United States. 2022. Available from: https://map.aidsvu.org/ (Accessed June 25, 2025). AIDSVu.org was developed by the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in partnership with Gilead Sciences, Inc. Baeten J et al. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2013;10:142–51. CDC. Clinical testing guidance for HIV. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hivnexus/hcp/diagnosis-testing/index.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. Discussing sexual health with your patients. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hivnexus/hcp/sexual-history/index.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC.gov. HIV diagnoses, deaths, and prevalence. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/nhss/hiv-diagnoses-deaths-prevalence.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. National HIV prevention and care objectives: 2025 update. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/nhss/national-hiv-prevention-and-care-objectives-2025.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States – 2021 update: a clinical practice guideline. 2021. Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/112360 (Accessed June 25, 2025). Doblecki-Lewis S et al. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care 2019;18:2325958219848848. DHHS. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in adults and adolescents with HIV. 2024. Available from: https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/guidelines/documents/adult-adolescent-arv/guidelines-adult-adolescent-arv.pdf (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. Key EHE strategies. 2024. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/key-strategies (Accessed June 2, 2025). HIV.gov. HIV treatment as prevention. 2023. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/tasp (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. US statistics. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics (Accessed May 21, 2025). HIV.gov. Viral suppression and undetectable viral load. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/staying-in-hiv-care/hiv-treatment/viral-suppression (Accessed July 18, 2025). HIV.gov. Who is at risk for HIV. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/who-is-at-risk-for-hiv (Accessed June 25, 2025). Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. What to know about PrEP. 2025. Available from: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/who-needs-prep-for-hiv-prevention (Accessed June 25, 2025). Kamis KF et al. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:ofz310. KFF. HIV testing in the United States. 2024. Available from: https://www.kff.org/hiv-aids/hiv-testing-in-the-united-states/ting in the United States | KFF (Accessed August 26, 2025). NIH. HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). 2021. Available from: https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/fact-sheets/hiv-and-sexually-transmitted-infections-stis (Accessed June 25, 2025). Ramchandani MS et al. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2019;16:244–56. Saag MS et al. JAMA 2018;320:379–96. Sweeney P et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2019;82(Suppl 1):S1–5. The White House. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States 2022–2025. 2021. Available from: https://files.hiv.gov/s3fs-public/NHAS-2022-2025.pdf (Accessed June 25, 2025). UNAIDS.org. Recommended 2030 targets for HIV. 2025. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/en/recommended-2030-targets-for-hiv (Accessed August 26, 2025). United States Census Bureau. National population by characteristics: 2020-2024. 2024. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-detail.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). United States Census Bureau. United States Population Growth by Region. 2025. Available from: https://www.census.gov/popclock/ (Accessed June 25, 2025). Yumori C et al. Sex Transm Dis 2021;48:32–6.

Overview: In this episode, Dr Gina Brown and Dr Sahar Khalili draw on their expertise in HIV prevention to provide an overview of the current PrEP landscape in the United States. They highlight advancements in HIV prevention and emphasize the importance of targeted programs to address disparities in access and uptake across population groups and geographic regions. The views expressed are those of the panelist(s) and not necessarily Gilead Sciences, Inc. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be and should not be understood to provide medical advice. Listeners should note that our discussions in this episode are relevant to the USA only and may not be appropriate for other regions. This episode was recorded in August 2025 and the content reflects the information available at that time. Guest: Gina Brown, MD; Sahar Khalili, PharmD   For more information, please visit: https://www.pri-med.com/clinical-resources/curriculum/hiv-in-focus  References ACOG. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus. 2024. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2022/06/preexposure-prophylaxis-for-the-prevention-of-human-immunodeficiency-virus (Accessed June 25, 2025). ADAP Directory. About. 2024. Available from: https://adap.directory/about (Accessed June 25, 2025). Aidsmap. Condoms. 2023. Available from: https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/condoms#toc-how-effective-are-condoms (Accessed June 25, 2025). AIDSVu. AIDSVu releases new PrEP data and launches PrEPVu.org, a new PrEP equity platform. 2024. Available from: https://aidsvu.org/news-updates/aidsvu-releases-new-prep-data-and-launches-prepvu-org-a-new-prep-equity-platform/ (Accessed June 25, 2025). AIDSVu.org was developed by the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in partnership with Gilead Sciences, Inc. AIDSVu. AIDSVu releases 2024 PrEP use data showing growing use across the U.S. 2025. Available from: https://aidsvu.org/news-updates/aidsvu-releases-2024-prep-use-data-showing-growing-use-across-the-u-s/ (Accessed July 18, 2025). AIDSVu.org was developed by the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in partnership with Gilead Sciences, Inc. AIDSVu. Location profiles: South. 2025. Available from: https://map.aidsvu.org/profiles/region/south/prevention-and-testing#1-2-PnR (Accessed July 31, 2025). AIDSVu.org was developed by the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in partnership with Gilead Sciences, Inc. AIDSVu. PrEP use significantly associated with decreasing new HIV diagnoses across U.S. states. 2025. Available from: https://aidsvu.org/news-updates/prep-use-significantly-associated-with-decreasing-new-hiv-diagnoses-across-u-s-states/ (Accessed June 25, 2025). AIDSVu.org was developed by the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in partnership with Gilead Sciences, Inc. Baeten J et al. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2013;10:142–51. Bekker LG et al. N Engl J Med 2024;391:1179–92. CDC. About ending the HIV epidemic in the US. 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ehe/php/about/index.html (Accessed June 2, 2025). CDC. Clinical Guidance for PrEP. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hivnexus/hcp/prep/index.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States - 2021 update. 2021. Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/112360 (Accessed June 25, 2025). Coates TJ et al. Lancet 2008;372:669–84. DHHS. Pre-exposure (PrEP) to prevent HIV during periconception, antepartum, ad postpartum. 2024. Available from: https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/guidelines/documents/perinatal-hiv/pre-exposure-prophylaxis-prep-prevent-hiv-perinatal.pdf (Accessed June 25, 2025). Gandhi RT et al. JAMA 2023;329:63–84. HIV.gov. HIV treatment as prevention. 2023. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/tasp (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. Key EHE strategies. 2024. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/key-strategies (Accessed June 2, 2025). HIV.gov. Pre-exposure prophylaxis. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/hiv-prevention/using-hiv-medication-to-reduce-risk/pre-exposure-prophylaxis (Accessed June 25, 2025). Kelley CF et al. N Engl J Med 2025;392:1261–76. Kourtis AP et al. Ann Epidemiol 2025:106:48-54. Landers S et al. Am J Public Health 2017;107:1534–35. Landovitz RJ et al. N Engl J Med 2021;385:595–608. NIH. HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). 2021. Available from: https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/fact-sheets/hiv-and-sexually-transmitted-diseases-stds (Accessed June 25, 2025). NIH. HIV medicines during pregnancy and childbirth. 2025. Available from: https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/fact-sheets/hiv-medicines-during-pregnancy-and-childbirth (Accessed July 31, 2025) NIH. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). 2025. Available from: https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/fact-sheets/post-exposure-prophylaxis-pep (Accessed June 25, 2025). NIH. PrEP to prevent HIV and promote sexual health. 2022. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556471/ (Accessed June 25 2025). Siegler AJ et al. Ann Epidemiol 2020;45:24–31.e37 Sullivan PS et al. J Int AIDS Soc 2025;28:e26459. Townes A et al. Obstet Gynecol 2023;143:294–301. Underhill K et al. PLoS Med 2007;4:e275. United States Census Bureau. National population by characteristics: 2020–2024. 2024. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-detail.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). Owens DK et al. JAMA 2019;321:2326–36. Vermund SH et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013;63:S12–25. Washington State Department of Health. Pre-exposure prophylaxis drug assistance program (PrEP DAP). Available from: https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/illness-and-disease-z/hiv/prevention/pre-exposure-prophylaxis-drug-assistance-program-prep-dap (Accessed June 25, 2025). World Health Organization. Global HIV programme: pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/prevention/pre-exposure-prophylaxis (Accessed June 25, 2025).

Overview: In this episode, Dr Toyin Nwafor and Dr Andrew Zolopa provide an overview of the HIV treatment landscape both globally and in the United States. They highlight the current gaps in the HIV care continuum, emphasize the importance of rapid start and viral suppression in reducing HIV transmission through sex and describe initiatives and strategies aimed at closing these gaps to help end the HIV epidemic in the United States. The views expressed are those of the panelist(s) and not necessarily Gilead Sciences, Inc. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be and should not be understood to provide medical advice. Listeners should note that our discussions in this episode are relevant to the USA only and may not be appropriate for other regions. This episode was recorded in August 2025 and the content reflects the information available at that time. Guest: Toyin Nwafor, MD; Andrew Zolopa, MD   For more information, please visit: https://www.pri-med.com/clinical-resources/curriculum/hiv-in-focus  References AETC. Rapid (immediate) ART initiation and restart: guide for clinicians. 2023. Available from: https://aidsetc.org/resource/rapid-immediate-art-initiation-restart-guide-clinicians (Accessed June 25, 2025). Baxter A et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2025;99:47–54. CDC. About ending the HIV epidemic in the US. 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ehe/php/about/index.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. Clinical testing guidance for HIV. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hivnexus/hcp/diagnosis-testing/index.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. Getting tested for HIV. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/testing/index.html#cdc_testing_why_get_tested-why-get-tested (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. Laboratory testing for the diagnosis of HIV infection. 2014. Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/23446 (Accessed June 25, 2025). CDC. National HIV prevention and care objectives: 2025 update. 2025. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/nhss/national-hiv-prevention-and-care-objectives-2025.html (Accessed June 25, 2025). Delaney KP et al. Am J Prev Med 2021;61(5 Suppl 1):S6–S15. DHHS. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in adults and adolescents living with HIV. 2024. Available from: https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/guidelines/documents/adult-adolescent-arv/guidelines-adult-adolescent-arv.pdf (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. EHE overview. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/overview (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. Global statistics. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/global-statistics (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. HIV Care Continuum. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/other-topics/hiv-aids-care-continuum (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. Key EHE strategies. 2024. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/key-strategies (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. US statistics. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics (Accessed June 25, 2025). HIV.gov. Viral suppression and undetectable viral load. 2025. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/staying-in-hiv-care/hiv-treatment/viral-suppression (Accessed June 25, 2025). Mirzazadeh A et al. PLoS Med 2022;19:e1003940. NIH. HIV testing. 2025. Available from: https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/fact-sheets/hiv-testing (Accessed June 25, 2025). Palacio-Vieira J et al. BMC Public Health 2021;21:1596. Saag MS et al. JAMA 2018;320:379–96. The White House. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States 2022–2025. 2021. Available from: https://files.hiv.gov/s3fs-public/NHAS-2022-2025.pdf (Accessed June 25, 2025). WHO. Supporting re-engagement in HIV treatment services: policy brief. 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240097339 (Accessed June 25, 2025).

Overview: In this episode, Dr Joel Gallant gives a history of antiretroviral therapy and HIV drug resistance, drawing on his personal and professional experience beginning in the early 1980s. The views expressed are those of the panelist and not necessarily Gilead Sciences, Inc. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be and should not be understood to provide medical advice. Listeners should note that our discussions in this episode are relevant to the USA only and may not be appropriate for other regions. This episode was recorded in August 2023 and the content reflects the information available at that time. Guest: Joel Gallant, MD, MPH    For more information, please visit: https://www.pri-med.com/clinical-resources/curriculum/hiv-in-focus    References AIDSVu.org. New HIV diagnoses. 2023. Available from: https://aidsvu.org/local-data/united-states/south/ (Accessed May 19, 2025) AIDSVu.org was developed by the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in partnership with Gilead Sciences, Inc. Alonso A, de Irala J. Strategies in HIV prevention: the A-B-C approach. Lancet 2004;364:1033. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17050-5 Bacheler L, Jeffrey S, Hanna G et al. Genotypic correlates of phenotypic resistance to efavirenz in virus isolates from patients failing nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy. J Virol 2001;75:4999–5008. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.75.11.4999-5008.2001 Barré-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F et al. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 1983;220:868–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6189183 Bayer R, Edington C. HIV testing, human rights, and global AIDS policy: exceptionalism and its discontents. J Health Polit Policy Law 2009;34:301–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2009-002 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pneumocystis pneumonia – Los Angeles. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1981;30:250-2. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/june_5.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing HIV. 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/index.html (Accessed May 22, 2025) Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med 2011;365:493–505. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1105243 Cuevas JM, Geller R, Garijo R et al. Extremely high mutation rate of HIV-1 in vivo. PLoS Biol 2015;13:e1002251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002251 Department of Health and Human Services. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in adults and adolescents with HIV. 2024. Available from: https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/guidelines/hiv-clinical-guidelines-adult-and-adolescent-arv/optimizing-antiretroviral-therapy (Accessed May 19, 2025) Dragovic G. Acute pancreatitis in HIV/AIDS patients: an issue of concern. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2013;3:422–425. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS2221-1691(13)60091-X Eron JJ, Benoit SL, Jemsek J et al. Treatment with lamivudine, zidovudine, or both in HIV-positive patients with 200 to 500 CD4+ cells per cubic millimeter. North American HIV Working Party. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1662–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199512213332502 Gandhi RT, Tashima KT, Smeaton LM et al. Long-term outcomes in a large randomized trial of HIV-1 salvage therapy: 96-week results of AIDS clinical trials group A5241 (OPTIONS). J Infect Dis 2020;221:1407–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz281 Getting to Zero San Francisco. HIV epidemiology annual report 2017. 2022. Available from: https://gettingtozerosf.org/getting-to-zero-resources/hiv-report-2017/ (Accessed May 22, 2025) Global Fund. About the Global Fund. 2024. Available from: https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/about-the-global-fund/ (Accessed May 19, 2025) Gulick RM, Lalezari J, Goodrich J et al. Maraviroc for previously treated patients with R5 HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1429–41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0803152 Gulick RM, Mellors JW, Havlir D et al. Treatment with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection and prior antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med 1997;337:734–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199709113371102 Haubrich R, Berger D, Chiliade P et al. Week 24 efficacy and safety of TMC114/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV patients. AIDS 2007;21:F11–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e3280b07b47 HIV Prevention Trials Network. HPTN 052. 2023. Available from: https://www.hptn.org/research/studies/hptn052 (Accessed May 19, 2025) HIV.gov. HIV and AIDS timeline. 2024. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline/ (Accessed May 19, 2025) HIVinfo.NIH.gov. FDA approval of HIV medicines. 2024. Available from: https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/infographics/fda-approval-hiv-medicines (Accessed May 19, 2025) i-base. Cross-resistance by drug class. 2025. Available from: https://i-base.info/guides/changing/cross-resistance (Accessed May 19, 2025) Iyidogan P, Anderson KS. Current perspectives on HIV-1 antiretroviral drug resistance. Viruses 2014;6:4095–139. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/v6104095 Lalezari JP, Henry K, O'Hearn M et al. Enfuvirtide, an HIV-1 fusion inhibitor, for drug-resistant HIV infection in North and South America. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2175–85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa035026 Landovitz RJ, Donnell D, Clement ME et al. Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med 2021;385:595–608. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2101016 Larder BA, Darby G, Richman DD. HIV with reduced sensitivity to zidovudine (AZT) isolated during prolonged therapy. Science 1989;243:1731–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2467383 Lau B, Gange SJ, Moore RD. Risk of non-AIDS-related mortality may exceed risk of AIDS-related mortality among individuals enrolling into care with CD4+ counts greater than 200 cells/mm3. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007;44:179–87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.qai.0000247229.68246.c5 Lucas C. The San Francisco model and the nurses of Ward 5B. Lancet HIV 2019;6:E819. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30267-X Madruga JV, Cahn P, Grinsztejn B et al. Efficacy and safety of TMC125 (etravirine) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in DUET-1: 24-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:29–38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61047-2 Marcelin AG. Resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. In: Geretti AM, editor. Antiretroviral Resistance in Clinical Practice. London: Mediscript; 2006. Chapter 1. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2241/ Margolis AM, Heverling H, Pham PA et al. A review of the toxicity of HIV medications. J Med Toxicol 2014;10:26–39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-013-0325-8 Moore RD, Creagh-Kirk T, Keruly J et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of zidovudine in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease. Zidovudine Epidemiology Study Group. Arch Intern Med 1991;151:981–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1991.00400050123023 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. HIV Undetectable = Untransmittable (U = U), or treatment as prevention. 2019. Available from: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/treatment-prevention (Accessed May 19, 2025) Nelson MR, Katlama C, Montaner JS et al. The safety of […] for the treatment of HIV infection in adults: the first 4 years. AIDS 2007;21:1273–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e3280b07b33 New York State Department of Health. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection: question and answers. 2012. Available from: https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/0265/ (Accessed May 22, 2025) Overton ET, Richmond G, Rizzardini G et al. Long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine dosed every 2 months in adults with human immunodeficiency virus 1 type 1 infection: 152-week results from ATLAS-2M, a randomized, open-label, phase 3b, noninferiority study. Clin Infect Dis 2023;76:1646–54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad020 Pollak EB, Parmar M. Indinavir. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554396/ (Accessed May 19, 2025) Richman DD, Fischl MA, Grieco MH et al. The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) in the treatment of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1987;317:192–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198707233170402 Schmit JC, Ruiz L, Clotet B et al. Resistance-related mutations in the HIV-1 protease gene of patients treated for 1 year with the protease inhibitor ritonavir (ABT-538). AIDS 1996;10:995–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-199610090-00010 Siliciano JD, Kajdas J, Finzi D et al. Long-term follow-up studies confirm the stability of the latent reservoir for HIV-1 in resting CD4+ T cells. Nat Med 2003;9:727–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm880 Steigbigel RT, Cooper DA, Kumar PN et al. Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2008;359:339–54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0708975 TIME. Man of the year. 1996. Available from: https://time.com/vault/issue/1996-12-30/page/1/ (Accessed May 19, 2025) U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). About us. 2025. Available from: https://www.state.gov/about-us-pepfar/ (Accessed May 19, 2025)

Lawrence M. Schell is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Anthropology and the College of Integrated Health Sciences at the University at Albany, SUNY, with a joint appointment in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics. His research explores the interrelationship between biology and culture, with a particular focus on how contemporary urban environments shape human health and development. Dr. Schell's early work examined noise as a form of urban stress, investigating its effects on prenatal and postnatal growth. He later expanded his research to include pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead, situating these exposures within the broader context of urban adaptation and health disparities. The study of lead exposure in Albany, NY, examined its influence on child physical and cognitive development, with attention to maternal nutrition and other factors that affect the transfer of lead from mother to fetus. In partnership with the Akwesasne Mohawk Nation he has recently completed three major projects. The first examined how PCBs that were used in manufacturing affect physical and sexual development during adolescence. His second project followed up the adolescents in project 1 to learn how exposure had influenced their transition into adulthood. The third project, also conducted with the Akwesasne community, explored how environmental pollutants may impact reproductive health and fertility among women. Through this work, Dr. Schell highlights the urban environment as a critical frontier for human adaptation, emphasizing the challenges posed by pollution, stress, and other features of modern city life while recognizing that these challenges are inequitably distributed in society. In 2004 Schell established a research center at Albany with NIH support to grow research on health disparities. Continued NIH support culminated in an endowment grant that will support the center and the development of health disparities research for many years to come. ------------------------------ Contact the Sausage of Science Podcast and the Human Biology Association: Facebook: facebook.com/groups/humanbiologyassociation/, Website: humbio.org, Twitter: @HumBioAssoc Chris Lynn, Co-Host Website: cdlynn.people.ua.edu/, E-mail: cdlynn@ua.edu, Twitter:@Chris_Ly Courtney Manthey, Guest-Co-Host, Website: holylaetoli.com/ E-mail: cpierce4@uccs.edu, Twitter: @HolyLaetoli Anahi Ruderman, SoS Co-Producer, HBA Junior Fellow, E-mail: ruderman@cenpat-conicet.gob.ar

Listen to this powerful interview with Dr. David Fajgenbaum who has an incredible new memoir, "Chasing My Cure: A Doctor's Race to Turn Hope into Action". David's story is truly unique; it's a tale of learning to live, while dying: a universally relatable story about getting up and fighting back after life knocks you down.A former Georgetown quarterback nicknamed "The Beast," David Fajgenbaum was also a force in medical school, where he was known for his unmatched mental stamina. But things changed dramatically when he began suffering from inexplicable fatigue. In a matter of weeks, his organs were failing and he was read his last rites. Doctors were baffled over a condition they had yet to even diagnose; floating in and out of consciousness, Fajgenbaum prayed for the equivalent of a game day overtime: a second chance.Miraculously, Fajgenbaum survived, but only to endure repeated near-death relapses from what would eventually be identified as a form of Castleman disease—an extremely deadly and rare condition that acts like a cross between cancer and an autoimmune disorder. When he relapsed on the only drug in development and realized that the medical community was unlikely to make progress in time to save his life, Fajgenbaum turned his desperate hope for a cure into concrete action: between hospitalizations he studied his own charts and tested his own blood samples, looking for clues that could unlock a new treatment. With the help of family, friends and mentors, he also reached out to other Castleman disease patients and physicians, and eventually came up with an ambitious plan to crowdsource the most promising research questions and recruit world- class researchers to tackle them; instead of waiting for the scientific stars to align, he proposed to align them himself.More than five years later and now married to his college sweetheart, his hard work has paid off: a treatment that he identified has induced a tentative remission and his novel approach to collaborative scientific inquiry has become a blueprint for advancing rare disease research. His incredible story demonstrates the potency of hope, and what can happen when forces of determination, love, family, faith and serendipity collide.David Fajgenbaum, MD, MBA, MSc is one of the youngest individuals to be appointed to the faculty at Penn Medicine. Co- founder and executive director of the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN) and an NIH-funded physician- scientist, he has dedicated his life to discovering new treatments and cures for deadly disorders like Castleman disease, which he was diagnosed with during medical school. He is in the top 1 percent youngest grant awardees of an R01, one of the most competitive and sought-after grants in all of biomedical research. Dr. Fajgenbaum has been recognized on the Forbes 30 Under 30 healthcare list, as a top healthcare leader by Becker's Hospital Review, and one of the youngest people ever elected as a Fellow of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, the nation's oldest medical society. He was one of three recipients – including Vice President Joe Biden – of a 2016 Atlas Award from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Order "Chasing My Cure" at bookstores nationwide or at http://www.chasingmycure.com/Business Leadership Series Intro and Outro music provided by Just Off Turner: https://music.apple.com/za/album/the-long-walk-back/268386576

Millions of dollars in federal grants have been terminated, throwing cutting-edge research at American universities into crisis. On this week's On the Media, meet the two men at the center of the fight over the future of academia.[0:00] Harvard president Alan Garber and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya are at the heart of the national fight over the future of academia. Alan Garber has been cast as the defender of academic freedom and democracy; Jay Bhattacharya is Donald Trump's pick to lead the NIH, the agency withholding billions of dollars in research grants from Harvard. Oddly enough, the two men go way back: Garber was Bhattacharya's undergraduate thesis adviser and mentor in the late 1980s. This episode tells the story of how the two men found themselves adversaries — and what it means for the future of science.  On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

From STEM trailblazer to AI visionary, Dr. Tamara Nall shares her extraordinary journey of perseverance, innovation, and purpose-driven leadership, showing women what it truly means to build with legacy in mind.Growing up in Alabama and Georgia, Dr. Nall's parents instilled a belief that education is the one thing no one can take away. When an Emory University counselor told her that STEM “wasn't for women like her,” she didn't retreat, she rose higher, applying that very night to a dual-degree program with Georgia Tech. She went on to become the first business student to graduate from that demanding program, blending business acumen with computer science — a foundation that would power her future as a global entrepreneur and change-maker.That same determination has guided every step of her journey. From Harvard Business School to earning a doctorate in engineering and leading The Leading Niche, her award-winning systems integration firm serving agencies like the CDC, NIH, and VA. When told she'd lost a government contract for not having a PhD, Dr. Nall didn't internalize rejection; she transformed it into action, completing her doctorate during the pandemic while running her company full-time. Her story is one of relentless learning, courage, and redefining what's possible for women in technology and business.In our conversation, Dr. Nall opens up about scaling sustainably, leading with empathy, and why women-owned businesses must focus not only on passion but profitability. She shares insights on strategic networking, purpose-driven culture, and her bold ventures in AI, from her platform Reli AI to Human AI Nation, where she's exploring the evolving relationship between humans and technology. Through it all, her message is clear: innovation begins when you dare to claim the space others say you don't belong in.This episode is a masterclass in resilience, reinvention, and responsible leadership. Tune in to hear Dr. Tamara Nall's remarkable story and be inspired to build your own legacy of impact and innovation.Chapters 

 Why do we trust people who sound smart—even when they're not? Discover the psychology behind smooth talk and confident nonsense.This episode of An Ounce unpacks The Eloquence Illusion—how polished words and perfect delivery can disguise empty thinking. From corporate spin to “quantum detox,” we explore why we fall for what sounds right instead of what is right.Learn how to recognize verbal sleight-of-hand and keep your brain one step ahead of the charm.Like, subscribe, and share if this story surprised you.Related Episodes / Playlists:The Distasteful History of Toothpaste – how bad breath built a billion-dollar industry   https://youtu.be/wq_H-8_pKKIWhy People Stopped Smiling in Photos – culture, cameras, and changing faces   https://youtu.be/l3xddLnkqME

Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg join a16z's Ben Horowitz, Erik Torenberg, and Vineeta Agarwala to share how the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is building the computational tools that will accelerate the cure, prevention, and management of all disease by century's end. They explain why basic science needs $100 million-scale projects that traditional NIH grants can't fund, how their Cell Atlas became biology's missing periodic table with millions of cells catalogued in open-source format, and why their new virtual cell models will let scientists test high-risk hypotheses in silico before investing in expensive wet lab work. Plus: the organizational shift unifying the Biohub under AI leadership, what happens when biologists and engineers sit side-by-side, and why modern biology labs are expanding compute instead of square footage. Timestamps:4:17 - Building tools to accelerate scientific discovery5:47 - The credible path to funding basic science7:21 - Biohub = Frontier Biology + Frontier AI9:05 - Challenges building on a 10-15 year timeline9:43 - How CZI chooses what to work on11:15 - Making sense of science with LLMs11:31 - Measuring success in the therapeutic realm13:32 - “Most diseases should be thought of as rare diseases”15:39 - Inspiration: building a periodic table for biology19:27 - Why virtual cells?21:17 - The Biohub Master Plan21:51 - How virtual cell models allow more risk taking28:15 - Bringing CZI & Biohub together30:32 - Why Biohub matters33:36 - The importance of interface design in democratizing scientific discovery35:34 - How Biohub encourages cross-functional collaboration40:38 - Looking ahead: the broader impact of AI on biotech Stay Updated: If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Podcast on SpotifyListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On this episode of MaternalRx on the Pharmacy Podcast Network, host Dr. Danielle Raiman Plummer, PharmD, consulting pharmacist, sits down with Mary Kucek, PMP, and Dr. Devin Bustin, MD, co-founders of OvaryIt, creators of the PRISM EHR platform and the OvaryIt Foundation for survivors of domestic abuse and human trafficking. Mary shares her powerful and life-threatening experience with a telemedicine platform that failed to follow contraceptive safety guidelines, an event that changed the course of her career and mission. Together, Mary and Dr. Bustin explain how their NIH-funded research led to the creation of OvaryIt and PRISM: an innovative, pharmacist-centered platform that bridges the safety of in-person care with the accessibility of telehealth. Tune in to hear how retail pharmacists can now lead the next evolution in family planning access, overcoming the barriers to scaling these services, and how technology and policy can empower safer, more equitable reproductive care for all. “Prism will help retail pharmacies become public health access points for central health services.” 

Administrative Law: May the NIH cap "indirect costs" paid from federal research grants? - Argued: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 11:28:9 EDT

In this inspiring episode of Moving Medicine Forward,Amanda King, Senior Clinical Scientist at CTI, discusses her remarkable journey from pediatric ICU nurse practitioner to leading-edge oncology researcher. Amanda shares how personal loss fueled her passion for patient-centered careand clinical research, and how her work at the NIH and CTI is shaping the future of medicine. From the complexities of oncology trials to the emotional weight of working with vulnerable patients, Amanda offers a candid look at thechallenges and triumphs of advancing therapeutic options. Whether you're in healthcare or simply curious about the human stories behind medical innovation, this episode is a must-listen.00:30 Meet Amanda King: her background and passionfor patient-centered care. 01:07 Amanda's clinical roots in pediatric ICU andtransition to research. 02:00 Pursuing a PhD and discovering a love forclinical trials at the NIH. 02:34 The motivation behind Amanda's shift toclinical research. 03:34 Why Amanda joined CTI and what drew her toindustry research. 05:10 Amanda's role as a Senior Clinical Scientistand her impact on trial safety. 06:35 Deep dive into Amanda's work at the NIH and theimportance of patient outcomes data. 09:21 Challenges in oncology trials: balancingsafety, complexity, and emotional toll. 11:39 The rewards of working in oncology and Amanda'spersonal connection to cancer research. 13:08 Advice for young people interested in clinicalresearch and the importance of mentorship. 15:14 Amanda's vision for the future of medicine:innovation meets compassion. 16:10 Closing thoughts and how to stay connected withCTI.

Two-time Emmy and three-time NAACP Image Award-winning television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Dr. Schenta D. Randolph.

Two-time Emmy and three-time NAACP Image Award-winning television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Dr. Schenta D. Randolph.

Two-time Emmy and three-time NAACP Image Award-winning television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Dr. Schenta D. Randolph.

What if you could know—before you ever give a pill—whether your dog or cat is likely to have a bad reaction? In this episode, Dr. Alice and Janet sit down with Dr. Katrina Mealey, Associate Dean for Research at Washington State University's College of Veterinary Medicine, NIH-funded researcher, and Inventor of the Year for her groundbreaking genetic test that flags pets at risk for serious adverse drug reactions.Dr. Mealey explains the science in plain English: a natural “gatekeeper” protein called P-glycoprotein (coded by the MDR1 gene) protects the brain and body by pumping out potentially toxic compounds. When a pet carries certain MDR1 mutations, many common medications—prescription and OTC—can reach dangerous levels. We cover how the cheek-swab test works, how to get it for your pet, which breeds are most affected, why dosage matters so much, and how new vet-friendly tools help tailor safer treatments.In this episode:- MDR1 101: What P-glycoprotein does and why it's the body's drug “gatekeeper.”- Who's at risk: Collies (~75%), Australian & English Shepherds (~50%), plus surprises like Boxers, Huskies, and even the occasional Golden—plus the feline version discovered in 2015.- Real-world reactions: From anti-diarrheals and chemo agents to certain flea preventives—how problems present and what vets should watch for.- Testing made easy: Simple cheek swab or blood test; results emailed to you and your vet.- Dosing guidance: Meet MDR1Caddie (dogs) and WhisPurr (cats)—information that suggests dose adjustments based on whether a pet has one or two copies of the mutation.- Myth-busting ivermectin: Why tiny monthly heartworm doses are different from mange/cancer “DIY” dosing—and why self-medicating is dangerous.- Take-home for pet parents: Bring MDR1 status up with your vet before surgeries, chemo, dermatology meds, new preventives, or simple OTC medications like Immodium.About our guestDr. Katrina Mealey is a veterinarian, pharmacist, researcher, and author (editor of Pharmacotherapeutics for Veterinary Dispensing). Her lab identified the MDR1 mutation in dogs and later in cats, and continues to map which drugs interact with P-glycoprotein so veterinarians can treat more safely.https://vetmed.wsu.edu/our-team/wsu-profile/kmealey/Resources & links- MDR1 genetic test: Link in show notes to order a cheek-swab kit for dogs or cats.- Drug interaction updates: Ongoing lists and guidance are available via the testing program (see show notes).- Dose-adjustment information: MDR1Caddie (dogs) and WhisPurr(cats).- Talk to your veterinarian before starting, stopping, or changing any medication.--What started during the COVID-19 lockdown with one baby gorilla at the Cleveland Zoo has grown into a channel loved by animal fans around the world. I'm a one-person operation—filming, editing, narrating, and sharing the most heartfelt moments of baby gorillas, orangutans, elephants, and other zoo animals. Whether it's Jameela's emotional journey or Clementine's first steps, each video brings you closer to the animals and their stories. If you love watching real animal behavior, learning fun facts, and supporting conservation through storytelling—this is your place! Subscribe to Larry's Animal Safari on YouTube @larrysanimalsafari ---Support our sponsor for this episode Blue Buffalo by visiting bluebuffalo.com. BLUE Natural Veterinary Diet formulas offer the natural alternative in nutritional therapy. At Blue Buffalo, we have an in-house Research & Development (R&D) team with over 300 years' experience in well-pet and veterinary therapeutic diets, over 600 scientific publications, and over 50 U.S. patents. At Blue Buffalo, we have an in-house Research & Development (R&D) team with over 300 years' experience in well-pet and veterinary therapeutic diets, over 600 scientific publications, and over 50 U.S. patents.---All footage is owned by SLA Video Productions.

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, host Norbert Wilson is joined by food and nutrition policy economists Will Masters and Parke Wilde from Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. The discussion centers around the concept of the least cost diet, a tool used to determine the minimum cost required to maintain a nutritionally adequate diet. The conversation delves into the global computational methods and policies related to least cost diets, the challenges of making these diets culturally relevant, and the implications for food policy in both the US and internationally. You will also hear about the lived experiences of people affected by these diets and the need for more comprehensive research to better reflect reality. Interview Summary I know you both have been working in this space around least cost diets for a while. So, let's really start off by just asking a question about what brought you into this work as researchers. Why study least cost diets? Will, let's start with you. I'm a very curious person and this was a puzzle. So, you know, people want health. They want healthy food. Of course, we spend a lot on healthcare and health services, but do seek health in our food. As a child growing up, you know, companies were marketing food as a source of health. And people who had more money would spend more for premium items that were seen as healthy. And in the 2010s for the first time, we had these quantified definitions of what a healthy diet was as we went from 'nutrients' to 'food groups,' from the original dietary guidelines pyramid to the MyPlate. And then internationally, the very first quantified definitions of healthful diets that would work anywhere in the world. And I was like, oh, wow. Is it actually expensive to eat a healthy diet? And how much does it cost? How does it differ by place location? How does it differ over time, seasons, and years? And I just thought it was a fascinating question. Great, thank you for that. Parke? There's a lot of policy importance on this, but part of the fun also of this particular topic is more than almost any that we work on, it's connected to things that we have to think about in our daily lives. So, as you're preparing and purchasing food for your family and you want it to be a healthy. And you want it to still be, you know, tasty enough to satisfy the kids. And it can't take too long because it has to fit into a busy life. So, this one does feel like it's got a personal connection. Thank you both for that. One of the things I heard is there was an availability of data. There was an opportunity that seems like it didn't exist before. Can you speak a little bit about that? Especially Will because you mentioned that point. Will: Yes. So, we have had food composition data identifying for typical items. A can of beans, or even a pizza. You know, what is the expected, on average quantity of each nutrient. But only recently have we had those on a very large scale for global items. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of distinct items. And we had nutrient requirements, but only nutrient by nutrient, and the definition of a food group where you would want not only the nutrients, but also the phytochemicals, the attributes of food from its food matrix that make a vegetable different from just in a vitamin pill. And those came about in, as I mentioned, in the 2010s. And then there's the computational tools and the price observations that get captured. They've been written down on pads of paper, literally, and brought to a headquarters to compute inflation since the 1930s. But access to those in digitized form, only really in the 2000s and only really in the 2010s were we able to have program routines that would download millions and millions of price observations, match them to food composition data, match that food composition information to a healthy diet criterion, and then compute these least cost diets. Now we've computed millions and millions of these thanks to modern computing and all of that data. Great, Will. And you've already started on this, so let's continue on this point. You were talking about some of the computational methods and data that were available globally. Can you give us a good sense of what does a lease cost diet look like from this global perspective because we're going to talk to Parke about whether it is in the US. But let's talk about it in the broad sense globally. In my case the funding opportunity to pay for the graduate students and collaborators internationally came from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency, initially for a pilot study in Ghana and Tanzania. And then we were able to get more money to scale that up to Africa and South Asia, and then globally through a project called Food Prices for Nutrition. And what we found, first of all, is that to get agreement on what a healthy diet means, we needed to go to something like the least common denominator. The most basic, basic definition from the commonalities among national governments' dietary guidelines. So, in the US, that's MyPlate, or in the UK it's the Eat Well Guide. And each country's dietary guidelines look a little different, but they have these commonalities. So, we distilled that down to six food groups. There's fruits and vegetables, separately. And then there's animal source foods altogether. And in some countries they would separate out milk, like the United States does. And then all starchy staples together. And in some countries, you would separate out whole grains like the US does. And then all edible oils. And those six food groups, in the quantities needed to provide all the nutrients you would need, plus these attributes of food groups beyond just what's in a vitamin pill, turns out to cost about $4 a day. And if you adjust for inflation and differences in the cost of living, the price of housing and so forth around the world, it's very similar. And if you think about seasonal variation in a very remote area, it might rise by 50% in a really bad situation. And if you think about a very remote location where it's difficult to get food to, it might go up to $5.50, but it stays in that range between roughly speaking $2.50 and $5.00. Meanwhile, incomes are varying from around $1.00 a day, and people who cannot possibly afford those more expensive food groups, to $200 a day in which these least expensive items are trivially small in cost compared to the issues that Parke mentioned. We can also talk about what we actually find as the items, and those vary a lot from place to place for some food groups and are very similar to each other in other food groups. So, for example, the least expensive item in an animal source food category is very often dairy in a rich country. But in a really dry, poor country it's dried fish because refrigeration and transport are very expensive. And then to see where there's commonalities in the vegetable category, boy. Onions, tomatoes, carrots are so inexpensive around the world. We've just gotten those supply chains to make the basic ingredients for a vegetable stew really low cost. But then there's all these other different vegetables that are usually more expensive. So, it's very interesting to look at which are the items that would deliver the healthfulness you need and how much they cost. It's surprisingly little from a rich country perspective, and yet still out of reach for so many in low-income countries. Will, thank you for that. And I want to turn now to looking in the US case because I think there's some important commonalities. Parke, can you describe the least cost diet, how it's used here in the US, and its implications for policy? Absolutely. And full disclosure to your audience, this is work on which we've benefited from Norbert's input and wisdom in a way that's been very valuable as a co-author and as an advisor for the quantitative part of what we were doing. For an article in the journal Food Policy, we use the same type of mathematical model that USDA uses when it sets the Thrifty Food Plan, the TFP. A hypothetical diet that's used as the benchmark for the maximum benefit in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. And what USDA does with this model diet is it tries to find a hypothetical bundle of foods and beverages that's not too different from what people ordinarily consume. The idea is it should be a familiar diet, it should be one that's reasonably tasty, that people clearly already accept enough. But it can't be exactly that diet. It has to be different enough at least to meet a cost target and to meet a whole long list of nutrition criteria. Including getting enough of the particular nutrients, things like enough calcium or enough protein, and also, matching food group goals reasonably well. Things like having enough fruits, enough vegetables, enough dairy. When, USDA does that, it finds that it's fairly difficult. It's fairly difficult to meet all those goals at once, at a cost and a cost goal all at the same time. And so, it ends up choosing this hypothetical diet that's almost maybe more different than would feel most comfortable from people's typical average consumption. Thank you, Parke. I'm interested to understand the policy implications of this least cost diet. You suggested something about the Thrifty Food Plan and the maximum benefit levels. Can you tell us a little bit more about the policies that are relevant? Yes, so the Thrifty Food Plan update that USDA does every five years has a much bigger policy importance now than it did a few years ago. I used to tell my students that you shouldn't overstate how much policy importance this update has. It might matter a little bit less than you would think. And the reason was because every time they update the Thrifty Food Plan, they use the cost target that is the inflation adjusted or the real cost of the previous edition. It's a little bit as if nobody wanted to open up the whole can of worms about what should the SNAP benefit be in the first place. But everything changed with the update in 2021. In 2021, researchers at the US Department of Agriculture found that it was not possible at the old cost target to find a diet that met all of the nutrition criteria - at all. Even if you were willing to have a diet that was quite different from people's typical consumption. And so, they ended up increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in small increments until they found a solution to this mathematical model using data on real world prices and on the nutrition characteristics of these foods. And this led to a 21% increase in the permanent value of the maximum SNAP benefit. Many people didn't notice that increase all that much because the increase came into effect at just about the same time that a temporary boost during the COVID era to SNAP benefits was being taken away. So there had been a temporary boost to how much benefits people got as that was taken away at the end of the start of the COVID pandemic then this permanent increase came in and it kind of softened the blow from that change in benefits at that time. But it now ends up meaning that the SNAP benefit is substantially higher than it would've been without this 2021 increase. And there's a lot of policy attention on this in the current Congress and in the current administration. There's perhaps a skeptical eye on whether this increase was good policy. And so, there are proposals to essentially take away the ability to update the Thrifty Food Plan change the maximum SNAP benefit automatically, as it used to. As you know, Norbert, this is part of all sorts of things going on currently. Like we heard in the news, just last week, about plans to end collecting household food security measurement using a major national survey. And so there will be sort of possibly less information about how these programs are doing and whether a certain SNAP benefit is needed in order to protect people from food insecurity and hunger. Parke, this is really important and I'm grateful that we're able to talk about this today in that SNAP benefit levels are still determined by this mathematical program that's supposed to represent a nutritionally adequate diet that also reflects food preferences. And I don't know how many people really understand or appreciate that. I can say I didn't understand or appreciate it until working more in this project. I think it's critical for our listeners to understand just how important this particular mathematical model is, and what it says about what a nutritionally adequate diet looks like in this country. I know the US is one of the countries that uses a model diet like this to help set policy. Will, I'd like to turn to you to see what ways other nations are using this sort of model diet. How have you seen policy receive information from these model diets? It's been a remarkable thing where those initial computational papers that we were able to publish in first in 2018, '19, '20, and governments asking how could we use this in practice. Parke has laid out how it's used in the US with regard to the benefit level of SNAP. The US Thrifty Food Plan has many constraints in addition to the basic ones for the Healthy Diet Basket that I described. Because clearly that Healthy Diet Basket minimum is not something anyone in America would think is acceptable. Just to have milk and frozen vegetables and low-cost bread, that jar peanut butter and that's it. Like that would be clearly not okay. So, internationally what's happened is that first starting in 2020, and then using the current formula in 2022, the United Nations agencies together with the World Bank have done global monitoring of food and nutrition security using this method. So, the least cost items to meet the Healthy Diet Basket in each country provide this global estimate that about a third of the global population have income available for food after taking account of their non-food needs. That is insufficient to buy this healthy diet. What they're actually eating is just starchy staples, oil, some calories from low-cost sugar and that's it. And very small quantities of the fruits and vegetables. And animal source foods are the expensive ones. So, countries have the opportunity to begin calculating this themselves alongside their normal monitoring of inflation with a consumer price index. The first country to do that was Nigeria. And Nigeria began publishing this in January 2024. And it so happened that the country's national minimum wage for civil servants was up for debate at that time. And this was a newly published statistic that turned out to be enormously important for the civil society advocates and the labor unions who were trying to explain why a higher civil service minimum wage was needed. This is for the people who are serving tea or the drivers and the low wage people in these government service agencies. And able to measure how many household members could you feed a healthy diet with a day's worth of the monthly wage. So social protection in the sense of minimum wage and then used in other countries regarding something like our US SNAP program or something like our US WIC program. And trying to define how big should those benefit levels be. That's been the first use. A second use that's emerging is targeting the supply chains for the low-cost vegetables and animal source foods and asking what from experience elsewhere could be an inexpensive animal source food. What could be the most inexpensive fruits. What could be the most inexpensive vegetables? And that is the type of work that we're doing now with governments with continued funding from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency. Will, it's fascinating to hear this example from Nigeria where all of the work that you all have been doing sort of shows up in this kind of debate. And it really speaks to the power of the research that we all are trying to do as we try to inform policy. Now, as we discussed the least cost diet, there was something that I heard from both of you. Are these diets that people really want? I'm interested to understand a little bit more about that because this is a really critical space.Will, what do we know about the lived experiences of those affected by least cost diet policy implementation. How are real people affected? It's such an important and interesting question, just out of curiosity, but also for just our human understanding of what life is like for people. And then of course the policy actions that could improve. So, to be clear, we've only had these millions of least cost diets, these benchmark 'access to' at a market near you. These are open markets that might be happening twice a week or sometimes all seven days of the week in a small town, in an African country or a urban bodega type market or a supermarket across Asia, Africa. We've only begun to have these benchmarks against which to compare actual food choice, as I mentioned, since 2022. And then really only since 2024 have been able to investigate this question. We're only beginning to match up these benchmark diets to what people actually choose. But the pattern we're seeing is that in low and lower middle-income countries, people definitely spend their money to go towards that healthy diet basket goal. They don't spend all of their additional money on that. But if you improve affordability throughout the range of country incomes - from the lowest income countries in Africa, Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, to middle income countries in Africa, like Ghana, Indonesia, an upper middle-income country - people do spend their money to get more animal source foods, more fruits and vegetables, and to reduce the amount of the low cost starchy staples. They do increase the amount of discretionary, sugary meals. And a lot of what they're eating exits the healthy diet basket because there's too much added sodium, too much added sugar. And so, things that would've been healthy become unhealthy because of processing or in a restaurant setting. So, people do spend their money on that. But they are moving towards a healthy diet. That breaks down somewhere in the upper income and high-income countries where additional spending becomes very little correlated with the Healthy Diet Basket. What happens is people way overshoot the Healthy Diet Basket targets for animal source foods and for edible oils because I don't know if you've ever tried it, but one really delicious thing is fried meat. People love it. And even low middle income people overshoot on that. And that displaces the other elements of a healthy diet. And then there's a lot of upgrading, if you will, within the food group. So, people are spending additional money on nicer vegetables. Nicer fruits. Nicer animal source foods without increasing the total amount of them in addition to having overshot the healthy diet levels of many of those food groups. Which of course takes away from the food you would need from the fruits, the vegetables, and the pulses, nuts and seeds, that almost no one gets as much as is considered healthy, of that pulses, nuts and seeds category. Thank you. And I want to shift this to the US example. So, Parke, can you tell us a bit more about the lived experience of those affected by least cost diet policy? How are real people affected? One of the things I've enjoyed about this project that you and I got to work on, Norbert, in cooperation with other colleagues, is that it had both a quantitative and a qualitative part to it. Now, our colleague Sarah Folta led some of the qualitative interviews, sort of real interviews with people in food pantries in four states around the country. And this was published recently in the Journal of Health Education and Behavior. And we asked people about their goals and about what are the different difficulties or constraints that keep them from achieving those goals. And what came out of that was that people often talk about whether their budget constraints and whether their financial difficulties take away their autonomy to sort of be in charge of their own food choices. And this was something that Sarah emphasized as she sort of helped lead us through a process of digesting what was the key findings from these interviews with people. One of the things I liked about doing this study is that because the quantitative and the qualitative part, each had this characteristic of being about what do people want to achieve. This showed up mathematically in the constrained optimization model, but it also showed up in the conversations with people in the food pantry. And what are the constraints that keep people from achieving it. You know, the mathematical model, these are things like all the nutrition constraints and the cost constraints. And then in the real conversations, it's something that people raise in very plain language about what are all the difficulties they have. Either in satisfying their own nutrition aspirations or satisfying some of the requirements for one person or another in the family. Like if people have special diets that are needed or if they have to be gluten free or any number of things. Having the diets be culturally appropriate. And so, I feel like this is one of those classic things where different disciplines have wisdom to bring to bear on what's really very much a shared topic. What I hear from both of you is that these diets, while they are computationally interesting and they reveal some critical realities of how people eat, they can't cover everything. People want to eat certain types of foods. Certain types of foods are more culturally relevant. And that's really clear talking to you, Will, about just sort of the range of foods that end up showing up in these least cost diets and how you were having to make some adjustments there. Parke, as you talked about the work with Sarah Folta thinking through autonomy and sort of a sense of self. This kind of leads us to a question that I want to open up to both of you. What's missing when we talk about these least cost diet modeling exercises and what are the policy implications of that? What are the gaps in our understanding of these model diets and what needs to happen to make them reflect reality better? Parke? Well, you know, there's many things that people in our research community are working on. And it goes quite, quite far afield. But I'm just thinking of two related to our quantitative research using the Thrifty Food Plan type models. We've been working with Yiwen Zhao and Linlin Fan at Penn State University on how these models would work if you relaxed some of the constraints. If people's back in a financial sense weren't back up against the wall, but instead they had just a little more space. We were considering what if they had incentives that gave them a discount on fruits and vegetables, for example, through the SNAP program? Or what if they had a healthy bundle of foods provided through the emergency food system, through food banks or food pantries. What is the effect directly in terms of those foods? But also, what is the effect in terms of just relaxing their budget constraints. They get to have a little more of the foods that they find more preferred or that they had been going without. But then also, in terms of sort of your question about the more personal. You know, what is people's personal relationships with food? How does this play out on the ground? We're working with the graduate student Angelica Valdez Valderrama here at the Friedman School, thinking about what some of the cultural assumptions and of the food group constraints in some of these models are. If you sort of came from a different immigrant tradition or if you came from another community, what things would be different in, for example, decisions about what's called the Mediterranean diet or what's called the healthy US style dietary pattern. How much difference do this sort of breadth, cultural breadth of dietary patterns you could consider, how much difference does that make in terms of what's the outcome of this type of hypothetical diet? Will: And I think, you know, from the global perspective, one really interesting thing is when we do combine data sets and look across these very different cultural settings, dry land, Sahelian Africa versus countries that are coastal versus sort of forest inland countries versus all across Asia, south Asia to East Asia, all across Latin America. We do see the role of these cultural factors. And we see them playing out in very systematic ways that people come to their cultural norms for very good reasons. And then pivot and switch away to new cultural norms. You know, American fast food, for example, switching from beef primarily to chicken primarily. That sort of thing becomes very visible in a matter of years. So, in terms of things that are frontiers for us, remember this is early days. Getting many more nutritionists, people in other fields, looking at first of all, it's just what is really needed for health. Getting those health requirements improved and understood better is a key priority. Our Healthy Diet Basket comes from the work of a nutritionist named Anna Herforth, who has gone around the world studying these dietary guidelines internationally. We're about to get the Eat Lancet dietary recommendations announced, and it'll be very interesting to see how those evolve. Second thing is much better data on prices and computing these diets for more different settings at different times, different locations. Settings that are inner city United States versus very rural. And then this question of comparing to actual diets. And just trying to understand what people are seeking when they choose foods that are clearly not these benchmark least cost items. The purpose is to ask how far away and why and how are they far away? And particularly to understand to what degree are these attributes of the foods themselves: the convenience of the packaging, the preparation of the item, the taste, the flavor, the cultural significance of it. To what degree are we looking at the result of aspirations that are really shaped by marketing. Are really shaped by the fire hose of persuasion that companies are investing in every day. And very strategically and constantly iterating to the best possible spokesperson, the best possible ad campaign. Combining billboards and radio and television such that you're surrounded by this. And when you drive down the street and when you walk into the supermarket, there is no greater effort on the planet than the effort to sell us a particular brand of food. Food companies are basically marketing companies attached to a manufacturing facility, and they are spending much more than the entire combined budget of the NIH and CDC, et cetera, to persuade us to eat what we ultimately choose. And we really don't know to what degree it's the actual factors in the food itself versus the marketing campaigns and the way they've evolved. You know, if you had a choice between taking the food system and regulating it the way we regulate, say housing or vehicles. If we were to say your supermarket should be like an auto dealership, right? So, anything in the auto dealership is very heavily regulated. Everything from the paint to where the gear shift is to how the windows work. Everything is heavily regulated because the auto industry has worked with National Transportation Safety Board and every single crash investigation, et cetera, has led to the standards that we have now. We didn't get taxes on cars without airbags to make us choose cars with airbags. They're just required. And same is true for housing, right? You can't just build, you know, an extension deck behind your house any way you want. A city inspector will force you to tear it out if you haven't built it to code. So, you know, we could regulate the grocery store like we do that. It's not going to happen politically but compare that option to treating groceries the way we used to treat the legal services or pharmaceuticals. Which is you couldn't advertise them. You could sell them, and people would choose based on the actual merit of the lawyer or the pharmaceutical, right? Which would have the bigger impact. Right? If there was zero food advertising, you just walked into the grocery store and chose what you liked. Or you regulate the grocery store the same way we regulate automotive or building trades. Obviously, they both matter. There's, you know, this problem that you can't see, taste or smell the healthiness of food. You're always acting on belief and not a fact when you choose something that you're seeking health. We don't know to what extent choice is distorted away from a low-cost healthy diet by things people genuinely want and need. Such as taste, convenience, culture, and so forth. Versus things that they've been persuaded to want. And there's obviously some of both. All of these things matter. But I'm hopeful that through these least cost diets, we can identify that low-cost options are there. And you could feed your family a very healthy diet at the Thrifty Food Plan level in the United States, or even lower. It would take time, it would take attention, it would be hard. You can take some shortcuts to make that within your time budget, right? And the planning budget. And we can identify what those look like thanks to these model diets. It's a very exciting area of work, but we still have a lot to do to define carefully what are the constraints. What are the real objectives here. And how to go about helping people, acquire these foods that we now know are there within a short commuting distance. You may need to take the bus, you may need carpool. But that's what people actually do to go grocery shopping. And when they get there, we can help people to choose items that would genuinely meet their needs at lower cost. Bios Will Masters is a Professor in the Friedman School of Nutrition, with a secondary appointment in Tufts University's Department of Economics. He is coauthor of the new textbook on Food Economics: Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Before coming to Tufts in 2010 he was a faculty member in Agricultural Economics at Purdue University (1991-2010), and also at the University of Zimbabwe (1989-90), Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (2000) and Columbia University (2003-04). He is former editor-in-chief of the journal Agricultural Economics (2006-2011), and an elected Fellow of the American Society for Nutrition (FASN) as well as a Fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). At Tufts his courses on economics of agriculture, food and nutrition were recognized with student-nominated, University-wide teaching awards in 2019 and 2022, and he leads over a million dollars annually in externally funded research including work on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (https://www.anh-academy.org), as well as projects supporting government efforts to calculate the cost and affordability of healthy diets worldwide and work with private enterprises on data analytics for food markets in Africa. Parke Wilde (PhD, Cornell) is a food economist and professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. Previously, he worked for USDA's Economic Research Service. At Tufts, Parke teaches graduate-level courses in statistics, U.S. food policy, and climate change. His research addresses the economics of U.S. food and nutrition policy, including federal nutrition assistance programs. He was Director of Design for the SNAP Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) evaluation. He has been a member of the National Academy of Medicine's Food Forum and is on the scientific and technical advisory committee for Menus of Change, an initiative to advance the health and sustainability of the restaurant industry. He directs the USDA-funded Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership. He received the AAEA Distinguished Quality of Communication Award for his textbook, Food Policy in the United States: An Introduction (Routledge/Earthscan), whose third edition was released in April 2025. 

Today on the Federal Drive with Terry Gerton Military pay is once again a pressure point in the shutdown fight A Supreme Court ruling challenges NIH's authority, leaving public health research in the balance A new retirement system promises modernization, but it's creating more questions than answersSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court's partial stay in a case against NIH has left dozens of public health studies in legal limbo. At the center are canceled grants focused on vaccine hesitancy, LGBTQ health, and racial disparities; topics critics say were targeted for political reasons. Here to explain the ruling and its impact on scientific independence are Dr. Susan Polan and Shalini Goel Agarwal. Dr. Polan is associate executive director for public affairs and advocacy with the American Public Health Association. Ms. Agarwal co-leads Protect Democracy's Free Expression and the Right to Dissent team.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Milk has long been sold as the key to strong bones, but research challenges that claim: many people don't tolerate dairy, calcium needs are lower than advertised, and higher milk intake doesn't necessarily prevent fractures. Politics and industry marketing helped set “three glasses a day,” even though healthy bones depend more on overall diet and lifestyle—things like vitamin D, movement, and avoiding soda, excess sugar, and stress that drive calcium loss. Dairy may be helpful for some diets, but it can also trigger bloating, acne, congestion, or digestive issues. The good news is that strong bones and good nutrition are still very doable without cow's milk—think leafy greens, sardines, almonds, chia, and sunshine for vitamin D. In this episode, I discuss, along with Dr. David Ludwig and Dr. Elizabeth Boham why bone health depends more on diet, lifestyle, and nutrient balance than on dairy. David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, is an endocrinologist and researcher at Boston Children's Hospital, Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He co-directs the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center and founded the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) program, one of the nation's largest clinics for children with obesity. For over 25 years, Dr. Ludwig has studied how diet composition affects metabolism, body weight, and chronic disease risk, focusing on low glycemic index, low-carbohydrate, and ketogenic diets. Called an “obesity warrior” by Time Magazine, he has championed policy changes to improve the food environment. A Principal Investigator on numerous NIH and philanthropic grants, Dr. Ludwig has published over 200 scientific articles and three books for the public, including the #1 New York Times bestseller Always, Hungry? Dr. Elizabeth Boham is Board Certified in Family Medicine from Albany Medical School, and she is an Institute for Functional Medicine Certified Practitioner and the Medical Director of The UltraWellness Center. Dr. Boham lectures on a variety of topics, including Women's Health and Breast Cancer Prevention, insulin resistance, heart health, weight control and allergies. She is on the faculty for the Institute for Functional Medicine. This episode is brought to you by BIOptimizers. Head to bioptimizers.com/hyman and use code HYMAN to save 15%. Full-length episodes can be found here:Why Most Everything We Were Told About Dairy Is Wrong Is It Okay To Eat Cheese And What Types Of Dairy Should You Avoid? Is Lactose Intolerance Causing Your Gut Issues?

ADHD medication can be a controversial topic online. Is it safe? Does it change who you are? What does the science actually say?In this episode, Skye talks with Dr. Ryan Sultan, psychiatrist, researcher, and founder of Integrative Psychiatry in NYC, about what medication does in the brain and what decades of studies reveal about its effects. This is not medical advice - it's a clear, evidence-based conversation to help you understand your options.What we cover:How ADHD medication affects dopamine and focusThe difference between stimulant and non-stimulant medicationsWhy safety and addiction concerns often get misunderstoodHow to approach treatment decisions from an informed placeHow to know if your treatment plan needs adjustmentThe role of therapy, structure, and lifestyle alongside medicationDr. Ryan Sultan, MD is a double board-certified psychiatrist, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Columbia, and the Founder & Medical Director of Integrative Psychiatry in Chelsea, NYC, and Miami, FL. He leads NIH-funded research on ADHD and comorbidities and has published in JAMA, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and JAACAP. Clinically, he works with children and adults navigating conditions like anxiety, depression, and substance use.Medical Disclaimer:This episode is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.Skye Waterson is not a medical doctor and does not make treatment recommendations.Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making any decisions about diagnosis, medication, or treatment for ADHD or any other condition.P.S. If you feel like the bottleneck in your business and life feels like chaos, click here to apply for a call with me. We'll discuss your struggles and explore systems to support you in growing without the overwhelm.

The Triple Threat to the Rare Disease Ecosystem — A Conversation with Dr. Wendy ChungSometimes you come across someone whose work changes the way you think about an entire field. That's exactly what happened when I read about Dr. Wendy Chung in Rare Revolution Magazine.Dr. Chung is one of those rare people who stands at the intersection of science, medicine, ethics, and humanity. She's a clinical and molecular geneticist, the Chief of Pediatrics at Boston Children's Hospital, and the Mary Ellen Avery Professor at Harvard Medical School. She leads NIH-funded research into the genetics of conditions like pulmonary hypertension, autism, birth defects, and a wide range of rare diseases. She's advanced newborn screening for life-threatening disorders like spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy — work that means the difference between life and death for many families. She's been recognized with the Rare Impact Award from NORD, is a member of the National Academy of Medicine, and is a leading voice on the ethics of genomics.But titles and accolades only tell part of her story. What stands out most is her deep commitment to the people behind the science, the families living day in and day out with conditions that most of the world has never heard of.When we spoke, Dr. Chung described what she calls the “triple threat” to the rare disease ecosystem:Misinformation in health that spreads faster than facts and erodes trust in science.Lack of access to healthcare, leaving too many without the treatments they need, when they need them.Insufficient investment in research, slowing the pace of discovery and delaying life-saving therapies.Each of these challenges is daunting on its own, but together they create a fragile and often hostile environment for progress in rare disease research and care.She pointed out that while most genetic conditions are rare individually, collectively they are surprisingly common — affecting millions worldwide. That's a staggering thought, especially considering how little public awareness and funding rare diseases often receive.We also talked about autism, a condition she has studied extensively. She emphasized that autism is a spectrum, with multiple causes, the majority of which are genetic. Understanding that complexity is crucial, not only for advancing science but also for helping families cope and make informed decisions.One of the threads running through our conversation was the urgent need for better communication in science. In an age where misinformation spreads in seconds, the ability to convey facts clearly and accessibly isn't just a nice skill — it's a necessity. Miscommunication or confusion doesn't just impact public opinion; it influences policy decisions, research funding, and the direction of healthcare itself.Dr. Chung stressed that advocacy matters at every level — from the conversations parents have with their children's doctors to the policies shaped in Washington. Community engagement isn't just a feel-good idea; it's one of the most effective ways to accelerate progress. Patients, families, scientists, and policymakers all have a role to play, and collaboration among them is where breakthroughs happen.In the end, our conversation left me with two truths. First, that rare disease progress depends on persistence from so many people. The researchers who refuse to give up, from families who continue to fight for answers, and from advocates who push for change. Second, that truth itself is a kind of medicine. The more accurately, compassionately, and consistently we can communicate about rare diseases, the better chance we have at building a healthcare ecosystem that works for everyone.Dr. Wendy Chung is leading that charge, not just in the lab, but in the public square. And in this fight, both matter equally. Please like, subscribe, and comment on our podcasts!Please consider making a donation: https://thebonnellfoundation.org/donate/The Bonnell Foundation website:https://thebonnellfoundation.orgEmail us at: thebonnellfoundation@gmail.com Watch our podcasts on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@laurabonnell1136/featuredThanks to our sponsors:Vertex: https://www.vrtx.comViatris: https://www.viatris.com/en

Today on Sauna Talk, we are joined by the dynamic duo of researcher from Emery University, Deanna Kaplan and Roman Palitsky. Deanna Kaplan Deanna Kaplan, PhD is a clinical psychologist with expertise in digital health technologies. She has more than a decade of experience using wearable and smartphone-based technologies to study the dynamics of health processes and clinical change during daily life. Her research is grounded in a whole-person (bio-psycho-social-spiritual) model of health, and much of her work focuses on investigating the dynamics of change of integrative interventions, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies and contemplative practices. Dr. Kaplan is the Director of the Human Experience and Ambulatory Technologies (HEAT) Lab, a multidisciplinary collaboration between the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and Emory Spiritual Health. More information about the HEAT Lab is here. Dr. Kaplan is the co-creator and Scientific Director of Fabla, an unlicensed Emory-hosted app for multimodal daily diary and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) research. Fabla is an EMA app that can securely collect voice-recorded, video-recorded , and photographic responses from research participants. More information about Fabla is here. Dr. Kaplan holds an adjunct appointment in Emory's Department of Psychology and is appointed faculty for several Emory centers, including the Winship Cancer Institute, Emory Spiritual Health (ESH), the Emory Center for Psychedelics and Spirituality (ECPS), and the Advancement of Diagnostics for a Just Society (ADJUST) Center. She also holds an appointment as an adjunct Assistant Professor at Brown University in affiliation with the Center for Digital Health. Dr. Kaplan received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Arizona, completed her predoctoral clinical internship at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, and completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at Brown University, where she received an F32 National Research Service Award (NRSA) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Her research is funded by the NIH, the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA), the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance, the Tiny Blue Dot Foundation, and the Vail Health Foundation among others. She was named as a 2025 Rising Star by Genomics Press for her work in mental health assessment innovation. Roman Palitsky Roman Palitsky, MDiv, Ph.D. is Director of Research Projects for Emory Spiritual Health and a Research Psychologist for Emory University School of Medicine. His research program investigates the pathways through which culture and health interact by examining the biological, psychological, and social processes that constitute these pathways. His areas of interest include biopsychosocial determinants in cardiovascular health, chronic pain, and grief. In collaboration with Emory Spiritual Health, his research addresses cultural and existential topics in healthcare such as religion, spirituality, and the way people find meaning in suffering, as they relate to health and illness. His work has also focused on the role of religious and existential worldviews in mindfulness-based interventions, as well as implementation and cultural responsiveness of these interventions. Dr. Palitsky's academic training includes a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Arizona with a concentration in Behavioral Medicine/Health Psychology, and a Master of Divinity from Harvard University. He completed clinical internship in the behavioral medicine track at Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, where he also completed a postdoctoral fellowship. Deanna and Roman were in town attending and speaking at the 2025 SSSR Conference, Society for the Scienific Study of Religion. And as you will hear, we get deep into the spirit of sauna, a spiritual connection we allow ourselves to have, presented to us through the wonderfulness of time on the bench and chilling out in the garden, all misty wet with rain.

“I couldn't agree with Dr. Drew more!” writes FL Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. “Many countries don't have vaccine mandates at all, but through education achieve comparable vaccination rates.” Dr. Ladapo is pushing to end all vaccine mandates for children, calling them unethical and a violation of parents' rights. In an interview with BlazeTV's Sara Gonzales, Ladapo argued that the government should not control what goes into a person's body, describing the issue as both moral and constitutional. He says the state's goal is to restore parents' freedom to make medical decisions for their children. Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo is the Surgeon General of Florida and Professor of Medicine at the University of Florida. His research focuses on behavioral economic strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk among disadvantaged populations and has been supported by the NIH and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. He is a Harvard-trained physician and health policy expert. Follow at https://x.com/FLSurgeonGen⠀Dr. Scott Jensen is a family physician, former Minnesota State Senator, and currently a candidate for Minnesota Governor. He advocates for health freedom and patient choice. Learn more at https://drscottjensen.com⠀Jay Pea is the president of Save Standard Time, a nonprofit advocating for better health and safety through alignment of clocks with the sun. He has testified in two dozen capitals and written op-eds in major outlets like The Hill. Learn more at https://savestandardtime.com 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/sponsors⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/paleovalley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • VSHREDMD – Formulated by Dr. Drew: The Science of Cellular Health + World-Class Training Programs, Premium Content, and 1-1 Training with Certified V Shred Coaches! More at https://drdrew.com/vshredmd • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twc.health/drew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Susan Pinsky (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/firstladyoflov⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠e⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Executive Producers • Kaleb Nation - https://kalebnation.com • Susan Pinsky - https://x.com/firstladyoflove Content Producer & Booking • Emily Barsh - https://x.com/emilytvproducer Hosted By • Dr. Drew Pinsky - https://x.com/drdrew Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

自然科学研究機構・生理学研究所にて独立する萩原賢太さんゲスト回。アメリカの現状と脱出に至る過程、立ち上げるラボでのプロジェクト、五十嵐ラボ@東北大、など。 (9/16 収録)Show Notes (番組HP):Position inquiry用連絡先: kenta.m.hagihara+recruit@gmail.com着任を待たずに准教授・助教公募を出せることになりました。学振PD、大学院進学を希望する方も是非早めに声かけてください。萩原ラボHP (beta) (新規ドメインとかいってハネられた場合こちらから)Allen Institute for Neural Dynamics生理研五十嵐さん五十嵐さん過去回 1 2,3 4 5藤島さんカレル北西さん回神経科学学会所長招聘セミナー直で教授になった萩原さんの先生生理研現所長・伊佐先生前所長・鍋倉先生生理研技術課自然科学研究機構の事務局NIPSリサーチフェローという独自フェローシップがある生理研大学院総研大大学院に興味のある方は体験入学制度もあるので是非FMIAllen/FMIでつかってるIVC(テクニプラスト社)奥山さん奥山さん回 1 2北村ラボ東大医学部教育研究棟GiocomoラボLeutgebラボMoserラボ部屋を11個作った研究Albert Leeの48mのでかい迷路デルタとかイプシロンとかiGluSnFR4Mini2pニューロモジュレーターを全脳で見るPerforated patch (pdf)レコーディングしてpost hocに染め物をするような研究RPEじぇれまいあIllana WittenのVTA深部イメージング論文スイスの元ボスAmygdalaのGRCGRC Basal GangliaVijay内田さんAMED五十嵐さんポスターさきがけ-生命力帰国発展研究Takaki Komiyama生理研トレーニングコースぶさきらぼSvobodaラボに行った五十嵐さん弟子の論文Buzsakiラボに行った五十嵐さん弟子の論文LongラボThomas McHughラボ金子先生くねりうむラボ: 正確には、新ラボメンバーにはまずジムがインプラントの手本を見せる。タイムリミットがあったプロジェクトでは結果的にジムが全部インプラントしたこともあった。とのことでした。ろーら・こるぎんpayline:上から何パーセントの申請書に予算が付くか年６回までしかNIH予算出せない河西先生R21R35東北大・国際卓越研究大学認定五十嵐ラボ＠東北大中川達貴さん大隅先生東北大学NeuroGlobal筒井先生松井先生佐々木先生坂野先生安田さんモーザーラボと東北大の合同セミナーMenno Witterアスコナギャツビー財団ピコカローニ狩野先生高橋先生インタビュー(pdf)横溝さん国家公務員の給料は国会議員を上回れないStanfordから東大経済が引き抜いた森郁恵先生Josh Johansen最近アナウンスした これにTomがBooってコメントつけてるのがウケる(萩)佐々木さんこれまでの過去ゲストがさんざん”参考になる”ジョブハント記録をシェアしてくれていたのに対して、あまり参考にならない体験談になってしまいました。ただ、日本の学会に顔出すとか人と会うとか、いらねーと思っていたMDが結果的に生きてくるとか「いい研究をすること」に加えて有効であったファクターのエッセンスは滲み出ているのではと思います。(1)給料水準 (2)給料着任までわからない文化 (3)着任まで異動を公表しづらい文化等、変わっていけばいいなと思います。大学医学部及び研究所の面接で何を聞かれたとか、スタートアップの額とかはシェアできるのでこっそり声かけてください。そしてラボ参加に興味ある方は是非お声がけください！ (萩)本当におめでとうございます！ラボの小部屋一つ収録スタジオにしましょう！(脇)記念すべき第100回エピソードが素晴らしいニュースで嬉しいです。第200回では何が起きるでしょうか。改めておめでとうございます！（藤）萩原君、あらためておめでとうございます！NRというコミュニティが研究者育成道場の役割を果たしているのだと思います。これから日本の神経科学を盛り立てて行ってください。日本の大学の給料や定年のメカニズムがよくならないのは、かつて教員は国家公務員であり、当時は国家公務員関連の法律に縛られていたのをいまだに引きずっているのが原因でしょうね。でも研究者獲得は世界レベルでの待ったなしの競争なので、世界水準の条件にどんどん変えていく必要があると思うのです。日本の国会議員は海外からオファーはもらえないけど、僕たち研究者は世界中からオファーがもらえますからね！日本の研究システムが少しでもよくなるよう、みんなで環境を良くしていきましょう！(五十嵐)

Check out the collection of fidgets Team Shiny loves! We gotta be able to handle hearing people talk about us, even when it's triggering and hard, because it can ultimately show us where the work is. And maybe you can be an expert on soething without having it yourself (like ADHD) but perhaps it requires a sense of curiosity, empathy, or some kind of introspection that recpognizes your lane, your scope, and your own biases? From anthropology and sociology to X-Men and who is Magneto and Charles Xavier, David and Isabelle meander through what it means to be an ally and also set up some solid recent hyperfixations.---We gotta tolerate hearing people talking about what they think about us, including people who have lots of degrees and expertise, and also know that each person doesn't have the answers. Maybe it has to do with conversations that people have about us without us ADHDers? Then again there are journalists, who don't have expertise but who can report on the data they get. David names that there are good and bad journalists, and there is critical thinking. How much about people's ADHD ‘expertise' includes interpersonal work and understanding about attachment, relationships, your own identity. Like, if you're an expert on ADHD and you're not friends with people who have ADHD outside of your work (if you yourself don't have it)—something to look at? David names that as therapists, we have this debate about multicultural approaches—do you need to have a white therapist to work with white clients, a Black therapist to work with Black therapists? You need to know your lane and your expertise. David's own therapist is not an expert in ADHD. And neither is Isabelle's. They know to ask us questions, can ask “how does this relate to ADHD?” We might be the person with ADHD that helps them better understand that. Allies don't want to get rid of parts of you, they want to help parts of you. An ally is different than a researcher, Isabelle wants to name that you need to be enough of an ally to a topic and be curious. In undergrad, she studied anthropology and archaeology, and it's a blend of super specific science and also lots of educated guessing. She remembers learning about participant observation in anthropology, that just by observing a culture or a group you are impacting the group. It's way more about noticing what your own biases are. David's own background in sociology, the idea of intersectionality. David didn't really think about ADHD or neurodiversity as a culture until college. He's a big comic book fan and he loved the X-Men. They're trying to hide their mutant powers to not be exploited by the government and the X-Men are trying to help these mutants and take them to saving. Charles Xavier and Magneto were portrayed to be iconic people. Magneto was Malcolm X while Charles Xavier was based on Martin Luther King, Jr. It's two different portrayals around protecting yourself—do you get violent and active or passive? Maybe the mutants are a great metaphor for neurodiversity as well as the civil rights war—if you have been marginalized you can have empathy toward other people who are marginalized. It's not so personal, people do things to us that they do to other marginalized groups. It can also signify that we have a culture. It would be if everyone says they have a pile of unfolded clothes that threaten your identity, your pile of mail—-culturally both David and Isabelle are both connected to the plan that they didn't want to leave it there. When we connect about parts of our culture. Isabelle and David so appreciate this conversation. Isabelle names asynchronous processing—she can't just off the cuff rattle off her ideas and also needs time to talk it out, externalize, and think about things beyond the initial moment or conversations. How important it is for us to keep having these conversations. Isabelle wonders if David is like Charles Xavier. He wishes he could be Charles Xavier. Isabelle might be Charles Xavier. Because maybe she loves or identifies with Patrick Stewart so much. So maybe David is Magneto—in the comic books they were best friends, and he was like “they'll never learn, we need to protect our people” whereas as the other is like “don't give in to our aggressive urges.” David needs to shout out: Dungeon Crawler Carl. Not wearing any pants, the cat jumps out of his house trying to get the cat out of the tree, and Carl can then go on an 18 level dungeon crawl and can save the planet earth. The audio book is a treasure, David is a big fan of role playing games, he consumed all seven books in less than three weeks. Isabelle names why cats get stuck in trees, their claws go the other way so they get stuck—but big cats can go backwards. Isabelle mentions an enneagram book that she really appreciates. She was hooked on Borders and loved it as a kid and would keep trying to have someone explain me to me, and one of those books was on the enneagram (which makes David feel like he went to the bathroom during learning fractions and never picked up on it). And she mispronounced it and would read the book at people. Because tell her she's neurospicy without telling her she's neurospicy.Stephanie Sarkis is an ADHD expert who also has ADHD  X-Men and more on Patrick StewartThe American Psychological Association vote on 'homosexuality' being listed as a diagnosable mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) happened back in the LATE 80's (WHAAAATTTTT? yes).--there is a long history to depathologizing sexual identities, deeply impacted by tons of activism and advocacy. For more, you can see this NIH article on this history.Dungeon Crawler Carl seriesCats getting stuck on trees because of claw shape -- fascinatingly, going down backwards is a skill some cats can learn. Also, here is this website: Catrescueguy.com. *(you're welcome)*The amazing enneagram book Isabelle was trying to remember the title of -- The Unfiltered Enneagram by Elizabeth Orr------Cover Art by: Sol VázquezTechnical Support by: Bobby Richards Here's a nifty little promo code for those who either delayed gratification or who let this episode run through to the end because they were busy vacuuming.

Does everything hurt and you feel like you're in a ‘down hill from here' phase of life? Nope. You need this week's show if those thoughts have been creeping in!Enter Dr Jocelyn Wittstein, M.D., an associate professor of orthopaedic surgery at Duke University School of Medicine. She has been in practice since 2010 and is fellowship trained in sports medicine. She's a clinician researcher with NIH funded research in ACL injury, sex differences in ACL injury, and cartilage health and she also studies the intersection of women's health and musculoskeletal health. I grilled her for as much as we could get through in an hour for us. We unpack:

In this episode of PRIM&R's podcast, "Research Ethics Reimagined," we speak with Dr. Josh Fessel about trust in science, translational medicine, and the challenges facing federal research. Dr. Fessel is a physician scientist who most recently served as chief medical officer and director of the Office of Translational Medicine in the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at NIH. He discusses lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical considerations in AI implementation, and his decision to leave federal service when directives conflicted with his values as a physician and researcher.

The Grayken Center for Addiction at Boston Medical Center's Behind the Evidence podcast is pleased to host "Behind the Masthead," a special series of episodes featuring conversations with addiction journal editors and other scholars on navigating current threats to addiction science and academic freedom. As the primary means of knowledge dissemination in the field, addiction journals are likely to be substantially impacted by the recent drastic changes to the federal funding of medical and public health research in the US. What can we learn from the perspectives of addiction journal editors and other scholars in this moment of uncertainty?In this first episode of the “Behind the Masthead” series, guest host Casy Calver, PhD speaks with Alex Walley, MD and Emily Williams, PhD—two editors of the Grayken Center's journal, Addiction Science & Clinical Practice—on the lessons we can learn from the resilience of people who use drugs, to navigating changes to the NIH's public access policy.Behind the Evidence is the addiction medicine podcast of the Grayken Center for Addiction at Boston Medical Center, and a project of the Center's free bimonthly newsletter Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence (AODH). This special series, “Behind the Masthead,” is guest-hosted by Casy Calver, PhD.Behind the Evidence hosts: Honora L. Englander, MD and Marc R. Larochelle, MDProduction: Raquel Silveira, MBAEditing: Casy Calver, PhDMusic and cover art: Mary Tomanovich, MAMiriam Komaromy, MD is the Executive Director of the Grayken Center for Addiction, and co-Editor-in-Chief of AODH, together with David Fiellin, MDLearn more about AODH and subscribe for free at www.aodhealth.org“Behind the Evidence” is supported by the Grayken Center for Addiction at Boston Medical Center. It is intended for educational purposes only, and should not be considered medical advice. The views expressed here are our own, and do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or the authors of the articles we review. All patient information has been modified to protect their identities.

The Harvard Plan - our collaboration with the Boston Globe, is back! In episode one, we hear what unfolded at Harvard from Donald Trump's inauguration to convocation 2025. Three main characters, inside Harvard, tell the story from their perspective: politics professor Ryan Enos, genetics professor and cancer researcher Kamila Naxerova and campus conservative Kit Parker, lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve and Professor of Bioengineering and Applied Physics at Harvard. The personal perspectives of our three guides are interwoven with the dramatic timeline and unfolding news.  On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

Please join us for an enlivening conversation with Dr. Cynthia Graham, an esteemed editor, researcher, and educator. She has done so much research on older adults and amid a negative focus on aging, she has found in her research that sex can actually get better with age. Her research focuses on sexual health among older adults, male condom use, hormonal contraceptives, women's sexuality, women's sexual pleasure, and sexual problems. We discussed her current research along with Dr. Justin Lehmiller on older women and masturbation and whether it might improve some symptoms of menopause. She is the editor of the Journal of Sex Research and Distinguished Professor in the Department of Gender studies at Indiana University and a senior scientist at the Kinsey Institute. In the wake of NIH and other funding cutbacks in scientific research, she talks about the need to continue to do sexuality research and continuing to find alternative avenues to fund and publish this critical work. Listeners, if you're interested in Dr. Cynthia Graham's research, click here. If you're interested in Dr. Patricia Barthalow Koch's article we discussed on body image and aging, click here. And if you'd like to read the statement Dr. Graham and her colleagues wrote about the attacks on scientific research, click here. If you want to catch up on other shows, just visit our website and please subscribe! We love our listeners and welcome your feedback, so if you love Our Better Half, please give us a 5-star rating and follow us on Facebook and Instagram. It really helps support our show! As always, thanks for listening!  

I am thrilled to have Gary Taubes back on the show today. (He was with me before on episode 137. Gary is an investigative science and health journalist whose work has been pivotal in catalyzing the low-carb keto movement. He has written many books, including his most recent, Rethinking Diabetes, and his articles are in many of the best anthologies. He has also received many science awards. Today's discussion is particularly significant, given the recent report from the American Diabetes Association revealing that the annual cost of diabetes in the United States reached a staggering $412.9 billion in 2022, with individuals diagnosed with diabetes now representing one in every four dollars spent on healthcare.  In our discussion today, we dive into the history of diabetes, pertinent statistics, the prevailing standard of care, and the transformative influence of insulin on diabetes management and reactive hypoglycemia. Gary provides insights into his reactions to GLP ones, the integration of medical and nutrition science into the medical field, and the influence of organizations such as the American Diabetes Association, AHA, USDA, and NIH. Our discussion also extends to the effects of pharmaceuticals, the shortcomings in our approach to diabetes management and existing models, and the challenge the low-carb community faces. Stay tuned for today's eye-opening conversation, where we shed light on the complexities surrounding diabetes care, explaining how simple lifestyle changes can tremendously improve quality of life. IN THIS EPISODE YOU WILL LEARN: Rethinking Diabetes is a groundbreaking exploration of diabetes diagnosis, management, and treatment Gary discusses the evolution of evidence-based medicine Why the traditional medical approach to treating diabetes is inadequate How the guidelines of the American Diabetes Association were based on outdated assumptions  How medical treatments compare with lifestyle changes for managing diabetes Controversies surrounding how the pharmaceutical industry has influenced the way medical associations have shaped their diabetes management policies How medical guidelines and dietary advice have evolved What constitutes a healthy diet? How patients often have trouble following diet recommendations, despite their best intentions Is obesity a hormonal disorder or caused by overeating?  Connect with Cynthia Thurlow Follow on X, ⁠Instagram⁠ & ⁠LinkedIn⁠ Check out Cynthia's ⁠website⁠ Submit your questions to support@cynthiathurlow.com Connect with Gary Taubes On his ⁠website⁠ X ⁠Facebook⁠ Previous Episode Mentioned ⁠Ep. 137 – High Blood Sugar Levels And Its Long-Term Damage with Gary Taubes⁠ Book Mentioned: Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments is available from most bookstores or on ⁠Amazon⁠.