Podcast appearances and mentions of patrick wallace

In this episode, we explore how individualised medicines are evolving from “n=1” treatments (a treatment effective for a single individual) into approaches that could transform care for many people living with rare conditions.  Advances in genomic medicine are making it possible to design highly targeted treatments based on an individual's genetic information. While these therapies may begin as bespoke solutions for a single patient, they can often be adapted, refined or reused to benefit others with similar conditions.  While the research is evolving, the systems needed to deliver these treatments at scale are still catching up. From regulation to access, our guests discuss what needs to change to turn this potential into reality.  Our host Sharon Jones, is joined by:  Ana Lisa Tavares, Clinical Lead for Rare Disease Research at Genomics England  Mel Dixon, Participant Panel member and CEO and Founder of Cure DHDDS  If you enjoyed today's conversation, please like and share wherever you listen to your podcasts.  “However rare your condition is, someone has a right to have hope. Everybody should have a hope that we should be able to find a treatment.” You can download the transcript or read it below. Sharon: What if treatments once designed for just one person could now help many others? Thanks to advances in genomic medicine, regulations are changing and research is expanding. This opens up more options for treatments for rare conditions. But what does this mean and how close is real change? I'm Sharon Jones, and this is Behind the Genes. We look at how genomics is changing healthcare, covering everything from cutting-edge research to real-life stories. Individualised medicines are a fast-moving area, but there's still a big gap between scientific progress and what's actually happening to patients. You could call it the gap between hype and hope. Ana Lisa: However rare your condition is, someone has a right to have hope. Everybody should have a hope that we should be able to find a treatment. Sharon: Coming up, we'll hear from Ana Lisa Tavares, Clinical Lead for Rare Disease Research at Genomics England, and Consultant in Clinical Genetics at Cambridge University Hospital, as well as Mel Dixon, member of the Participant Panel at Genomics England and CEO and founder of Cure DHDDS. Mel opens this chat by explaining why developments in individualised healthcare really matter to her. Mel: This issue is really personal to me. I have three children, two of whom are affected with an ultra-rare DHDDS gene variant, for which there is currently no treatment. Their condition causes symptoms such as, well, it varies between mild to severe learning difficulties, seizures, tremors, and movement and coordination difficulties. But the, the most worrying thing for us was that this condition is actually also progressive. So over time it becomes more of a Parkinsonism and some patients experience dementia-like symptoms and psychosis. So for us to get a treatment that targets the genetic cause of, of their condition is, like, the most important thing in, in our lives. If we could intervene now, they could potentially, at the stage they're at, you know, live an independent life with, with some supports. But if the disease is left to progress, it would be a very different outcome for them. Sharon: I mean, that sounds so difficult and I can't even imagine how life is for you and your family. And I can see what is driving you to find anything to extend the life of your children and to give them that opportunity to, to have a better quality of life. And then Lisa. Ana Lisa: It's a huge burden for families to carry. And I think at the moment there's an additional layer of burden, which shouldn't fall on families, to feel like they need to forge a pathway for their child to have a chance of a treatment. That's, that's a lot to bear. Mel: I think as well, families feel they almost have to become mini scientists in their children's specific condition overnight, because you go to these appointments with the consultants and nobody's heard of the condition and they don't know, they just don't really know what to do with you. So they're asking you, you know, so tell me about this, this gene change. What, what does it do? What does it mean? So you have to become the mini professor in your child's condition to be able to advocate for them. We've had to really learn on our feet so that we're able to advocate and push for research into DHDDS, because without us doing it, nobody else was going to be. Sharon: Yeah. So that's, you know, that's partly what we're here and what this podcast is for, it's here to support families to, to understand this stuff. And Ana Lisa, can you just break it down to us, what is individualised medicines? Ana Lisa: An individualised medicine that's made for one individual person. In reality, sometimes there are other individuals that can also benefit from the same medicines, and sometimes actually, although the medicine is made for one specific person, it might be made using a strategy that other patients could also benefit from, either directly, exactly the same, even, or through tweaking them so that they could work for a different patient. In the context that they're most often referred to at the moment, they're therapies that are being made based on the genetic information about somebody. Sharon: Thank you. I mean, that sounds amazing. And now coming to you, Mel, what does receiving a diagnosis mean for a family? And how do you navigate the space between finally having answers and the reality that the treatment may not yet exist? Mel: So for us, I think, we went down the, the diagnostic route in the hope that we would be able to find a treatment for our children, or there would already be a treatment in place. But unfortunately when we got their diagnosis, we were told that their, their condition was ultra rare, neurodegenerative and also newly discovered. So there was, there was no treatment pathway and actually minimal research happening into it at the time. So it was frustrating, upsetting, um, and it felt like quite a hopeless situation at the start, but actually this was just over three years ago. And through a lot of proactiveness on our part in fundraising, we've been able to better understand the condition and we now have treatments in the pipeline. So in that three-year window, from there being nothing, we now have treatments both in terms of potential drug repurposing candidates and also, um, an individualised therapy called an ASO is also in development for them. So it was hard, but it's given huge benefit to us. Otherwise, we'd just be going, remaining going from specialist to specialist without having any answers or understanding why their symptoms were progressing. Sharon: I mean, that sounds really, really tough and you know, coming back to you, Ana Lisa, could you talk us through how genomics is changing the way we can treat rare conditions? You know, what types of individualised medicines now exist and how do they even work? Ana Lisa: Maybe I'll start with how some of these medicines are working. So with, without going into details, but the sort of principle that these medicines might be able to, to do something called gene editing. So our, our DNA, uh, the instruction manual is made up of genes and it's now can be possible scientifically to change even a single DNA letter code in somebody to try and ameliorate the symptoms of their rare condition. You know that's phenomenal scientific progress to be able to do that. I think a lot of people have heard about gene therapy, where one is trying to get into the body a gene or part of a gene that might be able to sort of replace the function of a gene that isn't working as it should. There are various other strategies. So our DNA is actually used to send messages to our body, if you like, to, to decode these instructions. And so there are medicines that target the next step in this process, the RNA, which are the ASO therapies that Mel was referring to earlier. And really what those are doing are either trying to correct for a protein in our body that isn't working as it should, or to try and get rid of one that shouldn't be there. And so they can act in different ways. And that's actually quite powerful, because you can, theoretically, use these strategies to correct for different genetic rare conditions. So I think going to the sort of first part of your question, maybe if I can phrase it as "directly at source". If you can go upstream and target in a very direct way the cause of a rare condition, then actually you might be able to apply those same principles to many different types of rare condition. We know that there are, you know, 8,000 as a very ballpark number of rare conditions, and it might be that these strategies could be used I don't want to say for all rare conditions, but for many rare conditions where we find the genetic cause, these strategies could collectively be a very powerful way to treat them. And traditionally we've had to understand all the underlying biology, find a druggable target, find a drug that could target that, that's safe, effective, et cetera. And that's a lot of work. And that's still very, very valuable. If we were going to do this for these thousands of conditions, it would probably take us hundreds to thousands of years, collectively. And these strategies provide a lot of hope for being able to do this in a, in a more efficient way, where we can actually use the information used to treat one rare condition and apply those learnings to another rare condition. Sharon : I mean, that's really helpful to understand. So if the science is there, why aren't more patients benefiting from it yet? You know, what's standing in the way from your perspective? Ana Lisa: That's a really good question, and it's complex because the, our whole ecosystem is made up of, of many parts that go from finding a potential strategy that could help a rare condition to a patient benefiting from that. And I think one thing that maybe we haven't touched on yet is the fact that rare conditions can be really rare and affect a really small number of people individually, even though we know collectively they affect so many. You know, in the past it's been easier, if you're taking a condition that's common, that affects thousands of people, it's easier to see and to be sure whether your new medicine is actually working as you think it does and should, and having the benefits that you think. The, the sort of regulators have really clear guidance. We have lots of knowledge about how to assess treatments and have a randomised clinical trial, for example. How the reimbursement process may work in a public healthcare system. And when you, when you, when you sort of set down into the really rare, this is difficult for each stage of the journey. The transformation that's needed is a whole, system-wide transformation to be able to regulate in a scalable, equitable way, these therapies that could actually be an N of one treatment for one individual, that actually maybe one day another individual may also benefit, and sometimes even a group of individuals. It's not just the, the regulator, it's also how do you make it viable. So again, you have to make it scalable, equitable. And even to implement in the NHS down to this very "N equals one" level, and demonstrate that patients could benefit from these treatments, might require sort of fancier ways of assessing these treatments, whether it's statistics, other methodology and I think it's really the system-wide nature that makes this tricky, but is also a fantastic opportunity for, for collaboration, because that, that sort of end goal and benefits could be so, so great. Sharon: Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, Mel, for your side of things, it must sound, you know, quite frustrating where the people in the rare community to not see the support being made more readily available? Mel: Yeah, it is particularly difficult for patients and their families. I think in our case, when you're dealing with a neurodegenerative condition, time is of the essence. So when you know that the science is available or it's ready, but you don't have the systems in place to implement them to the patients so that they can access these much-needed therapies, it's worrying and frustrating. And also I see our children are affected with, with, you know, one of these N of few conditions that there's, you know, there's only 59 confirmed cases of DHDDS worldwide, and we've seen how the system firsthand doesn't fit ultra-rare patients. We can't, when we were looking at drug repurposing, we can't do a traditional clinical trial because we don't have the patient numbers and we don't have the funding. So a placebo-controlled trial just wouldn't be possible for us when there's only, I think, seven confirmed patients in the UK and, um, four that we're actually in, in, in touch with. So it does feel, I think, as Ana Lisa was saying, that we really need a system rethink, um, and refit so that it does start to accommodate these ultra-rare conditions, especially now as there's therapies which are showing huge benefit to patients. Sharon: And so with like all of these challenges, where are you seeing things shift and what does meaningful progress really look like for you? Mel: At the end of last year, the MHRA announced that they were rewriting the regulatory framework for rare conditions, and that fills us with lots of hope for the future. They're recognising that the traditional systems don't work for particularly ultra-rare conditions, and now that we do have these therapies in the pipeline, we, we want to get the patients to be able to access them. And we're also seeing innovation in how evidence is generated and measured. We witnessed this firsthand with our son as he was undergoing baseline tests for his ASO therapy. You know, the use of digital biomarkers, of real-world evidence, how they're increasingly being used for these N of one or N of few populations. And how the individual receiving the treatment becomes their own comparator. So you're not relying on these big natural history studies of the disease or placebo controls. It's you're looking specifically at that individual, getting a really strong baseline and then looking, once they're dosed with the medication, is that improving or stabilising symptoms? So I think this shift in focus is really meaningful for the ultra-rare community and also for them to be part of the decision-making process of what, what benefits do they want from a drug? Like what is meaningful to them? I think there's much more talk about the patients and how the, what will benefit them most. It's not necessarily what the scientists would think or research would think would most benefit, but what, what would make a meaningful difference to the patient? Sharon: I mean, that's good to know because it's kind of putting the person at the centre of, you know, this is what it's all about, isn't it? It's not just the science. We're trying to treat people and it's putting people, people first. Ana Lisa: Just to build on that, it's exactly that, that awareness that is, is growing, I think, that there are so many people affected by a rare condition and, and however rare your condition is, someone has a right to have hope and that the system should be able to cater for many rare conditions, you know, whether they're an ultra-rare or an actually almost common rare condition, everybody should have a hope that we should be able to find a treatment. And it's not a hopeless situation that it's, you know, never going to happen or be too difficult. It's quite powerful, hope. If you can solve for the truly individualised medicine, then you at the same time may also be helping everyone in-between a really common condition and a really rare condition, because right now the system works for common conditions. And if you can take it right down to the sort of radical of, example of an individualised medicine made for one person, then you are also forcing the system to a change for everybody else. And I think that's one of the great benefits of thinking about it as a joined-up system. Sharon: So how do you each navigate between hype versus hope when it comes to rare therapies? Mel? Mel: I like to focus on hope, because when we got our diagnosis, we felt really hopeless and that's a really dark place for a family to be. But as we learnt more about their condition and the rare condition landscape and genomics, we actually learned of all these new therapies that were in the pipeline. We were hearing about, you know, recently, conditions like Huntington's Disease that you never, never previously had any disease-modifying treatment, how they're now being able to be treated with gene therapy with really positive effects. Similarly for other neurodegenerative conditions that have been treated with ASOs, how they're seeing not just disease stabilisation, but improvements. So I know it's, it's still, like, relatively early days with these technologies and therapies, but I think it, it allows families to have hope, which is, which is really, really important, because that statistic, you know, of the, of 95% of rare conditions not having a treatment, it's, it's a really brutal one, uh, to be told at the outset or to learn at the outset. So, you know, if, if these therapies can, can make a huge dent in that, that would be life-changing. It would make a profound difference to many, many families, and I think there's a lot of reason to have hope, taking all of that into consideration. Sharon: And then Lisa? Ana Lisa: I think to work in this area, one needs to be full of hope and optimism because there are so many, um, challenges to overcome as a community. Uh, but I think that means that people are also incredibly collaborative, because they know that we need to work together for this to succeed. And no one, you know, one individual, one organisation can do it on their own. It truly has to be a crosscutting, collaborative endeavour. The fact that we, in the UK, have resources like the National Healthcare System,Genomics England in partnership with the NHS runs a National Genomic Research Library. And so the fact that you could look at, at tens of thousands of, of genomes for many, many individuals with rare conditions. That gives me hope because it means that if a treatment is made for another person, it could be in a different country in the world, and if we could find another patient, it doesn't matter what specialty they're under, where they are, we should be able to find them and connect with their clinical team if, you know, if they've consented for the National Genomic Research Library. And so to me, that feels, that whilst there's, there is a lot of hype in the sense that some of the really well-publicised cases, really had a lot of people working on them and a lot of resources to make it happen. But that gives hope to everybody else that follows that actually it is doable and if we can make better systems, and having these national resources that we do, the fact that, there are a lot of guidelines being written at the moment, both international and national. And again, they show that the sort of scaffolding is starting to be in place to apply these in an equitable scalable way. It might not be that you're so much looking for a specific rare condition as for a particular type of genetic variant that could be targeted in the same strategic way, and that therefore you could look across many different rare conditions. So again, all these sort of pieces of the puzzle are, are filling me with, with, with hope. Sharon: You touched upon, um, inequity there. Now, you know, is there a risk of inequity given what we've talked about in terms of those challenges? Ana Lisa: I think we, we always have to have the lens of equity in everything we, we do. And that, and that really does apply to healthcare and, and in fact, probably the whole rare disease community are, are, are not well served in terms of therapies at the moment. There are so few, um, therapeutic options and so I think there's a massive inequity in that this, our systems are not geared, uh, towards rare conditions. I suppose, you know, different countries have different healthcare systems and some of the sort of first personalised therapies may require a lot of money behind them to, to happen, but they will be pioneers in leading the way for how this can be done. And I think in the UK we have a lot of the infrastructure and the, a sort of a strong, that's very equitable, I think. And so we could do this in a, in a much more open and equitable way. Sharon: Mel? Mel: Cost is always, unfortunately, and it, when it's your family that's affected you, you know, you hate the thought that things are coming down to cost and, and money. But I, I think as Ana Lisa said, if, if the system absorbs the initial cost. You know, it seems that those longer-term costs could come down significantly. We already see with our very small DHDDS community that an ASO, which is an allele specific that was made personally for one, for one child, can actually also benefit my son, even though they have a different variant. So if the cost of the ASO is 1.2 million per person, but if you suddenly find actually one other person can share that, that's almost halving the, the cost. And then if then you're finding out that actually, oh no, 3, 4, 5, 10 people can all have that same ASO, suddenly it becomes much more cost-effective and more sustainable. So I think, as we have to think about cost, I think that also allows us to have more hope that these therapies can, the cost of these therapies that are obviously hugely expensive at the moment, can be brought down in the longer term. Ana Lisa: There are a lot of things that people want to do in the NHS. People can be working under quite hard circumstances, so to talk about making a therapy for one individual can be difficult and people can sometimes, I think, think that it's a pie-in-the-sky conversation. However, I think that, you know, all the clinicians I know who work with families with rare conditions, what they'd most like to be able to do is to be able to offer a therapy. And so I think a lot of people see this as a, as a big opportunity, despite these initial hurdles. One thing I often think about is my grandfather, when he was alive, every phone conversation, he would start with, "How many lives have you saved today?" And so I think that's the, that's our challenge. Sharon: Wow. That's, that's really powerful. Mel: Just echoing really what Ana Lisa was saying, I feel the, um, inequity lies in rare conditions as a, as a whole, from the point of diagnosis to the lack of pathway, um, to, to the lack of system in place for them. You wouldn't have a patient with a life-changing cancer diagnosis receive that information in a telephone call, and that is the stark reality for many rare disease patients. That's how they receive the, that's how they often receive the news. That was certainly our, our experience. And, and from that point, there was then no pathway. It's just this horrendous feeling of isolation. And I think now that there are these treatments in place and therapies in, in place, it's about time we change that because often the rare, the rare condition community, and certainly those with ultra-rare conditions as well, they're probably like some of the most underserved members of the community in that it's their parents and their families that have to advocate. Otherwise, without that, they, they often wouldn't stand a chance of understanding the disease, let alone finding a treatment. So I think the whole system needs to have a reset, to think about these rare condition patients and, put them at the heart as they do for more common conditions. Ana Lisa : I completely agree. And you mentioned cancer, and there are actually quite a few parallels. So there might be really common cancers that affect a lot of people that are being, uh, subsetted down into different groups depending on the genetics that are related to that particular cancer and therefore what treatments might be most effective. And so I think there's, there's a lot we can each learn from each other between the rare disease and cancer communities. Perhaps as in rare disease we scale up to apply the same strategies to many different rare conditions and patients. Even if they're being tweaked for their particular genetic variant and cancer, sometimes one is subsetting down to treat specifically that, exactly that cancer subtype. So there's a lot we can learn and I completely agree that the, the rare disease community deserves the same chance at at treatments, and the hope that that comes with. Sharon: Thank you. It feels like there needs to be some kind of seismic system change along with this piece around collaboration and how, you know, the science is there, but it's how do we bring it to families who are facing these difficulties with it, you know, their children and, and rare conditions. We'll wrap it up there. Thank you to our guests, Ana Lisa Tavares and Mel Dixon, for joining me as we discussed the evolving landscape of individualised medicines. And thank you for listening. If you'd like to hear more like this, please subscribe on your favorite podcast app. Behind the Genes is produced by Deanna Barac, Florence Cornish, Sophie McLachlan and Patrick Wallace at Bespoken Media.  

Kyle and Owen are joined by Patrick Wallace from Goalie Gurus. The discussion covers the unique mentality and challenges of lacrosse goalies, including their psychological pressures and the evolution of goalie training techniques. Patrick shares his expertise on recruiting goalies, evaluating their performance, and the importance of mental health and leadership training. The conversation also touches on the changing landscape of goaltending, the effectiveness of the 10-man ride, and the importance of athletic and quick decision-making abilities for goalies.   Visit www.goaliegurus.com   Topics 00:47 Introducing the Goalie Coach 01:25 The Mentality of a Successful Goalie 02:58 Recruiting and Training Goalies 04:57 Evolving Goalie Techniques 08:03 Challenges and Psychology in Coaching 13:42 Youth Coaching and Goalkeeping IQ 22:43 Advanced Strategies and Sub Games 25:25 The Role of LSM in Lacrosse 26:14 Specialty Positions and Their Impact 27:02 Evaluating Goalie Performance 28:20 The Importance of Game Data 28:58 Club vs. College Rules 30:07 The Evolution of Midfielders 31:58 The 10-Man Ride Strategy 34:29 Coaching Techniques for Goalies 45:01 Memorable Saves and Goalie Stories 49:15 Conclusion and Goalie Gurus Information

Patrick Wallace, assistant coach of the Iona Gaels, joins Tobin Anderson's staff in year one at Iona. He gives a behind-the-scenes look at the process of continuing the winning tradition there with the Gaels.This episode is sponsored by the Dr. Dish Basketball Shooting Machine. Mention "Quick Timeout" and receive $300 off on the Dr. Dish Rebel, All-Star, and CT models.Hudl continues to make advancements to their suite of performance analysis solutions. Tools you know like Sportscode are enhanced by their industry-leading tech like Hudl Focus - an AI-powered smart camera that's built to integrate into Sportscode right out of the box. It captures and uploads video automatically from any gym. Head over to Hudl.com/AQuickTimeout to get a peek at all they're bringing to the hardwood, for every level of the game.Thanks to our sponsors at 323 Sports. If you're in the market for a team dealer, the guys at 323 Sports will not disappoint. Low prices, high quality, and GREAT customer service. They'll "Do It Right" for you and your sports program!

Adam Cox is joined by Patrick Wallace, Co-Founder of Curam, to discuss a new survey commissioned by Curam, which has revealed that nearly three-quarters (73%) of UK adults are worried about not having access to publicly funded care as they get older. They discuss the biggest issues being faced by the sector today and explains how service platforms could help. https://www.curamcare.com/

Coach Wallace joins the show at the 37:25 mark to discuss this new team, some X's and O's and the trio touch on some memories as well.

Todd Furniss talks with Patrick Wallace of Beyond Risk, a firm created to become the largest, most comprehensive, alternative risk-insurance company to aid middle-market clients manage their agency's risk. Beyond Risk combines years of best-in-class experience in Property & Casualty management, Employee Benefits, and Captive Management, Beyond Risk offers a comprehensive portfolio of end-to-end alternative risk solutions. To learn more please visit https://www.beyondrisk.com/https://www.TFIP.group/------------------------------------00:00 | Introducing Patrick Wallace of Beyond Risk01:29 | What does Beyond Risk do02:38 | What are alternative risk strategies06:58 | How does sharing the risk lower costs08:49 | How do costs at Beyond Risk compare to competitors11:28 | Where do CEOs get their insurance from20:25 | How do you break the mold of preconceived ideas21:17 | Do your connections create inertia23:51 | What perspectives do you contend with when talking to HR reps28:54 | What is the biggest challenge you face31:55 | Do you have a community for captives33:38 | Do you have a pool of information for new members35:00 | How can we do better to lower costs for all------------------------------------Todd Furniss is the author of the new book The 60% Solution: Rethinking Healthcare #Book https://bit.ly/36h3E4L#CivilDiscourse | #Fb bit.ly/3JwkaMv#CivilDiscourse | #Rumble bit.ly/3wnUsWU#CivilDiscourse | #YT bit.ly/3wmPdqz#Furniss | #LinkedIn bit.ly/3tBFjQd#Furniss | #Twitter bit.ly/36ASqaV#TFIP | #Instagram bit.ly/36ASDLf#TFIP | #TikTok bit.ly/3IrN7bh

With the first pre-season game set to begin this week, the Jets were hit with their first piece of adversity so far this season with OT Mekhi Becton suffering a knee injury, costing him the season. Lorenzo, Sean, and guest Patrick Wallace discuss the impact this has on the outlook on the Jets season and where the team goes from here. Also, the crew shares their expectations for Friday's pre-season opener and the overall feelings on training camp reports as we are in the midst of week three.

Adam Cox is joined by Patrick Wallace, co-founder of Curam, to discuss the current social care crisis and how it is impacting both the carers and those receiving care. He explains the changes that need to be made to overcome this, in addition to providing advice to both carers disheartened by the industry and those who have struggled to receive care. www.curamcare.com

Jake, Sean, and Lorenzo are joined by Patrick Wallace to run back the mock offseason episode of 2022 that the four men did a year ago. free agent predictions and a full mock draft, the crew makes their predictions for a big next few weeks for the New York Jets.

In our first episode we feature Mr. Patrick Wallace from the Georgia Department of Education. 

Leo Scullion (born 10 April 1958) is a professional snooker referee from Glasgow, Scotland, who has been officiating on the main tour since 1999. His first senior match was in the 1999 Challenge Tour, and he officiated his first televised match in the 2001 Regal Scottish Masters, a tie between Stephen Lee and Patrick Wallace. Scullion started to become a Snooker personality in the 2000s and eventually officiated his first final in 2011, at the China Open. He then took charge of another two finals the following year, at the World Open and the UK Championship respectively.[2] He officiated his first World Championship final in 2019.

Coach Patrick Wallace shares his journey from growing up in the "Hoop State" to being a coach at Loyola Chicago. He grew up in the Charlotte area, then spent a year of post-grad at Brewster Academy. Patrick committed to be a preferred walk-on at NC State and eventually transferred to Charleston Southern and played there on a full scholarship. After a successful playing career he became a Graduate Assistant at Northwestern under Chris Collins and remained there for two years while completing his master's degree in sports administration. Porter Moser hired him to be the Video Coordinator at Loyola Chicago and he completed his second season on staff at the MVC powerhouse. We talk all things from being in the NCAA Tournament "Bubble", Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and of course - SISTER JEAN!

Longtime Pre-K paraprofessional Mr. Patrick drops by and discusses his high school experience, what he loves about being a paraprofessional as opposed to a teacher, and being a father of twin 2-year-old girls. Then Mr. Gordon reveals this week's Beard Power Rankings.

Jake, Sean, Lorenzo and guest Patrick Wallace give their way too early offseason predictions. Roster cuts, free agency signings, and a full Jets 7 round mock draft. The guys are fired up and are ready to debate how Joe Douglas should build this roster. Like what you've heard? Follow the show on Twitter (@JetsWayPodcast) and feel free to subscribe/rate! We truly appreciate all of the support.

Hank Gossett, Patrick Wallace, Matthew Porter and Aaron Treadway join host Nate Adams to discuss 2000's LITTLE NICKY which just turned 20 in November. - NSFW contains explicit language. SUBSCRIBE WHEREVER YOU GET PODCASTS!

This was a recorded conversation with Jeanelle and Patrick along with a couple of other good people discussing what racial justice, end times, and race look like all together. Yeah, good stuff!

Presented by Patrick Wallace, DO, a resident at University of Nevada, Las Vegas and member of the AAEM/RSA Education Committee, and Jorge Antonio Fernandez, MD, Assistant Professor of Clinical Emergency Medicine at Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center. Intro music by Akashic Records, Key to Success - Discover the Possibility from the album Corporate Presentation - Key to Success, powered by JAMENDO.

Presented by Patrick Wallace, DO, a resident at University of Nevada, Las Vegas and member of the AAEM/RSA Education Committee, and Jorge Antonio Fernandez, MD, Assistant Professor of Clinical Emergency Medicine at Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center. Intro music by Akashic Records, Key to Success - Discover the Possibility from the album Corporate Presentation - Key to Success, powered by JAMENDO.

I had a very interesting conversation Shelby Grossman - political scientist at Stanford University. We talked about her research on informal trade in Lagos, and what we can learn generally about how institutions form from her findings. You can read this essay for a general background and explanation on what Shelby and I discussed on this episode.Download and other listening options are here - and you can kindly give us a rating here.TranscriptTL: Today, I am on with Shelby Grossman. Shelby is a research scholar at Stanford Internet Observatory and she is a political scientist. Welcome, Shelby. SG: Thanks so much, Tobi, for having me. TL: One question I would like to start with is that institutions that promote prosperity and positive economic activities like trade, like property rights, how do they develop in countries that do not yet have them? SG: Yeah, that's a great question and a lot of political scientists try to figure this out and you know, no one knows for sure. So there are many political scientists who think that there is a correlation between democracy and rule of law and contract enforcement. But I think what is interesting to me is how even within the same country, in different places, you can have different levels of rule of law and different types of property, of contract enforcement. TL: What are the patterns and the correlations that you noticed that really stand out from your research over the years? SG: In terms of property rights protection?TL: Yes.And so what I've observed, I think the main pattern is that good private governance, good private contract enforcement, is more likely when the state is actually threatening the group - SGSG: I think the thing that I have observed is, you know, a lot of people tend to think that when the state does not provide property rights protection, that private groups will emerge to provide this service. So private groups will emerge to provide impartial contract enforcements and those types of services. And the pattern that I've observed is that that doesn't always happen. So sometimes you have private groups that emerge that actually extort from their own group members. And so what I've observed, I think the main pattern is that good private governance, good private contract enforcement, is more likely when the state is actually threatening the group. So when the state threatens to intervene in a private group, that's when the group organises to provide these services. And in the absence of threats from the government, private group leaders actually extort from their own members. TL: I think that's one bit I found most fascinating from your field study in Lagos. I mean, usually, the intuition is that without government intervention, people would handle their business, enforce property rights within their groups. But, which I found counter-intuitive in a way, you're saying that the threat of government intervention actually promotes institutions that protect the interest of group members. What are the channels for such emergence?SG: So there are a couple of channels. To make it more concrete, my research focuses on markets associations in Lagos, so these are like when traders organise themselves or when traders are all in like a certain area and then they elect one of their own traders to be the head of the Market Association. And so to make this really concrete, there is one Market Association that I find super fascinating. It's called Oke-Arin in Lagos Island, it's predominantly a wine market. And this is a Market Association that, at least, at the time that I was studying them, they were kind of a paragon of good governance. So the market leader did all sorts of things to promote trade in the market. If a supplier sold one of his traders bad wine, like substandard wine or falsely labelled wine, he would organise a market-wide boycott of the supplier. And by doing things like that you just make it less likely that suppliers are going to cheat anyone in the market because they're afraid that they too will be boycotted. So what explains this? What is the reason for why this market is so well-governed and what I found from talking to the market leader and lots of traders is that this market is really threatened by NAFDAC, the National Food and Drug Administration, is that right? TL: Yes. SG: So NAFDAC has lots of authority to intervene in Oke-Arin and if they catch a trader selling falsely branded wine or substandard wine, they can arrest the trader. And so it's in the face of that state threat that the market leader does super aggressive policing of his own traders. So if he catches a trader selling falsely branded wine, he will lock up the shop, he will confiscate the goods. And he told me, literally...he said that 'the reason I do this is because I want to keep NAFDAC out of my market.' And you know when NAFDAC comes, it's not just NAFDAC. They come with the mobile police who are, kind of, a frightening sight sometimes, I'm sure you've seen them, they have those like big guns and the trucks and they scare away customers and so the market leader thinks it's in the best interest of the market to try to keep these people out of his market. And he does this by really regulating the quality of the goods that the traders are selling. So to step back and abstract from that, I think one channel is that when you face threats from the state, you want to keep them out of your business and so the way to do that is to not give them any excuse to intervene. And to not give them an excuse to intervene, you need to be kind of keeping your house in order, essentially.TL: Yeah. And maybe I'm trying to project too much into this one study. I'm just wondering, the findings...does it scale into other areas of the society? Like the relationship between citizens and police?SG: Interesting, tell me more about what you're thinking there? TL: Oh yeah, so what I'm thinking is, for example, there's been a movement, largely on Twitter, about the anti-robbery squad in the police called SARS. They're abusive, Amnesty just did a report recently about police brutality, which is pretty damning. They're abusive. There is no rule of law. Citizens basically have no rights when it comes to their relationship with the police. So I'm looking at this study as... if you have citizens' groups like the market associations, can they extract compromises that further entrenches the rule of law and the value for obeying the law and respecting rights in that arrangement the way we do with market associations?SG: Yeah, that's really fascinating. I think you definitely do see market associations negotiating with [the] police, negotiating with government officials. So the main way you see this...and let me know if this is not answering your question... the main way you see this is with the local government. So local government fees are set at the market level. So you can have two trade us in the same local government, but they will pay different fees depending on what market they’re at. And typically what happens is the market association negotiates with the local governments over fee collection and you can argue that this is kind of a way of encouraging rule of law, at least for, like, the well run market associations. Because sometimes market associations negotiate with the local government in a way that only benefits the market leader; essentially, the market leader and the local government are like colluding against the traders. But when it works well, what's happening is the market association is making local government taxation more predictable for the traders, more fair and I think that in itself is a form of strengthening the rule of law, because traders don't want to have unpredictable visits from my the local government where each time they come, a new fee is charged because that really makes it hard for traders to make plans for their business when they don't know what their level of taxation will be. So I think in that way - and many other scholars of argued this as well, I'm not the first person to say this - by having organised societal groups negotiate with different government entities, it can be a way of creating rule of law. The downside is that they're only creating these agreements for themselves, so it's not clear it's going to affect anyone other than the market association that's doing the negotiation. But I would argue that that's better than nothing and that is maybe the first step to a more like generalised rule of law. TL: I think you just went where I was going with that question that how does what is generally viewed as the ideal institutional form, how does it emerge from such group arrangements? And what I mean is constitutional individualism. That is, you, as a citizen, have a rights and your rights are protected and secured under the law?SG: Yeah, so there are different theories, one big theory is that war can actually make this more likely. For example, in Europe when, you know, various territories were about to be invaded, the way that they were able to defend themselves was by taxing people. Because taxes would help them pay for people who could fight off these attackers. But people aren't just going to agree to be taxed just, like, easily. They're going to want to hold onto their own money, and so the way that leaders were able to get people to pay taxes was by offering them various rights. And this is, you know, one theory for the emergence of democratic forms of government and rule of law. So it's kind of counter-intuitive that interstate war can actually make the emergence of democracy more likely. And so one of the things that's really interesting about Africa is since independence, there isn't really that much interstate conflict in Africa. Of course, there's a fair amount of intrastate, like civil war, but there isn't really that much interstate conflict. And some people argue that this has actually kind of stymied the emergence of [the] rule of law in some sense. Certainly, no one is advocating that there should be interstate war, but it's kind of a counter-intuitive silver lining of that kind of conflict. TL: What role does government capability play in this? So thinking about NAFDAC from the example you talked about, NAFDAC had this era where they took the job of regulating and policing fake and substandard products seriously. So now, the leadership changes and so is zeal or the mission for that regulatory drive. So, if the incentive or the ability or the capability weakens for government or any particular institution, does it change the incentive for the market association? SG: Yeah. Absolutely. I think, for example, I definitely don't want to say things are perfect in the US, things are not perfect in the US. We have many issues related to the rule of law, but in general in the US, you don't see like business associations operating at the same level as you do in Nigeria. And I think that's in part because rule of law is stronger in the US. And So what I mean by that is like when you can feel pretty comfortable relying on [the] courts to enforce contracts, you don't actually need these private associations to do that for you. And so what's interesting about dive of the Lagos markets is that many of the traders are themselves informal, by which I mean either that they are not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission or some of their transactions are Informal. So some of their transactions are undocumented, and when that's the case you obviously can't rely on the courts for contract enforcement because nothing about the transaction was formal, and so that causes you to need these private associations. I think in general, as the rule of law increases, the role of the private associations decreases. That being said, that's not always the case, so there are many types of products that are sold in the US for which people cannot rely on the courts for contract enforcement. So a famous example of this that Barak Richman has done a lot of really fascinating work on is the diamond trade. It's actually really hard for courts to enforce diamond contracts for many reasons, it's also just really easy to steal diamonds and get away with it because they're so tiny. And so as a result of this, there's actually a really big role for private associations in the diamond industry in the US. In the US it's predominantly Orthodox Jews who trade diamonds and have all this really fascinating associations that Richmond has written about. But to answer your question, I think, yes, in general as a rule of law increases, the role of these associations is less critical.TL: I'm also wondering about the role of the civil society in all this. We can also view them as some form of association or groups who are trying to organize citizens like themselves and advocate for various rights or stop various form of abuses. Do they have the same incentive as traders who basically have a lot of skin in the game? They have a lot to lose if those institutions are actually predatory. Or are the incentives different?SG: Yeah, so actually one of my colleagues Hakeem Bishi is starting to work on this by looking at residents associations like neighbourhood associations in Lagos and I'll be interested to see what he finds. But my hunch is that these traders actually aren't that unique, that I think this would apply to other types of civil society groups. So you can easily imagine a head of a residents' association being predatory and collecting funds that they say will be used for private security, but maybe underpaying the security guards or saying that they'll hire ten security guards when in fact they only hire five. So I think it's simple to imagine that there will be similar incentives for other types of associations, but of course, also, it could be different, so I'm excited to see what my colleague Hakeem figures out.TL: Again, I see your study...and I'm sorry if I'm projecting too much onto this. Please stop me if you think I'm overreaching. So again, I'm just curious that in Africa we're not in the original state anymore, so, we just have intermediate states. We can't have wars anymore. A lot of the channels by which these institutions emerge are way, way into the past. And of course, globalization has allowed for all kinds of interventions. So how do you approach things like political reforms? Like you want to reform the judiciary, you want to reform the police, is it more effective with an approach like this bottom-up market association types or top-down? Which offers a country the most feasible path to credible political evolution?SG: Yeah, I mean, this is a really tough question. Like, if people knew the answer to this, then it would be pretty easy to just, you know, have judicial reform everywhere in the world. And so I think no one really knows the answer to this question. I think there are some theories that elite competition can lead to some of these reforms. There are other theories that, as you mentioned, like grassroots movements are more effective? I definitely don't know the answer to this. I think my one opinion is that I don't think international aid is really the way to go. You know, I've just seen too many examples of international organizations coming in and, like, thinking that it's just an education problem that if only people knew that this policy is better for rule of law, then they would implement it. And thinking that if you just tell people to do that, it will happen. And of course, that's not the issue. There are so many reasons that things are the way they are. Various people benefit from [the] current structures of power. So yeah, I don't really know the answer.So one other thing I would say is, I think there's really space for looking at subnational variation and I have a colleague Jonathan [...] who does this. Like Nigeria is such a cool country because it's a federal system and there's huge variation in rule of law at a state level. Jigawa, Kaduna, Lagos, of course, they have their problems but I think in general people think they're relatively well government compared to some of the other states when it comes to rule of law. And so trying to figure out what's going on there, what explains that variation and some people have theories and say, 'oh, it's just because Tinubu exists.' A very like individualist account, like Tinubu has a long time horizon and for various reasons, maybe like earlier...this is an argument made by D.N. Degremont, that... when the APC did not control the Federal Government, Tinubu aspired to control the Federal Government and thought that by improving some of these things in South-Western Nigeria, that that could increase the strength of the APC vis a vis the Federal Government. So there are those types of theories as well, but I think there is a lot more room for people to do more research on this kind of subnational variation. But I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on this question. TL: Yeah, I think there is some... in my opinion, again, I should state that I don't have any clear evidence, but I think there's some credibility to that explanation. I mean, one area where Tinubu really did punch above his weight, so to speak, was in the area of revenue. When there was a power struggle between Lagos and the Federal Government over local government creation, and Obasanjo did not release federal allocation to Lagos, Tinubu did a lot of things and increased Lagos' revenue and the state was able to punch above its weight in public infrastructure projects and some of that legacy still abounds. Again, there are political benefits because he was also able to finance electoral competition for the party in federal controlled states, so I think that explanation has some merits, in my opinion. SG: Yeah, and it'd be interesting to see if the explanation holds outside of Nigeria. So like if in other federal countries where you have a similar political dynamic where there is a politician who is not currently in the ruling party but aspires to be in as a long time horizon... I don't know maybe these conditions are pretty narrow, but it'll just be interesting to see if you'll see similar dynamics playing out when those conditions hold in other federal countries. TL: What explanatory power would you grant to the so-called resource curse in all of this? SG: Yeah, I mean, I think the resource curse is really compelling. But as you just noted, I think it holds a lot of explanatory power for why the Federal Government of Nigeria is the way it is, but at the same time, it's so fascinating that Lagos was getting these oil checks as well and still felt the need to increase its own tax base for some of the reasons you were just saying, like, Obasanjo not recognizing all the local governments and withholding funds for that reason. So, I think the oil curse is not deterministic, that even in a country that has a lot of oil revenue as a percent of total national revenue, there are still ways to overcome that which we see in Kaduna, in Lagos, in Jigawa. TL: And I want to go back to elite competition, something you mentioned earlier. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, as some of my colleagues have put it. Some have argued that before we can have some of these reforms take hold in Nigeria, there has to be a new middle class that would emerge, with [a] new ethos that can drive the discourse and push back and ask pertinent questions of the government and maybe even run for office and change the system from [the] inside. But, the flip side is that without policies that promote growth, you cannot have the enrichment that allows for the emergence of a middle class. So how do I, for example, resolve that dilemma? You're the expert. SG: Well, I don't know if I'm the expert on that question, but yeah, I think the thing that's really fascinating about West Africa, but this is probably true more generally, is how expensive it is to run for office. So one of my friends, Amanda Pingston, has done research on this in Benin Republic, and she shows that it's so expensive to run for local office, to be an MP in Benin. That basically because... you know, Benin is very different from Nigeria in that it doesn't have this big of a private sector economy, and so as a result, really the only people who can afford to mount this campaigns are people who already had positions in government because that's the way that you can make money in Benin.And so as a result, the people who are running to be MPs are people who have already had positions in government, and it really prevents the emergence of a new ruling class of people who were shopkeepers and built up a little business. In Benin, the public sector employment is just such a high share of employment that that can't happen. So obviously, to some extent, that's different in Nigeria, but to some extent, it's not. So you can imagine that there are many states in Nigeria, maybe in the northwest, the northeast, where, really, the only people who could afford to run for office are people already connected to the government in one way or another. I think Lagos is a little different because there are so many other ways to make money beyond being connected to the government. So I think that's part of the problem, but it's all chicken or the egg, what has to happen first for the nature of the ruling class to change? But I definitely think money is a big part of it.TL: One other thing I want to get your reaction to is corruption. We can agree that corruption is bad, especially in relation to [the] public treasury and its influence in robbing people of the provision of public goods, which is [the] government's job. But one thing I've encountered recently from political scientists, Ang Yuen Yuen (I hope I'm getting her name correctly), using China as an example, is that low corruption, especially at the local level, can actually be harnessed for positive institutional building and building the state. She gave examples of how Chinese officials will leverage personal relationships that we would standardly label as corrupt constitutionally to provide roads, build schools, build bridges, allocate land. What's your reaction to that view? Is there a positive niche for corruption? SG: Yeah, so I have kind of complicated views about corruption and in general, I don't really use the word in my research just because I feel like people define corruption differently. So one of the things that I found so fascinating in talking to traders in Lagos is they don't mean the same thing I mean by corruption. So, for example, it is very common in Lagos for local government officials, when they collect fees from traders, to pocket some portion of them and then the other portion goes into the official local government bank account. So I would consider that corruption - that's the use of public funds for private gain. Traders, on the other hand, do not consider that corruption. What traders consider corruption is if all of the sudden the local government raises fees exorbitantly, or if the local government has been collecting 500, 500, 500 and then one time they say, ah, today, we are collecting 1500, that's what traders consider corruption. And traders don't necessarily care about what proportion of their fees are just going straight to the chairman versus into the official bank account.So, most people would say 'oh, that's bad,' that these local government chairmen and the lower level bureaucrats are pocketing these funds. On the other hand, they're probably on underpaid. So maybe this is a way of topping up their salary, not in a way that's going to let them buy a Mercedes, but just in a way that's going to give them a decent salary. So I don't really feel like it's my place to say this is bad corruption versus this is good corruption. But I think there are a lot of political scientists who actually think that focusing on corruption as a way to get to better rule of law is kind of misguided, and that actually you want to align incentive between politicians and advocates for the rule of law and maybe by getting angry about the 20 percent of the contracts they took as kickbacks is not really the most productive way to go. TL: The control of violence, how important is it in the emergence of institutions? I know Douglas North, Patrick Wallace and co. have done some work in this area but what are your views?SG: Yeah, so I don't have any great thoughts on this because I've never really studied violent areas. I guess Lagos used to be more violent than it is today, but, yeah, I think it's complicated. I'm really only familiar with these big picture arguments about the history of Europe and wars and state-making. But I think in general, violence is certainly bad for trade, in the short term at least, it just makes the lives of traders unpredictable and you really want predictability when you're a trader because it allows you to plan and make long term decisions. TL: So I have a bit of pet theory and I want you to tell me where I'm wrong. Now, the way I think about this... it's not mutually exclusive, but I see some form of tension, especially in a country like Nigeria, between rights and social order. And I think that sometimes our push for rights, especially with institutions that do not have the capacity to establish or govern that order may be a bit asking too much. So in a way, I think that for institutions to emerge and develop and mature, the state has to establish its monopoly of violence, so to speak. And in that process, citizens may have to tolerate, of course, not to a great extent, but the question is where do you draw the line? So citizens may have to tolerate some form of abuse of their rights. What do you think of that? SG: Can you tell me more specifically, like, what rights you're thinking of? TL: Okay, let me give you an example. There's a common practice here which, again, some aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations have documented quite a lot, which is arrests and imprisonment of innocent people. There's this policing form where, to establish order in a particular neighbourhood, the police just go and do these raids. You know, there are no investigations, they just pack a lot of all these young men and lock them up. And in some cases, again, I should specify...in some cases, some of them are truly guilty, but in other cases, they pack a lot of innocent people and then lock them up. Sadly, some, for years. But I've also kind of noticed that the problem with policing in relation to that problem is that the police, as an institution itself, does not have any capacity to actually investigate crime, so they just have this one-cap fits all approach. But as citizens, the way we demand for our rights to be respected is that, 'uh, well, no. There is no excuse for arresting the innocent, the police should be able to investigate the details and know who is guilty and who is not and what happened behind the scenes,' and...you know, we have this list of demands. And sometimes I feel we are demanding something that our institutions cannot deliver at the moment. SG: Yeah, that's really fascinating. I don't know. There might be something to that. At the same time, I would be a little afraid that when you arrest an innocent person and keep them in prison for several years you're going to be creating someone who when they're released is not going to be promoting societal order and is probably going to be really angry at the government and probably isn't going to be the most productive member of society after that. And also probably, you know, his entire extended family is just going to be really angry at the state as well. So I don't think that is super productive but at the same time, I hear what you're saying. Should we arrest no one because the police don't have the capacity to do true investigations? That doesn't seem like the right answer either.So, yeah, I don't really know what's best with that. And probably there is some middle ground where, I don't know, maybe you could have like community groups that partner with the police? Obviously, this could be problematic in various ways but I think there are some models of community policing where the community maybe has better information on what actually went down than the police do. But I totally hear what you're describing and I think people will comment and are like (citizens who are like), 'you shouldn't arrest anyone if you don't have a capacity to perfectly investigate the case,' I think that seems misguided as well.TL: Yeah. I agree with you. Tell us about what you're working on currently. I know you're working on disinformation, what threats does misinformation pose to developing countries like Nigeria?SG: Yeah, so, I've recently shifted a bit to focus on disinformation campaigns and in particular foreign, online, disinformation campaigns. You know, for example, I helped to uncover at the end of last year a Russian disinformation campaign that was targeting a bunch of African countries, not Nigeria, but Libya, Madagascar, Mozambique, DRC. And what was really interesting about the campaign was this was a campaign that was linked to a Russian oligarch named Yevgeny Prigozhin, so this is the same guy who coordinated the social media information campaigns that targeted the US in 2016. And what's really interesting about these campaigns was that he'd created all these Facebook pages that were working to bolster the ruling party in these countries or other political actors that he supported. But he actually wasn't pushing fake news or misinformation, he was just posting like hyper-partisan contents. Contents that said things like: 'wouldn't this guy make a great president again? You should vote for him.' So that's not necessarily untrue. It's not even falsifiable, it's just like a sentiment. But this operation was trying to create the impression that there was a whole lot of grassroots support for these very individuals, and I think that's really dangerous especially given that so many people get their news and information from social media these days. If you think that there is so much grassroots support for someone, that can possibly change the way that you think about things.So that's like some of what I'm doing, and then more recently I've started investigating belief in misinformation in Nigeria. So there have been a lot, a lot, a lot of untrue things about the coronavirus that has spread around the world. For example, there are conspiracy theories about the role of 5G, about Bill Gates trying to kill people, and so I've been looking into belief in those types of misinformation, which also can be dangerous. Because if you believe 5G causes coronavirus, then maybe you're not going to wash your hands because you don't believe that that's the way in which the disease spreads. TL: And what responsibility do you think that the big Tech companies who owned some of the platforms where a lot of this disinformation campaigns happen, what responsibility do you think they should have in relation to this problem? I know there's a lot of accountability in the developed countries, but it's almost absent in public discuss over here. SG: Yeah, I think the platforms should have primary responsibility in dealing with this stuff, in part because they have more information than you or I do. They have information like IP addresses, and so they are better placed to figure out that certain posts are not coming from within Nigeria, even though they are pretending to be coming from within Nigeria, and, you know, just give it their automated methods. I think they are in a better place to put warning labels on 5G misinformation, that type of thing. And I think to some extent they're actually doing a ton. I think they're increasingly taking content moderation seriously. They found much of the Russian network targeting Africa, so to some extent, they are actually doing quite a bit of investigation into disinformation campaigns targeting countries outside the US.But at the same time, for sure, their work is US-centric and the policies that they have in place are not implemented equally across countries. I think that is problematic. And I think there should be pressure placed on the platforms to hire more people who can help them implement content moderation policies carefully across countries because it's really hard for an American to know what hate speech in Myanmar looks like. You really need someone who is from Myanmar to do that. I mean, the challenge then is that it's actually really hard to hire the right people to do this kind of content moderation work. This is a point that my boss has made a few times. If you want someone to do content moderation in Myanmar, first of all, Facebook often doesn't want to hire people who are in Myanmar. For safety reasons, they want the content moderators to be outside of the country. But then you have to find someone who's not based in Myanmar and who is kind of impartial. So not connected to the ruling party or anything like that, and that can be really tricky. I think they can be doing better but there also are real hurdles to defining the scope of some of these policies across different cultures. TL: Tell me how does a country like the US find itself in, if we were to believe the media... in a place where there's been some form of institutional decline? There are different investigations about presidential abuse of power or corruption, and even the government's response to the coronavirus. You're a political scientist, so tell me, how does a hyper-developed country like the US find itself in such a position? SG: Yeah, so it's a tough question. I think you know the big picture of what happened is we elected a populist president and populist presidents globally are generally not good for democracy. So Trump is in my mind not that exceptional. He, in many ways, acts similarly to people like Chavez and populists elsewhere. And I think there are a number of ways in which populists can lead to democratic decline. Trump is always bashing the mainstream media and that's a common, common, common strategy of populists. And when you reduce trust in mainstream media, then the only person you trust is the president and so Trump can say anything he wants and people will believe him because there're not going to believe what the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal says. So I think that's part of what explains the situation that we're in right now is that a huge portion of society just doesn't believe mainstream media anymore, and so they're willing to go along with or not try to counter various actions that Trump takes. I do think a lot of people who voted for Trump, they're not dumb. I think they do often see what he's doing and they're angry about it. But I think in general like that's what's going on. We elected a populist and he is acting in the same way that populists always do and more times than not, having a populist leads to democratic erosion. My hope is that America is strong enough to surmount this. Many other countries that have had populist presidents have been a kind of weaker democracies, like they haven't been democracies for that long and I think the fact that America has been a democracy for so long means that maybe trump won't do a ton of permanent damage, but I think it's hard to say. TL: I hope it gets sorted out as well. SG: Thanks. TL: I'm going to ask you one last question which is a bit of a tradition for the show and our listeners. What's the one big idea you're most excited about right now and that you would like to see spread everywhere?SG: I think I'm going to do two big ideas. TL: SureSG: Related to my two, kind of, fields of research. So I think in terms of the disinformation stuff, the big idea is that most disinformation is no longer untrue. So most disinformation is people spreading hyper-partisan content, but trying to deceive people about their identity. So I think so often when people think about disinformation they think about fake news, but increasingly the sophisticated actors are not pushing fake news, they're pushing unfalsifiable hyper-partisan content, and I think people need to be more aware of that. I think the second big idea that I want people to think about more is that, as I mentioned before, not all private governance is good. That often times when the rule of law is weak and private groups emerge, the leaders of those groups are predatory and extort from their own group members. And I think a lot of times when people think about private associations and civil society, they're just thinking about the upside but oftentimes civil society groups can be predatory. So I think that will be the second big idea. TL: Thank you very much, Shelby. Shelby Grossman it's been wonderful talking to you. SG: This is fantastic, so fascinating. Thanks so much, Tobi. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Presented by Patrick Wallace, DO, a resident at University of Nevada, Las Vegas and member of the AAEM/RSA Education Committee, and Robert P. Lam, MD FAAEM, Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado and AAEM Wellness Committee Chair. Intro music by Akashic Records, Key to Success - Discover the Possibility from the album Corporate Presentation - Key to Success, powered by JAMENDO.

Program Specialist for World Languages and Global Workforce Initiatives with the Georgia Department of Education, Patrick Wallace is in studio for today's episode of Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio. Joined by co­-hosts Carol Morgan and Todd Schnick, Wallace discusses the broad scope of his job, why knowledge of other languages is especially important in the current climate and more in today's Around Atlanta segment of Radio. Wallace oversees the 216 school districts in the state of Georgia in the area of world languages. This includes more than 550,000 students learning a language across the state. Wallace serves and supports the administration, as well as the students with day-to-day activities such as curriculum questions, articulation questions, hiring and finding talents across Georgia. Wallace is also involved in several programs, including the Georgia Seal of Biliteracy. The Georgia Seal of Biliteracy is an insignia students have the opportunity to receive upon graduation that recognizes them for high proficiency in a second language. Another program Wallace is involved with is the International Skills Diplomacy program. This organization is a unique program that started in 2015. It consists of international businesses recognizing leaders in the school system who have a global or international focus on their education. A third program Wallace dedicates his time to is the Dual Language Immersion Initiative. This program seeks to teach students in two different languages throughout the day. The goal is to have students immersed in two separate languages every day in school. Apart from the many programs Wallace is involved in supporting and overseeing, he also spends his time meeting with other international agencies and departments to work with and grow the international community in Georgia. This includes outreach to non-English-speaking families to complete tasks such as interpreting, translating and clarifying objectives. “These are all the things that go into my wheelhouse,” said Wallace. “It's quite a large area, but it has never been boring. The job has always been exciting with plenty to do. There is a tremendous amount of progress happening in global education in Georgia.” Wallace believes that the understanding of several different languages and cultures is especially important during current times. With the incredible amount of uncertainty and fear surrounding the global COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, several countries are experiencing similar repercussions and consequences of the virus. The knowledge of other languages and the ability to interact with different cultures experiencing a similar way of life due to outside influences is increasingly important. “We also need to have that cooperation within the context of our society to be able to work with people from different backgrounds,” said Wallace. “I constantly hear from business professionals again and again how collaboration and communication are increasingly important.” These ideals are fostered in the world language classroom where Wallace and his organization are working to improve knowledge, skills and interaction between nations. In addition to the advantages on a global scale, learning a second language can also be beneficial for a number of other reasons. Cognitive and academic advancement is a huge value to students who learn a second language, as well as higher empathy and understanding levels. To learn more about Patrick Wallace or the World Languages and Global Workforce Initiatives, visit the link here. You can also listen to the full interview above. Never miss an episode of Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio! Subscribe to the podcast here. You can also get a recap of any past episodes on our Radio page. Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee, License #22564. NMLS ID #6606. Subject to borrower and property qualifications. Not all applicants will qualify. New American Funding and the World Languages and Global Workforc...

Program Specialist for World Languages and Global Workforce Initiatives with the Georgia Department of Education, Patrick Wallace is in studio for today’s episode of Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio. Joined by co­-hosts Carol Morgan and Todd Schnick, Wallace discusses the broad scope of his job, why knowledge of other languages is especially important in the […] The post World Languages and Global Workforce Initiatives on Radio appeared first on Atlanta Real Estate Forum.

Zu Gast im Muttersprache Podcast ist Patrick Wallace Program Specialist for World Languages & Global Work Initiativespwallace@doe.k12.ga.usFacebook: Georgia Department of Education World Languages​Instagram: gadoeworldlanguagesTwitter: gadoeworldlanguages​Georgia Seal of Biliteracy - https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Pages/Georgia%27s-Seal-of-Biliteracy.aspxGeorgia International Skills Diploma Seal - https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Pages/International-Skills-Diploma-Seal.aspxGeorgia Dual Language Immersion Initiative - https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Pages/Dual-Immersion-Language-Programs-in-Georgia.aspxDLI Dashboard - https://ksugis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=cc276aae229e4148891a07783074f677March GaDOE World Language Update - https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/2019%20%202020%20HLS/GaDOE%20World%20Language%20Update%20March%202020.pdfDiese Podcast Episode wurde gesponsored von www.mygermany.comHost Monique Menesi www.meetus.us German/American Executive Search & Recruiting, Global Leadership & Career Coaching monique@meetus.us 

The boys are back and dive into Tom Brady going to the Buccaneers, NFL Free Agency being underway, the Coronavirus ruining everything, and more. Also, Taylor interviews two senior college baseball players from SUNY Purchase, Patrick Wallace & CJ Owens. They talk about how their senior season was cancelled due to the Coronavirus and how they have been coping with it. Finally, at the end of the show Taylor and Liam dive into the 1996 World Series. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/end-of-the-bench/support

Welcome to Chapter 3 of An AE's Story! This week, we are joined by Patrick Wallace, an association executive with over 40 years of experience in the real estate industry. This is.. an AE Story. 

Today's show highlighted the Atlanta Jewish Film Festival, the upcoming Savannah Book Festival and the importance of foreign language education for Georgia students. GPB reporter Stephen Fowler stopped by "On Second Thought" to discuss the State of the Union and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' Democratic response. We also heard from Patrick Wallace , program specialist for world languages and global workforce initiatives at the Georgia Department of Education, and Jacques Marcotte with the French-American Chamber of Commerce in Atlanta. They discussed Georgia students' readiness for the global workforce through language learning.

In this episode, Patrick Wallace, OMS-IV, and Ilene Bezjian, DBA discuss professionalism and etiquette that every emergency medicine medical student should know while preparing to interview. Mr. Wallace is a Medical Student at Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine and a member of the RSA Education Committee. Dr. Bezjian is a senior strategy consultant and former Dean of the School of Business and Management at Azusa Pacific University.

Presented by Patrick Wallace, OMS-IV, Medical Student at Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine and a member of the RSA Education Committee, and Ilene Bezjian DBA, senior strategy consultant and former Dean of the School of Business and Management at Azusa Pacific University. Intro music by Akashic Records, Key to Success - Discover the Possibility from the album Corporate Presentation - Key to Success, powered by JAMENDO.

In this episode, Patrick Wallace and Sameed Shaikh, DO discuss the approach to working up an acutely Psychotic patient. Mr. Wallace is a medical student at Rocky Vista University and '17-‘18 RSA Education Committee member. Dr. Shaikh is an emergency physician at UCHealth Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs.

Presented by Patrick Wallace, medical student at Rocky Vista University and 17-18 RSA Education Committee member, and Sameed Shaikh, DO, emergency physician at UCHealth Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs. Intro music by Akashic Records, Key to Success - Discover the Possibility from the album Corporate Presentation - Key to Success, powered by JAMENDO.

Joel Ramos speaks with Patrick Wallace, ‎Vice President of Business Development at eSight, about the eSight 3, which brings a revolutionary technology to those who can no longer see. eSight 3 is a versatile, wearable, hands-free solution that provides sight without the need for any surgery. It is a game-changing breakthrough that uses advanced technology, built upon many years of research and development, to replicate sight for an individual who is legally blind or living with low vision.

Joel Ramos speaks with Patrick Wallace, ‎Vice President of Business Development at eSight, about the eSight 3, which brings a revolutionary technology to those who can no longer see. eSight 3 is a versatile, wearable, hands-free solution that provides sight without the need for any surgery. It is a game-changing breakthrough that uses advanced technology, built upon many years of research and development, to replicate sight for an individual who is legally blind or living with low vision.

Welcome back to The Fantasy Six Pack hour with your hosts Joe Bond and Patrick Wallace.  In this episode we will be talking about the tragedy that was the Jamaal Charles injury and how to move on if you were an unlucky owner of him. We then discuss Andy Dalton, not doing Andy Dalton things and other oddities of the NFL this season that just seem to becoming the norm. Last we get you prepped for Week 6 by going over the top waiver wire adds, injuries and reviewing the best/worst game and our sleeper/bust picks of the week. Feel free to call in at anytime to ask for our advice or join the conversation.

Tonight we are back with another episode of the Home Run The Jewels Fantasy Baseball Podcast with me, your host Travis Pastore, and brought to you by the "So-Called Fantasy Experts". We have staff writer Patrick Wallace as our guest to talk the art of midseason trades, some of his buy low candidates and maybe play a game of buy or sell.  I'd like Patrick's opinion on the top prospect influx we have seen and maybe he'll let me vent about how every league needs an innings cap. All that and more tonight on the Home Run The Jewels Podcast!

Lauren joins me this week to discuss the losses of Trevor Lacey, Kyle Washington and Patrick Wallace from the State basketball team, the calling up of Carlos Rodon to the majors...and we dispense a little advice as well.

Patrick Wallace and I discuss his dynasty rankings and other strategies on how to build a dynasty that rivals the 1990s Yankess. We discuss how to judge prospect hype prospects and what to do with closers on tonights podcast!