Podcasts about Prostate Cancer Foundation

For serious PSMA theranostics enthusiasts!!! We bring you the ninth of our collaborative PSMA webinars over the past five years, in collaboration with our team at ProsTIC and at the Prostate Cancer Foundation in the US. A truly outstanding faculty presenting today including Misha Beltran, Marty Pomper, Ed Kwan and Louise Emmett.Co-hosted by Declan Murphy and Michael Hofman with a welcome from Howard Soule and Andrea Miyahira. Declan and Michael are joined in studio by Louise Kostos who helps field the many questions from the huge global audience who joined us live. Much better appreciated on our YouTube channel where you can see all the presentations 

In today's episode of Big Shot, we sit down with Mike Milken—legendary financier, philanthropist, and chairman of the Milken Institute. Mike has been a driving force in medical research, public health, and education for over five decades. Fortune called him “The Man Who Changed Medicine,” and Forbes listed him among “Visionaries Reimagining Our Children's Future.” Mike's financial innovations helped launch industries like cable TV, homebuilding, and cellular technology. Beyond finance, he has led major philanthropic efforts, including the Prostate Cancer Foundation, FasterCures, and the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream, set to open this year. A signatory of the Giving Pledge, he has committed much of his wealth to driving global impact.In our conversation today, we talk about: • The childhood moments that shaped Mike's curiosity and deep empathy• How Mike mastered mental math through Holocaust survivor, Jakow Trachtenberg's technique• How speech and debate sharpened Mike's ability to communicate big ideas• The impact of the Watts riots on Mike's career path • How market crashes in 1974 and 1987 provided opportunities for significant gains• Mike's take on regulations and why he remains relentlessly optimistic about the free market• A glimpse into Mike's philanthropic work in medicine and education• And much more! If you'd like to apply to be an executive producer, please complete the form here https://shorturl.at/xLQUW—In This Episode We Cover:(00:00) Intro(02:25) Why Mike has been involved in philanthropy from such a young age(09:57) Early experiences that shaped Mike's radical empathy (19:03) How Mike learned mental math by using the Trachtenberg system (20:25) Mike's journey to Berkeley and interest in the space program(28:40) How the Watts riots impacted Mike(33:40) The value of doing research, and what Mike learned about credit(38:10) Mike's first investment bank job (44:50) How Mike was able to fund MCI at a time when AT&T had a monopoly (50:22) How the 1974 stock market crash impacted investment banking (57:50) The culture of outsiders dominating Hollywood—many of them Jewish(1:00:59) The stock market crash of 1987(1:03:58) Why the best investors are social scientists(1:06:15) The cultural shift that brought down big tobacco (1:09:20) Takeaways from Mike's interview with Elon Musk(1:11:00) The JPL Mars Rover landing simulation and how free enterprise drives innovation(1:14:09) Milken Community School, and Mike's emphasis on health and medical research(1:16:22) How views on nutrition and the microbiome have evolved(1:19:48) Mike's advice: prioritize great people and be flexible (1:24:30) Private equity's impact on business and the downside of family businesses(1:28:40) The Miken Center for Advancing the American Dream—Where To Find Mike Milken:• X: https://x.com/MilkenInstitute• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/milkeninstitute/• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/milkeninstitute/• Website: https://www.mikemilken.com/—Where To Find Big Shot: • Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.bigshot.show/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@bigshotpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  • TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@bigshotshow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/bigshotshow/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  • Harley Finkelstein: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/harleyf⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • David Segal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/tea_maverick⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• Production and Marketing: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://penname.co⁠

On episode 183 I am joined by local singer songwriter Ant Mann and Pat Blacker from StandBy – Support After Suicide. In the absence of the unwell Greg Farmilo, we discuss the upcoming Big Blue BBQ proudly supporting the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA). The inaugural Big Blue BBQ is a unique two-day event being held at the Fairmont Resort Blue Mountains, on Thursday the 20th and Friday the 21st of March 2025. Also on this episode a general discussion including quitting smoking and a general check-in. A light hearted episode with some amazing songs from The Antman.Spillo.

On Thursday's episode of the Tailgate, Jeff and Pat celebrate Pat's 70th birthday at the Swamp Restaurant! Also, Jameel Muhammed of Meelypops Shops comes on the show. Plus, Chris Masters of Man Cave Health and JW Cannon of Prostate Cancer Foundation talk about the benefits of prostate screenings.

Every Saturday morning, the Weekend Breakfast Show focuses on an area of 'wellness' - health, relationships, mental health, career, home - it's all about practicing healthy habits to attain better physical and mental health outcomes. Sara-Jayne Makwala King speaks to  Andrew Oberholzer, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation and Dr Pieter Spies, Senior Urologist at Tygerberg Hospital. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Astellas and The Prostate Cancer Foundation teamed up in September 2022 (Prostate Cancer Awareness Month) to provide free Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing. Twelve private hospitals took part in this initiative and a total of 1 256 PSA tests were carried out. The PSA test is a blood test to assist in the detection of prostate abnormalities. The aim of this initiative was to raise awareness about the risks of prostate cancer and to encourage men to consider age and risk appropriate screening to ensure the early detection of prostate cancer. This year the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing is back and will be held from 27-28 September 2024 and Dr Lance Coetzee, surgeon and urologist at the Urology Hospital Pretoria joins to talk about this significant awareness.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On The Road with Michael Bellman. Something a bit different as I was being chauffeured to Geelong Harness Racing Club for the Haras des Trotteurs Vicbred Super Series I took the opportunity to just have a random chat with Mick. Mick is a Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia ambassador so please if you would like to donate to a great cause click on this link https://www.thelongrun.org.au/fundraisers/hrvlongtrot/the-long-run-2024

Retired Navy Reserve Lieutenant Commander John Boland and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia Professor Jeff Dunn, joined Peter Gleeson on 4BC Drive to discuss how many Australians battling life-threatening illnesses are being forced to wait hundreds of days for critical medication.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Neil and Rob chat with: John Didge - FishingGeneral Manager - Fundraising Events for Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Joanne JonesRegional Roundup - Kevin Emonson - Speed (Vic)

At the Vincent Delaney Memorial Racing Weekend and caught up with Jonny Cox who drove on the day. Jonny, Robbie Close and Blair Orange are also raising awareness and money for Prosrate cancer with more information below. Blair Orange, Robbie Close and Jonny Cox are jumping out of a plane for charity!

Today - Clark's Birthday, presents an opportunity to update his health journey and share recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Foundation during Men's Health Month. Also, a top concern is the safety of our teen drivers. There's a great new collaborative list of the most reliable used cars under $10,000 for teens to drive. Clark's Birthday & Cancer Update: Segment 1 Ask Clark: Segment 2 Safest Cars For Teens: Segment 3 Ask Clark: Segment 4 Mentioned on the show: Clark Howard and the Prostate Cancer Foundation ETIAS - travel to Europe - European Union BBB-File a Complaint The safest used cars for teen drivers CR - Safe Vehicles For Teens Are Money Market Accounts As Safe as High-Yield Savings Accounts? ICS® & CDARS Thank you for listening today, Clarkies! If you want to be part of our “Clarkie” segment, call 404-981-2071 to leave a comment or story. We may play it during a future episode! Clark.com resources Episode transcripts Community.Clark.com Clark.com daily money newsletter Consumer Action Center Free Helpline: 636-492-5275 Learn more about your ad choices: megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Father's Day at Dodger Stadium, and Tim Cates gets you ready for the series finale between the Dodgers and Royals. DV talks to the chaiman and founder of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Mike Milken. Dino Ebel talks about his sons, Brady and Trey. 

It's Father's Day at Dodger Stadium, and Tim Cates gets you ready for the series finale between the Dodgers and Royals. DV talks to the chaiman and founder of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Mike Milken. Dino Ebel talks about his sons, Brady and Trey. 

Rick Bennett, Clarence Zebras coach Mark Astley & Kingborough United coach Alfred Hess joined Brent and Painey to discuss the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia “Battle of Franklin” Cup in the NPL tomorrow night. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It was another big Tassie Breakfast show with Brent and Painey. They were joined by Launceston coach Mitch Thorp, Tasmanian Tiger and Hobart Hurricanes star Nicola Carey, Matty Reid from Tasracing and Rick Bennett, Clarence Zebras Coach Mark Astley & Kingborough United coach Alfred Hess to discuss the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia “Battle of Franklin” Cup. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Spotlight On Tassie Episode #14 - Rick Bennett talks Battle Of The Franklin raising funds and awareness for the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. Dina Gregson, Managing Director of Tasmanian Tonic Company discusses their humble beginnings.   Rep footy is alive and well as Tassie's North & South clash this weekend with the SFL V NWFL head to head at North Hobart Oval this weekend. Tubes talks with Coaches Adam Henley from the SFL Men and Nathan Hartnett from the SFL Under 18's    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, I'm speaking with Leslie Michelson, Chairman and Co-Founder of Private Health Management (PHM). PHM is a clinically sophisticated complex care management company, specializing in assisting clients to obtain the best care and outcomes when facing serious and complex medical conditions. Before founding PHM, Leslie was the CEO and Vice Chairman of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and he's the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Patient's Playbook. Leslie, and his firm PHM, are marketing partners of FOX and valuable contributors of unique, expertise to our member community, and we are thrilled to offer their specialized knowledge and thought leadership to our members. Leslie shares his reflections, based on his decades of experience, on how UHNW clients, who ostensibly have the resources to afford any level of service and care, still find it a challenge to gain access to and receive good medical care. He also points to a unique and intriguing aspect of being a client or advisor in the family wealth space – which is that clients in this niche corner of the wealth management industry are families, and as such, they share common heritage and genetics. And that is important for families and family leaders to know as they seek to improve the collective health and well-being of their family members. Leslie offers some practical tips and suggestions for UHNW clients who are facing or dealing with a serious diagnosis, condition, or illness in the family, and provides a simple and time-tested recipe for the steps should they take and the resources they should seek out. He also has some sound advice and useful resources for families whose members are blessed with good health at present, but the family and the family leaders wish to be proactive and better prepared for all eventualities and for any medical situations or emergencies family members may face. Don't miss this highly practical conversation with one of the long-time thought leaders and practitioners in the health and wellness profession focused on serving UHNW families and all their members.

Named by Forbes Magazine in a cover story as The Man Who Changed Medicine, Michael Milken is the founder of the Prostate Cancer Foundation (1993). Recently, Esquire named him one of the 75 “Most Influential People of the 21st Century.” In a wide-ranging conversation with host Ed Randall, Milken provides insights about exciting advancements in the diagnosis, treatment, and eradication of prostate cancer. Program Notes Michael Milken's website: mikemilken.com  The Prostate Cancer Foundation website: www.pcf.org Website for the Center for Advancing the American Dream: https://milkeninstitute.org/centers/center-for-advancing-the-american-dream Faster Cures: Accelerating the Future of Health (April 2023): https://fastercuresbook.com/   This episode of the Stay in the Game podcast is supported by Bayer.

Drs. Eric Small, Anthony Zietman, and Eric Klein share their reflections as founders of the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and discuss key moments in the Meeting's development, its role in advancing GU cancer research, and major challenges ahead for the field as the Symposium celebrates its 20-year anniversary. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Eric Small: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Eric Small, your guest host of this ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the co-leader of the UCSF Prostate Cancer Program and deputy director and chief scientific officer at the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. This year, quite amazingly, we're celebrating the 20th anniversary of the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, which is hosted annually in San Francisco. The Symposium has heralded some of the biggest strides in GU oncology and has the largest multidisciplinary, global audience for GU cancer research. I was honored to have a role in the development of ASCO GU two decades ago, along with my friends and colleagues, Dr. Eric Klein, emeritus professor and chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. And Dr. Anthony Zietman, a professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts General Hospital. On today's episode, we'll be reflecting on key moments in the meeting's development, its role in advancing GU cancers and GU cancer research, and major challenges that lay ahead for the field. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Eric and Anthony, I'm delighted to have this opportunity to catch up with you both to discuss ASCO GU, thank you for coming on the podcast today. Dr. Eric Klein: Thanks for having us. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Thanks for the invitation. Dr. Eric Small: Well, it's really exciting and it's wonderful to see the two of you. So, the ASCO GU Symposium has been a key annual event for all of us in the GU field. But to give our listeners some background, when the Symposium was first created, when we first met in San Francisco, starting on Thursday, February 17, 2005, it brought together 1,035 individuals interested in the prevention and treatment at that point of prostate cancer alone. At that time, the meeting was co-sponsored by ASCO, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology or ASTRO, the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO), and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. It was actually the culmination of several years of planning. Clearly, it represented the first truly multidisciplinary scientific and educational meeting dedicated solely to prostate cancer, and we'll come back to talk about that. The meeting went back and forth between San Francisco and Florida for a few years before finally, settling permanently in San Francisco. In the last 20 years, ASCO and the Symposium's co-sponsors expanded the meeting to include all genitourinary specialties. This year, ASCO received more than 875 abstract submissions and anticipates that there will be even more attendees than last year. On a personal note, it's truly amazing to me that here we are, 20 years later, and the meeting is going stronger than we could ever have imagined. I must say that my motivation to help organize this meeting stem from two issues that were somewhat in tension with each other. First, the field of prostate cancer and prostate cancer research was just starting to take off at the time, and we really needed, as a community, a venue where across disciplines, we could talk and meet with each other. But that was in real tension, at least at ASCO, where we were relegated at the Annual Meeting to a tiny room at the far end of the convention center on the last day of ASCO, because really, that's all we could muster. And I do remember making a pitch, assuring folks that there was an unmet need, and that the field was going to take off, who knew? So, I'm wondering, and either of you can jump in (Dr. Klein, Dr. Zietman), tell us how you got involved in the first GU meeting, and what's the most salient feature of your involvement? Anthony, do you want to start? Dr. Anthony Zietman: I think it's really important to discuss the historical context at which this meeting was born. Back in the 1990s, we were incredibly polarized as specialties in GU oncology. PSA had been introduced in the late '80s, early '90s, screening was everywhere. There was a tidal wave of patients and an almost reckless race to treatment. All surgeons believed that all patients with localized early prostate cancer needed surgery and that they could do individually, a beautiful job. And all radiation oncologists believed that they could deliver morbidity-free treatment and could do it to everyone regardless of your age or stage. And there were a few, there were a few who thought maybe we didn't need to screen everyone, and maybe there was a little bit of overtreatment, maybe we've gone a little bit too far, but those voices were really suppressed in the '90s. Those voices didn't have a voice. Many of us also believed there was more morbidity to our treatment than we'd appreciated. And that was the media in which, us three, all young research physicians, probably all in our low forties were given the charge of this meeting. And the thing I most remember about it in the planning, is that we actually decided collectively to give voice to everyone, including maverick voices. It wasn't just about the party line, and it wasn't just about the North American line, there were Britts and there were Swedes, and there were Dutchmen who had very important things to say as well, and very, very different perspectives. And we also chose to give voice to young people as well as just our party elders, so to speak. I don't know which of us, if any of us, or maybe it was our society suggested but we do it all in a single room such that rad oncs and surgeons were all together, and it led to a kind of forced truthfulness, which started to break down this groupthink that we developed in our own silo. So, when I look back, I think that that context was very important and that what we sought as young program chairs was we sort of tapped in something that was latent in our field. Eric KIein, I don't know if you remember things as I did. Dr. Eric Klein: I do. And things were very siloed then. We had hired early in the mid-90s, I think, a young radiation oncologist named Pat Kupelian, who became a close collaborator and a good friend, and who really changed the narrative around treating prostate cancer at the Cleveland Clinic, which was all surgical prior to that time. And he did such high-quality work, it was hard not to pay attention. And he actually took it on himself in his early years when he wasn't very busy to sit down and go through all the patients that we had treated with prostate cancer at the Cleveland Clinic, radiation versus surgery, and had the temerity to write a manuscript that showed that there was no difference in survival, based on PSA biochemical recurrence and metastasis and that sort of thing. And that was sort of game changing. And it really clued me into the fact that for patient's sake, we needed to be talking to our colleagues. The second perspective was from the perspective of having attended a couple of Prostate Cancer Foundation meetings. And I think they really deserve credit for increasing the visibility of prostate cancer research, and funding it and recruiting really good scientists from other disciplines. When young scientists were told, and we heard this repeatedly, "Don't spend your career researching prostate cancer, it's a dead end." And PCF did a great job of having a multidisciplinary meeting, which was smaller and not so clinically focused, but also got me excited. Dr. Eric Small: I think you're right, Eric. And I think that the transdisciplinary nature, as Anthony pointed out was new, it was innovative. No one had really, really thought about it. It was at the margins in different meetings. Your comments about PCF, Prostate Cancer Foundation, resonate because we did take a page from their book in many ways although that meeting, as you point out, is much more basic research-focused. I don't know if you guys recall that first year, in fact, PCF was a co-sponsor. We actually had asked Mike Milken to give a talk and he did. And obviously, once we expanded to the broader GU cancers, it was less pertinent for PCF to be involved. But absolutely, I agree with you, Eric, they deserve credit. PCF, and the PCF involvement, was one of the things that changed. There's many things that are constant that haven't changed, even though the science clearly has evolved dramatically. And I'm wondering if you guys can comment on things that are the same. One thing that stands out for me: I had the opportunity to look through the agenda for the 2005 meeting. And right there, very prominently, was a special lunch session that we had designed for mentorship and career development for trainees and early career investigators, and that's still ongoing and others have modeled it. And I think that was one amazing feature of this. One of you, I think Anthony mentioned that we invited a lot of young people to speak and to be the path blazers, but we also did this career development piece, and it was a wonderful event. I wonder if either of you or both of you could comment on other things that you think are constants and you anticipate will always be there. Dr. Anthony Zietman: I think to me that constant is that every time I go, I hear speakers I've not heard before. Often very senior speakers, I've never heard them before. But it is the practice of GU ASCO to invite people that are outside your sphere of experience, which is very challenging. Dr. Eric Klein: Two things strike me. I think one is the international nature of the faculty. We tried very hard (and subsequent program directors have) to be very inclusive and to bring the work that was the most cutting-edge to the stage. There are lots of things that are done in Europe that started there sooner. PSMA treatment, for example, and many other ProtecT trial and many other things. And the debates on stage and how that gave the opportunity for every subspecialty to have the opportunity to share its perspective on particular case management issues and case management conferences, I think have been around forever. And maybe, the most valuable part of it all is to hear people's perspective on how to manage a particular patient. Dr. Eric Small: I think the other comment you made Anthony that resonated and still goes on, was it was a conscious decision to have a single session in one room where everyone attended. And not to do the usual small breakouts and concurrent sessions, but sort of the philosophy being, is we all need to hear the same thing, we all need to be in the same room at the same time. And it really fostered this transdisciplinary approach; it was truly educational for us. Now, it's sort of part of what we do, and part of what our patients expect of us. I think that bringing us all together into one room was really great. Dr. Anthony Zietman: But it's now so part of what we do, but it's difficult certainly for younger faculty and for residents to believe we ever did it any other way. But we did, and I don't know whether ASCO GU led that or reflected that, but that was the zeitgeist among young individuals like us. And it's really become the culture of contemporary practice. Dr. Eric Small: So, given that that's the culture now, which it is, and I think sure, we should take credit for it, at least in GU: why then is it important for people to continue to attend GU ASCO today if it's now our culture to do that? Dr. Anthony Zietman: For me, it's because we share information as equal partners in a multidisciplinary team. And our practice is so multidisciplinary and multi-modality these days that we can't exist alone, we no longer try to. Dr. Eric Klein: Nor can we. The amount of knowledge that's being generated in each subspecialty and it's spinoffs is so great. It's impossible for a busy surgeon to stay on top of that. And this is sort of one-stop shopping for everything that's really current and appropriate to know about. And again, I always look at these things from the patient perspective, and my ability to counsel patients about what their best treatment options might be, I thought more and more dependent, and I think today more and more depends on being knowledgeable about everything that's going on, and not just one narrow field that you happen to be an expert in. And that's why I think it's so important for youngsters to attend and even oldsters like us to attend to stay current. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Yeah, and also, multidisciplinary means so much more these days. It does mean oncologists and radiologists, information technologists. I mean, who knows what it'll mean in the future, but it's always expanding. Dr. Eric Small: And I think it's interesting, back when we did this, when we started it, we were worried about being able to fill one meeting with prostate cancer information - we did easily. It was not immediately clear that there was a role or room for additional GU cancers. And then there was an explosion both in kidney cancer work at first, and then bladder cancer. And now it's unbelievable how much is there. And perhaps, this meeting needs to be twice as long. So, I agree with you guys. I think that it's the best way to stay current. The other thing that I really appreciate about this meeting and others have a hard time doing it, is that it provides, as Eric indicated, for the busy clinician. It integrates sort of the important information that's coming in terms of more basic science and makes it readily available and digestible, which isn't always the case at pure science meetings and may or may not be apparent in other meetings. I, again, was looking at the preliminary agenda in 2005, we had asked Bill Nelson to talk about molecular targets or prevention, how forward-thinking. And that's continued to be the case that this is a meeting where you get that integration from the laboratory. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Well, and I would add to that, not just the integration of it, it's where now you get to hear things first. I mean, it used to be that, you went the AUA or ASTRO or ASCO to hear things. Now, everyone one wants to present it first at GU ASCO. Dr. Eric Klein: Yes, that's correct. Dr. Anthony Zietman: And I think we actually made it permissible in the early days that you could present at GU ASCO and at your specialty meeting. Dr. Eric Small: What are the challenges in the field that are going to likely shape the content of future meetings? And we've all alluded to the fact that the meeting is evolving and has done a really good job of staying current with the clinical science. But beyond that, what do you two feel are important areas that this meeting is likely to continue to address? Dr. Eric Klein: So, biomarker development has always been an important part of this meeting, and I think we need to broaden our view of what biomarkers are now, and in the AI era, digital pathology and AI-based models that predict treatment response and outcome. My hope is that they will be studied in a rigorous fashion, and that they will end up outperforming the kind of single biomarker approach that we've used in the past. And we need to understand that; we need to understand the science behind AI to a certain level, and we need to understand what questions AI can address, and how that might be useful. But I'm particularly excited about digital pathology where sampling error becomes less of an issue and the number of potential inputs you're looking at that are related to the output should increase exponentially. Dr. Anthony Zietman: And I would add on the AI side of things, as a former journal editor, when AI papers came into the journal, we actually didn't have enough people who could review them, who had the understanding to review these papers and tell us, "Is this a good paper or a bad paper?" So, we're going to need to increase our understanding of AI, Eric, as you said. So, I think that will be a push in the years to come. Also, on a very practical level, it is such a popular meeting, keeping us all under one roof and in one room, will become just difficult. But it's part of the culture of the meeting, and I think it's what people want. Dr. Eric Small: It's a good challenge to have. Dr. Eric Klein: Feeding everybody too. I recall one constant has always been really good breakfasts and lunches. Dr. Eric Small: Right, that has been a standard of ours. One of the interesting things that I think has changed, we saw glimmers of it back in 2005, but it was early on and it was, I think very early on in sort of a good understanding of social determinants of health and equitable access to healthcare and the challenges posed by incredible technology development and making sure that that doesn't increase disparities. And I think that that focus has increasingly been present in meetings and is not going to be lost. And it also speaks, one of you spoke to our international audience, that increasingly, I think this meeting is going to address urologic oncology and how we address it not only in developed countries, but in lower- and middle-income countries. And I think that will be a focus as well. I'm excited with what the future holds for ASCO GU. It has been an incredible run. I'm hoping that we'll be able to perhaps catalog some of the salient presentations that have been done at this meeting over the years, but there's no question as both of you have pointed out, this has become the venue. Well, thank you both for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Really wonderful to see you both and talk with you. Dr. Eric Klein: Great to be here. Thanks. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Great to be here. Looking forward to the next 20 years. Dr. Eric Small: That's right. Dr. Anthony Zietman: If I'm still around. Dr. Eric Klein: Yeah, let's do this again in 20 years. That'd be great. Dr. Eric Small: We will. And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use and the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Eric Small Dr. Eric Klein @EricKleinMD Dr. Anthony Zietman   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Eric Small: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Fortis, Harpoon Therapeutics, Teon Therapeutics Honoraria: Janssen Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Teon Therapeutics, Fortis   Dr. Anthony Zietman: Leadership: Elsevier   Dr. Eric Klein:No relationships to disclose

Guest Bios Show Transcript Third-party investigations have become increasingly common as churches and Christian institutions continue to be rocked by scandal. But how can you tell if an investigation is truly independent—or just another attempt to cover up?   In this edition of The Roys Report, experts address the red flags and key features to look for in any so-called “independent” investigation. And they answer questions like: Can a third-party investigation by a law firm ever be truly independent? What advantages are there to hiring an investigative team that's familiar with church culture to conduct investigations involving Christian institutions? And what are the hallmarks of a “trauma-informed” investigation? The answers to these questions are especially relevant due to the current controversy over the third-party investigation announced by the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, or IHOPKC. Mike Bickle, IHOPKC's founder, has been accused of abusing multiple women and IHOPKC leaders have been accused of mishandling reports of abuse. After announcing it had hired a national law firm to conduct the investigation, IHOPKC changed course and dismissed the law firm. Then, it hired another law firm, but is refusing to divulge the name of the new firm.  Joining us on the podcast is a top American litigator and former GoDaddy general counsel, who's also a Christian with a passion to protect victims. That litigator is Christine Jones, who also serves on the board of The Roys Report. She has considerable expertise in this area and her insights on this issue are incredibly helpful. Two other experts joining me, Pete Singer and Robert Peters, are known for the organization they lead—Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment, or GRACE. GRACE has become the gold standard in the Christian survivor community because of the quality of its investigations and its commitment to protect survivor interests.  Listen now for a lively, and eye-opening discussion that will help you discern whether to trust a third-party investigation—or to cry foul. Guests Christine N. Jones Christine N. Jones is a top American litigator, business executive, and civic leader who has a passion to protect the vulnerable. Until 2012, she served as general counsel for GoDaddy. During her time there, she helped drive federal Internet-related legislation, including laws to keep the internet safe from child predators like the Protect Our Children Act and the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act. Christine also practiced law at Beus Gilbert, which has been ranked as one of the top law firms in the country. She also served several years as the COO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Christine recently launched her own firm, Newman Jones, a private law firm in Arizona, which specializes in representing victims of abuse in churches and Christian organizations. Pete Singer Pete Singer is Executive Director at GRACE, which focuses on abuse prevention and response in faith communities. He is a Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker with 30+ years' experience across settings. He received his MSW and certificate in Trauma-Effective Leadership from the University of Minnesota. He trains and writes on trauma-informed practice and his counseling practice focuses on children and adults who have experienced trauma. He has published and contributed to a number of articles and book chapters including Wounded Souls: The Need for Child Protection Professionals and Faith Leaders to Recognize and Respond to the Spiritual Impact of Child Abuse and forthcoming work Toward a More Trauma-Informed Church: Equipping Faith Communities to Prevent and Respond to Abuse. Robert Peters Robert Peters has been with GRACE over 10 years and is currently the Director of Institutional Response, where he oversees all investigations and assessments. He served as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and Special Prosecutor in multiple West Virginia jurisdictions, where he specialized in the prosecution of sexual offenses, civil child abuse and neglect, and online child exploitation. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Visit netgrace.org Show Transcript SPEAKERSCHRISTINE JONES, PETER SINGER, Julie Roys, ROBERT PETERS Julie Roys  00:05Third party investigations have become increasingly common as churches and Christian institutions continue to be rocked by scandal. But how can you tell if an investigation is truly independent, or just another attempt to cover up? Welcome to The Roys Report, a podcast dedicated to reporting the truth and restoring the church. I’m Julie Roys. And our topic today has become a big issue because an organization facing a major scandal just hired a law firm to conduct its third-party investigation. That organization is the International House of Prayer in Kansas City or IHOP. And if you’ve been following this story, you know that IHOP founder, Mike Bickle, has been accused of abusing multiple women and IHOP itself has been accused in mishandling multiple reports of abuse. The Roys Report has published several articles about this scandal. So, if you need some background on the story, I encourage you to go to JULIEROYS.COM, and then click on the investigations tab, and you can find all those stories on IHOP.**   Julie Roys  01:05 But joining me today to discuss these issues is a top American litigator who’s also a Christian with a passion to protect victims. That litigator is Christine Jones, who also serves on the board of The Roys Report. And she has so much expertise in this area. So, I’m very excited to pick her brain on this issue. But also joining me are Pete Singer and Robert Peters of Godly Repose to Abuse in a Christian Environment or GRACE. GRACE has become the gold standard in the Christian survivor community because of the quality of its investigations and its commitment to protect survivor interests. So, I’m very excited about today’s podcast.**   Julie Roys  01:45 But before we dive in, I’d like to thank the sponsors of this podcast, Judson University, and Marquardt of Barrington. If you’re looking for a top ranked Christian University, providing a caring community and an excellent college experience, Judson University is for you. Judson is located on 90 acres just 40 miles west of Chicago in Elgin, Illinois. The school offers more than 60 majors, great leadership opportunities and strong financial aid. Plus, you can take classes online as well as in person. Judson University is shaping lives that shaped the world. For more information, just go to JUDSONU.EDU. Also, if you’re looking for a quality new or used car, I highly recommend my friends at Marquardt of Barrington. Marquardt is a Buick GMC dealership where you can expect honesty, integrity, and transparency. That’s because the owners there Dan and Kurt Marquardt are men of integrity. To check them out just go to BUYACAR123.COM.**   Julie Roys  02:49 Well again joining me today are Pete Singer and Robert Peters from GRACE which stands for  Godly Repose to Abuse in a Christian Environment  And GRACE is one of the most respected organizations in the Christian survivor community when it comes to independent investigations. And I’m really looking forward to talking with them and getting a behind the scenes look about how these investigations are done. But first, I’d like to introduce Christine Jones. Christine is a top litigator, business executive, and civic leader who has a passion to protect the vulnerable. Until 2012. she served as general counsel for GoDaddy. She also practice law at BS Gilbert, which has been ranked as one of the top law firms in the country. And she recently launched her own firm Newman Jones, a private law firm in Phoenix, Arizona. But her greatest claim to fame by far is serving as a board member for The Roys Report. So, Christine, welcome. I’m so glad you could join us.   CHRISTINE JONES  03:43 Thank you, Julie. So great to be here. And that is by far my best claim to fame for the record.   Julie Roys  03:48 Absolutely. I’m glad that you clarified that. So, Christine, I wanted to talk to you first because there’s been a lot of buzz lately about law firms conducting third party investigations. And this is nothing new, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. For example, when they did their investigation, they brought in a law firm Miller Martin, there was a law firm Husch Blackwell, that investigated Cedarville University after it hired a known sexual predator that was a couple of years ago. But right now, the International House of Prayer in Kansas City IHOP is facing a major crisis. So IHOP has just announced that they’re going to do a third-party investigation, and they initially hired a law firm Stinson LLP, to conduct this investigation, but there’s been a lot of pushback because there are a lot of people saying that no investigation by a law firm is truly independent. Well, then last Friday evening, IHOP announced that it had decided not to proceed with Stinson. And the reason that IHOP gave was that third parties claiming to represent the victims had communicated a lack of trust in Stinson. So now IHOP is said that it’s hired a local law firm to investigate, but when I asked IHOP to identify the law firm Lenny LaGuardia, a member of IHOP’s executive team replied, and I quote, We will not be publishing her name out of respect for her privacy. When I asked an additional clarifying question about the attorney, LaGuardia responded, IHOP, KC will not be providing any personal information about its attorneys, they are not the story and you should know better, unquote. So, Christine, say hypothetically, that one of the alleged victims of Mike Bickle is your client. Would you advise your client to cooperate with this investigation?   CHRISTINE JONES  05:35 So setting aside the attorney independence for one moment, I would say , all else being equal, if you have some information that’s germane to the discussion, then you know, and you’re not being re traumatized or re victimized and you have the capacity to do it, probably, I would advise them to go ahead and give the information because that is going to be helpful to the outcome, the recommendations or you know, whatever the third party investigator is doing. Now, I have to say that with a caveat, as always, these people may be bound by preexisting contractual relationships that limit what they can say. And in that case, they should probably seek the counsel of an attorney before they do that.   Julie Roys  06:14 So, the fact that the attorney isn’t being named to the public, do you see that as a major problem?   CHRISTINE JONES  06:21 Well, this entire scene has unfolded in such an unusual way. And I have followed a little bit of the back and forth on social media. Stinson, a well-respected law firm being named actually probably was positive, because they do have such a good reputation in the legal community, I don’t know that they had a previous attorney client relationship with IHOP. So that could have at least set a path for them to have independence in this scenario. But here’s the thing, not disclosing who the lawyer is for the sake of protecting the lawyer’s privacy is a very unusual suggestion. And the answer that you got on that inquiry is puzzling to me, because the attorney’s privacy is not the issue here. So, I hate to use the word excuse, Julie. But it does sound to me like they’re just using that as a cover up for their own lack of transparency in this process.   Julie Roys  07:16 Well, the lawyer is the professional, I mean, this is their job, their public, it does seem like a very odd response. development that happened over the weekend is that Ben Anderson, who I guess is a former IHOP staff member, posted on Facebook, the name of the person he believes is the attorney that’s been hired by IHOP. I have tried to confirm it again, went to IHOP. And they will not confirm or deny that this person is the person but the person that he has named publicly on Facebook is friends, apparently with IHOP executive leadership. And apparently, after he posted some social media posts showing this relationship, this attorney deleted her Facebook account and some social media. So, it does seem to be a little fishy, what’s going on. But let’s say that this person is the person but again, we’re not able to determine for sure whether or not that’s true. If somebody is friends with the executive leadership, if perhaps and I guess there’s some indications that she may actually attend IHOP’s church Forerunner, essentially, if that’s the case, correct me if I’m wrong, has it moved from being a third party independent or some semblance of independent investigation? Now we’re really looking at an internal investigation?   CHRISTINE JONES  08:39 Well, let’s talk about the investigation itself before we get to the crux of that question. An attorney could conceivably conduct an independent investigation. Here’s the rub; any attorney client relationship comes with the fiduciary duty that the attorney owes to the client. And look, if this attorney doesn’t want to disclose the fact of the engagement because the attorney feels like in their ethical opinion, that would violate some kind of fiduciary responsibility that they have, that’s their decision. The client certainly can disclose it. But getting back to the independence. The issue here is I was gonna say it’s twofold. It’s actually three-fold. Here, if you have a relationship that’s existing with the executives, it’d be very difficult to claim you have independence on this particular issue. You may even be a percipient witness, you may even be a fact witness, which is a huge red flag for any attorney going into any kind of engagement.   The second thing is if you have this existing attorney client relationship, it’s almost impossible to conduct an independent investigation because you are already required to demonstrate a duty of loyalty to the client, which is the antithesis of independence. It is the exact opposite of independence. No client wants their attorney to be independent of them. That’s why you hire an attorney, right? So, let’s just say it’s a generic person, we don’t know who they are, any lawyer out there, pick a name. If they had that existing relationship, and they have a hope of a relationship in the future, they’re already making money from this client, and they hope to make money from the client in the future, it would be virtually impossible under the ethical rules for them to be considered independent in this investigation.   Now, if it’s a huge law firm, they have hundreds of lawyers in different cities, you know, could one department do the investigation, another department do the advising? Possibly, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the case here. And it strikes me that IHOP getting rid of Stinson is them backtracking. They’re getting themselves dug into a deeper hole here that they were even in before. They’re not improving their situation, they’re making it worse,   Julie Roys  10:59 Good points that you brought up. I mean, the fiduciary responsibility the lawyer has to its client, and then the possibility of, you know, some sort of relationship in the future, obviously complicating things, and this is why in the very beginning, people were like, Oh, my goodness, they hired a law firm. And what a lot of people were asking for was an organization like GRACE, Godly Repose to Abuse in a Christian Environment, who plays by very different rules. And again, they’re going to be joining us in just a bit and we’ll hear about what they do that is different. But is there ever a situation in which we can say this is truly an independent investigation when you’re being hired by the organization that you’re investigating?   CHRISTINE JONES  10:59 I guess it’s possible. If you had an engagement that had a well-defined set of terms, and your role was only to determine a set of facts. Issue a report that said, here’s the timeline on this date, at this time, in this place, this proper noun did the following. And you just gave the report with no recommendation, no observation, no characterization, no coloring of the facts, you could conceivably be independent. It would always be the client’s decision about whether those findings would be released. It’s a really tricky situation for the finest law firm in the best circumstances. Somebody who has a preexisting relationship, which I understand if the lawyer is who we think it is, is in a really precarious position, claiming that they’re independent, and that their findings are going to be completely objective.   Julie Roys  12:34 So, a little over a week ago, Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Brown spoke at IHOP. And he announced that there was going to be this independent investigation. And Michael is someone who’s very well respected within the charismatic community. And again, IHOP-KC is a charismatic organization. So, I think they were bringing in someone who would be a trusted voice. And so, he argued that the Christian community could trust this investigation, because IHOP had pledged to make these findings public. And again, I know with RZIM, when they were doing the Miller Martin investigation that was the crux right for them was whether or not they were going to make these findings public. I don’t know if that’s still on the table, to be honest, given that things have changed. But let’s assume that it is and IHOP is going to make the findings public. I guess the question is, even when they make the findings public are we talking the complete findings? Is this a redacted finding? Is this the part of the findings you want us to know? I mean, is this really much of an assurance that the findings are going to be public? Or would we still say, you know, as the public looking to get some assurance that this is really been investigated, that we can trust what they’re reporting?   CHRISTINE JONES  13:46 It’s tricky, right? Unless you had actual recordings of conversations, and maybe you had a third-party observer sitting in on those conversations and hearing the results of the investigatory process, it would be almost impossible to say, Now, I don’t want to bad mouth Mr. Brown, you know, reputationally, he’s an upstanding guy. But we’re not judging his statement here. What we’re saying is, lawyers are humans, and humans have bias. And if I’m a victim, I’m a survivor, or I come forward or even I’m a close associate of one or I’ve been part of this community for a long time., and I know somebody who is, I’m still going to have to question, did that human who is a lawyer, conduct this in a way that I can rely on the findings? I will never know because I will never know what the process was that they used. And I already know, particularly if this lawyer is part of the church, but I will already know that they have gone into it with a preset bias that will make it very difficult for them not to filter their conversations and their findings through their preexisting relationship.   Julie Roys  14:59 And one thing I didn’t mention I mean, which you’ve hinted at, I mean, there is an engagement and a letter of engagement that’s signed between the client and the law firm. Is it ever okay to release that letter of engagement? And also, I know, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention when the executive committee was being investigated, they actually waived under a great deal of pressure, their attorney client privilege. Is that something that we could expect or should expect in a situation like this?   CHRISTINE JONES  15:30 That’s a really interesting question. And here, it’s probably not going to be the same outcome as what we saw on the SBC, which as you said was exceptional. The client owns that privilege, the client gets to pick whether the privilege is waived. Here, the motivation for IHOP to give more information is probably well, I mean, it’s going to be tricky for them, right? Because anything that they find that’s derogatory, they’re gonna be less inclined to disclose it, right? We don’t have the power, sort of as third parties who don’t have privity to this contract, to require them to disclose it. Could there be some community pressure, either by survivors or by members of the community, like what we saw in the SBC? I suppose it’s possible. But even let’s say that they produce the engagement letter. Let’s say they sent it to you, and you published it. Let’s say they gave us the entire report, right? It’s still gonna come with the names of minors redacted, it’s probably still going to have some information that’s viewed as relevant to a criminal investigation or, you know, somehow protective of victims' rights redacted. So, will you ever see the entirety of it? You know, as I sit here today, I would say probably not.   Julie Roys  16:46 Yeah. Well, we will see as the story continues to unfold, but Christine really appreciate you being willing to come on and lend your expertise, which has just been such a blessing to The Roys. Report, and to our listeners today, as well. So, thank you so much.   CHRISTINE JONES  17:01 My pleasure. And can we say one last thing in conclusion? Just in case anybody from IHOP-KC is listening to this podcast? IHOP, hire an independent third party to do this investigation. Let them find out what the facts were and hire a separate counsel to give you the advice on what to do with it. Why cloud the perception of what’s going on here? If you want to clean your house, clean your house and do it well.   Julie Roys  17:25 Thank you. And I would second those thoughts. Appreciate that so much.   CHRISTINE JONES  17:29 Thanks for having me, Julie.   Julie Roys  17:31 Absolutely. Well, now, Peter Singer, and Robert Peters are going to join us from GRACE. And Pete is the executive director of GRACE and a licensed clinical social worker with about 30 years of experience. He also has a master’s degree in social work and a certificate in trauma effective leadership from the University of Minnesota. So, Pete, such a privilege to have you join me. Thanks so much.   PETER SINGER  17:55 Thank you. It’s great to be here. Really appreciate the chance, Julie.   Julie Roys  17:59 And also joining me is Robert Peters, who oversees all investigations and assessments at GRACE. He formerly served as an assistant prosecuting attorney and special prosecutor in several jurisdictions in West Virginia. And in that capacity, he specialized in the prosecution of sexual offences, child abuse and neglect, and online child exploitation. So, Robert, so glad to have you on The Roys Report podcast. And I think, as I mentioned earlier, that I think this is the first time we’ve had two lawyers on our podcast. So welcome.   ROBERT PETERS  18:32 Great to be here. And I hope we don’t break any podcast length records unless you’re going for that. In which case, you’re welcome.   Julie Roys  18:39 So, GRACE has become, and I mentioned this before, sort of the gold standard when it comes to investigations. And that’s quite a badge of honor for you guys. And I know, it’s not just the investigations, but also the manner in which you treat victims. And that has given you a distinction among the survivor community. Right now, there is a petition circulating and I know you don’t want to comment on this, but there is a petition circulating urging IHOP hire GRACE to conduct its investigation because of, I think, the respect that you have within this community. What is unique with what you do? And let’s start with your expertise, because you focus specifically on investigations involving churches and Christian organizations. Pete talk about that, and how that perspective is perhaps different from a lot of organizations like a law firm, but even some other organizations that do similar type investigations, but not in this kind of space, but more normally in more of a corporate space.   PETER SINGER  19:42 Sure, really, really important things that come into play here. A big piece of that is an understanding the criteria that we’re looking at, isn’t just what does the law say? Yes, that is a very, very significant piece of criteria. But beyond that, we’re also looking at what is God saying? And at times, it can be very difficult for a law firm or other private investigative agency as part of the investigation to also do a theological review. And to say, Okay, let’s look at what happened here. And now we’ll examine that in light of Scripture. And one of the things that I think is unique about the way that GRACE does an investigation, is that GRACE brings in an incredible, incredible experience. Our investigators come from a background similar to what Robert is bringing in his background or from extensive law enforcement experience. They’re also bringing in that theological experience. They’re also bringing the understanding and the familiarity with church culture, church governance. For example, when we do a report associated with, let’s just say, a Presbyterian Church that might be governed by the Book of Church Order, we’ve got people on staff who are experts in the Book of Church Order, and we can specifically craft recommendations that fit within the Book of Church Order. And so being able to pull in that experience, as well as an understanding of what Scripture says about this. Because scripture is not silent on this; Scripture speaks so often of the Scripture sayings., In First Samuel, that Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli who was the high priest of the tent. Hasni and Phineas were acting as priests in Israel. Scripture calls them worthless men. Why? Because they used their position of spiritual authority to have sex with people. Scripture is calling out clergy sexual abuse.**   PETER SINGER  21:53 And then we’ll fast forward to the New Testament, and we’ve got Jesus calling out against child sexual abuse, anything that would harm a child, against elder abuse, against financial exploitation, against spiritual abuse. So a GRACE team brings in both that incredible legal background, similar to what Robert has, or many of the people who have been in law enforcement on our team have. But then an ability to blend that with what does scripture say? And what do we know about trauma? We have many, many published articles from people at GRACE, whether they’re our investigators, people on our leadership team, people on our board of directors that help explain the very nature of trauma and trauma informed practice. And we’ve got an article coming out at the end of the year that will be published in Currents in Theology and Mission, theology journal, that will be taking six key principles of trauma informed practice and saying, what does that look like when it’s applied in a church? When GRACE or an organization like GRACE comes in to do an investigation, that is all automatically a part of the analysis of this situation. And for an organization that does not have that deep embedded background within the Christian culture within churches, how are they going to be able to bring in and analyze the situation in light of Scripture? How are they going to be able to blend trauma informed practice and Scripture? And how are they going to bring those excellent qualifications like Robert has and the members of his team,   Julie Roys  23:44 Great points that you’re making, and I can relate as a journalist who works exclusively in the Christian space. And I’ve also worked in secular newsrooms. And it’s interesting when I did work in secular newsrooms, how much they misunderstood the language, or they misunderstood the culture, and they just weren’t able to report properly. And frankly, Christians didn’t trust them, because they didn’t know, they didn’t understand, they would misinterpret things. For me as a reporter, it’s hugely important that I understand spiritual abuse, for example, to understand how these communities work, as far as you know, a lot of these folks, it’s not like a work environment where you go, and then you come home, and you have your family and your community. This is their family and their community often. There is no leaving in many ways, and it encompasses all areas of their life. And so, I do think that having we call it a beat in journalism, I mean, you know, your beat, you know, really, really well and you understand the culture, you understand the people. I think the same thing sounds like what you’re saying is what GRACE is doing with investigations in this space.**   Julie Roys  24:48 Let’s talk about the independence and objectivity because Christine was talking a lot about that. You know, law firms obviously have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients, but you’re hired by clients. And again, I’m looking at this as a journalist. I can’t even have you buy me lunch; I can take no money from you. I’ve been offered numerous times, hey, we’ll fly you out to interview or flight. And I’m like, well, if I’m going to do the story, you can’t fly me out, you can’t do anything for me, and you can’t put me up, I need to come on my own dime, which is hard to say, because we have such a limited budget and stories we’d like to cover, right? But for us, if we take money, we’re not objective, right? I mean, that’s how strict it is for journalists in this space. So, I mean, talk about that, because you’re obviously being hired by organizations that you do investigations on,. How does that not make you beholden to your client?   ROBERT PETERS  25:38 The two-word answer would be structural independence. And that’s really critical of the contractual phase,. You know, in the discussions that we have with churches, where those discussions either prove to be fruitful or not, that’s the crucible. That’s where these things tend to either solidify, either grudgingly or smoothly to an independent investigation, or where they tend to flame out spectacularly. So, it really varies. And what I mean by structural independence, you know, and these are good questions that the perhaps survivors should be asking, before participating in any investigation, frankly, not just those that are undertaken by law firms. But yeah, what sort of is going into that? Is there some sort of those fiduciary pieces is there an attorney client relationship. We are not a law firm; we don’t provide legal services. So, we’re not coming into some of the same ethical obligations. I am an attorney, but I don’t function as an attorney within GRACE, or anything related to GRACE. So, there’s that piece of it, where we’re just sort of structurally ethically different and legally different.**   ROBERT PETERS  26:40 But then there’s contractual independence and the nature of the contract itself. No one sets a limit on the amount of interviews that we have. We may have estimates based on the facts that are presented to us by churches we’re having discussions with, but we’re very clear and the contracts provide for it. That’s ultimately an investigative determination of even the number of interviews. And so that becomes complicated right financially. Because certainly, we do need to pay our employees and contractors for the work, we want to continue equipping the church and equipping survivors, that takes resources. But we also want to make sure that we have maximum discretion in order that we don’t have those sort of perverse incentives and threads, bold and leveraged in ways that are unproductive to justice, that are unproductive to transparency. So, things like disclaiming those pieces expressly, but also ensuring that we have that type of discretion. Additionally, also at the risk of being inflammatory, GRACE is not a mud flap. And there are entities that sometimes unfortunately operate as mud flaps, meaning they direct the dirt into particular locations. They put emphasis of culpability on particular locations. And isn’t it interesting how that tends to align with the priorities of the individuals that are paying the bills? GRACE is not a mud flap. And so, when it comes to the other report drafting process itself, we do accept feedback, both from designated members of church leadership, as well as reporting victims. They always receive a copy of this report during the embargo period where we’re accepting feedback,. That feedback is limited to a few specific areas, that feedback is limited to is there something that’s factually inaccurate, not something I don’t like, we do get that feedback. But the feedback we’ll consider is limited to something that’s factually inaccurate, something that’s inconsistent with the church theology or polity, because we want to be culturally informed as we’re conducting these investigations. And then is there something that’s overly Identifying in the reporting victim? Those are things that we want flagged in the event that this report is elected to be made public, either by the church or by reporting victims who also have discretion to make public. There’s sort of those structural pieces where the church is no longer in control of that piece. And there have been cases where we simply don’t get contracts because some cultures that unfortunately, don’t have that healthy view of power dynamics, and aren’t really understanding the importance of engaging in that hard work. And it is hard work. And it is vulnerable work. Sometimes churches don’t see that necessity or correctly see the risks of that approach, and ultimately get the client to move forward with this. On the other hand, some do bravely step into that. And it is a difficult process, but it’s ultimately a necessary process for survivors, and ultimately, for the well-being of the church.   Julie Roys  29:20 Let’s talk about the report because this is a really, really key part of GRACE. So often the report as for example, we mentioned Ravi Zacharias International Ministries when they employed Miller, Martin, there were a couple things. And one is the scope of the investigation, which initially was very narrow, but because there was a lot of media pressure, and I know we published a story the minute I got some documentation saying this was limited, very narrowly we published on it, and then it broadened right? And that’s the beauty of the pressure of the publicity. But also with Miller Martin, that report was given to RZIM and there, I know from talking to people, there was a battle as to whether or not to release that to the public. And ultimately, it was the board’s decision. But I know there was so much public pressure and that was released publicly the full report, which was I mean, like a bomb went off, right? I mean, that was huge. So, let’s talk about that with what you’re doing. There have been reports that you’ve done that haven’t been released to the public. But what you do is unique in that you don’t just release it to the organizations that’s paying you. But you release it to somebody else, as well. Talk about that.   PETER SINGER  30:38 It’s absolutely essential that that happens. It can’t just be the church, or ministry, that was the Sikh of the abuse. That can’t be the only person that holds the power of the report. Because that report is power. We specifically have in the contract that we do not assign the copyright of the report to anybody, which means that nobody has the ability to say you can’t publish that. And then often, there is a recommendation something to the effect of church leadership work with survivors to figure out the best way to distribute this.**   PETER SINGER  31:21 Now, GRACE used to have a relatively standard recommendation of distribute this. But then, several years ago, what happened was a survivor said, What are you doing? Now, everybody will know who I am. I, the survivor did not want that distributed. And so, once that situation occurred, we changed how we address that. So that we tell the church generally, work with the survivor to figure out how to distribute this because sometimes survivors don’t want it more public. And then it’s that balance between empowerment and safety.   Julie Roys  32:04 Yeah. And that that always is the attention; it’s definitely attention in what I do as well. You want to always have a survivor centered approach in the way that you move forward with these things. And here’s something that, again, would be what we’ve heard recently, and we reported recently with IHOP, is people coming forward reporting, and then being traumatized when they report. Being interrogated, being gaslit, being grilled from very much an, aren’t you lying? kind of perspective or doubting what they’re saying, very skeptical. How do you keep from being re traumatized as somebody who comes forward? And what assurance do they have that they’re not going to be re traumatized? Because a lot of these people have been burned multiple times. And do you see what you do as uniquely protective of survivors?   ROBERT PETERS  32:58 Yeah, that’s such a critical question, Julie, and there’s a lot of different layers, I think, to what it means to provide a safe environment for witnesses, particularly survivors of abuse. I think it’s worth noting, tragically, how rare it is, for professionals in the field of sexual abuse investigation itself, let alone what I would consider ancillary professionals, which is most attorneys to engage well in this context in a way that does not inflict further harm. And let me double down on that a little bit. So prior to coming on board at GRACE, I spent the past four years at Zero Abuse Project before that at the National White Collar Crime Center, training law enforcement and child abuse prosecutors in all 50 states. Regrettably, some of them are virtual, like Hawaii. I’m not bitter about that at all. But pandemics were great. But one thing I learned, first of all, there are some incredibly gifted professionals that work in these spaces. And so, I don’t want my next statement to undercut the fact that they’re absolute heroes working for very low wages, extremely hard work, giving themselves, expanding themselves sacrificially. So, this is not a statement about those individuals. But the other reality is that many, possibly most individuals in law enforcement and prosecution are not competent to handle these cases. That’s just the reality. I’m talking criminal context. They’re simply not. There is a high level of specialization, there’s a high level of training, a high level of skill in achieving competence, let alone excellence in conducting sexual assault and child abuse investigations. And that’s true in the civil context as well. There are so many moving parts when it comes to the complexity of trauma. When it comes to how do you question, when it comes to accurately identifying grooming behaviors, when it comes to even your posture with witnesses? How do you build rapport? There’s just a whole host of pieces. But the reality is that specialization breeds excellence. We know that’s true in medicine. We know that’s true in every other context. It's true in investigations as well. If you’re not constantly building up those skills, staying current on literature, staying current on tactics, you’re not going to be competent, you’re going to inflict further harm. And simply having a PhD or a JD doesn’t make that any less likely; it might make it more likely. And so, it really just depends. And again, once again, I want to be very clear, there are attorneys that do a phenomenal job, that I call for advice on a frequent basis when it comes to conducting investigations. But I think it takes a lot of caution and humility to say, simply by virtue of being a law firm, there’s a qualification here. There needs to be some careful scrutiny of what those qualifications are, what type of credentials do the individuals involved have when it comes to forensic interviewing? What are the relevant publications, right? What protocol of forensic interviewing do they utilize? There’s a great deal of expertise that comes into not inflicting further harm in these interviews. I think there’s also a posture of intentional integration of trauma informed principles is that's very much in the DNA that started with Bob Tchividjian. And now it has grown with Pete Singer, what he’s brought from the mental health care field, in terms of how we interact with all witnesses, but especially survivors of abuse.   PETER SINGER  36:08 As we head into these interviews, those trauma informed principles that Robert talked about, these are things, one that we’re going to evaluate the church on. And two that we’re going to evaluate ourselves on. How are we doing this in the continuance of an investigation? So, these are the principles that need to govern our interview. The first and foremost is safety, physical safety, psychological safety, spiritual safety. The second, as I mentioned before, trust worthiness and transparency. The third, peer support. As long as they’re not another witness, a witness or a victim can bring a support person with them. As long as they’re not somebody else that would be a witness, bring that person with you to provide support. The fourth principle is collaboration and mutuality. That means work together with the person that’s been harmed, work together within our own group or among those who are specialists here at GRACE, and work together outside of our group. So, for example, when we’re doing an international investigation, we bring in cultural consultants to help us understand that culture so that we don’t make cultural flubs. Then empowerment, voice, and choice. How are we empowering those who have been harmed? How are we giving their voice a platform so that it can be heard? And then the final principle is humility, in the face of historical, cultural and gender factors, which simply cannot be separated from the trauma.   Julie Roys  37:52 So good. You have done an investigation for IHOP in the past, and that investigation, as I understand, never became public. Is there anything that you can say to shed light on that investigation, or how that might impact your moving forward, if you didn’t move forward with IHOP?   PETER SINGER  38:16 Sure, what I can say is that it was a completed investigation. What I can say is that consistent with our practice, the church was given a copy of the report, and anyone identified as a reported victim was given a copy of the report. I can also say that nobody was told not to distribute the report by GRACE. I can say that there have been some situations where GRACE has done multiple investigations for organizations. So having completed an investigation previously, does not prohibit GRACE, as long as we don’t feel that there’s a conflict of interest. And we need to check to make sure that there isn’t a conflict of interest. And as long as that conflict of interest is not there, then we can do an additional investigation with organizations just generally speaking.   Julie Roys  39:04 Lastly, and you’ve touched on analysis already. And this is something where I will say I’ve read a lot of these reports. GRACE’s analysis is usually something that I feel is insightful and is helpful. And because you guys get the culture and you get how abuse work, you get how cover ups work, you get all that stuff. I found those extremely helpful. At the same time, I have been horrified by some reports that I’ve seen. For example, there was a Guidepost Solutions report that was done on the Bryan Loritts’ investigation. I wrote about it so people can go and see it, but it was shocking to me because the only person that had this phone that had the evidence of wrongdoing was Bryan Loritts. He said things happened that he gave it to people. Nobody ever verified that they ever got the phone from him. He said he instructed people to report this to the police. We know that the police got no report whatsoever. And yet, the thing that was reported at the end of that was that Bryan Loritts essentially, has been found not guilty by this, you know. There’s no reason to think he was involved. It was shocking to me because the whole thing was pretty decent. I mean, really, they didn’t find out anything that I hadn’t found out prior, you know, because I had investigated this. But it was pretty decent as you went through. And if you understand the different people and what their objectives might be, and telling the truth or not telling the truth, but the analysis was just shocking to me. And there was so much inside of me that would have appreciated it, because when it was reported, people, you know, reporters can be really lazy. So they can just like look at the analysis at the end, and then just take that and not read the report. Because why bother, right? Just cut to the chase, read that, and then move on to your next story. And that’s what I suspect a lot of them did. And the problem is the truth didn’t get out there. So as a reporter, we keep like this really firm line between any analysis or opinion, and any news. So, we report all the facts here in the news story, we try not to let any editorial comment come in, and then we’ll report separately, okay, here’s what we think about it, if we do that. Or sometimes we’ll interview several experts, and then we’ll quote them in the story to give some perspective if we feel like the reader needs that. So, speak to that, because, again, I’ve seen it work. And I’ve seen it be absolutely abysmal, when there’s analysis in there, and there’s a part of me as a reporter that just wished the analysis would be separate,   PETER SINGER  41:38 You bring up a really great point, Julie, and I’m not going to speak to any particular other organization that is out there doing investigation. But just off the top of my head, I can think of three or four reports that I’ve read within the last year where I look at them, and their findings of fact make sense to me. And I get done reading the findings of fact thinking, wow, this is great. They actually revealed what happened. And then I get to their analysis. And I’m like, how did they get that analysis? That analysis is totally contrary to the facts! What happened?**   PETER SINGER  42:15 And so often, that can happen because that organization is being a mud flap, because their job is to direct the dirt. And again, I’m not calling out any specific organizations. And sometimes you’re just left wondering, and I think that you highlight just the importance, you can’t just go and read the analysis, you can’t just go and read the conclusions, you have to read the whole thing. And if you read the whole thing, you will see, A does not equal B. What’s going on here? And that is one of the red flags that you may have when you’re reading a report to know if that report was done in good faith. Because if you’re reading that nobody from whatever group participated or agreed to be interviewed, and then you’re reading the analysis that says this organization was fully engaged in the investigation, you got two opposite things. One is a factual statement but negates the analysis. With the GRACE report, generally speaking, there’s going to be some variability, we lay out those factual findings. There are some pieces of analysis in there. But those factual findings are laid out, and then we do an analysis. And sometimes there’s analysis that’s brought in with each piece of the findings so that there can be understanding as we go along. But that’s one of the key pieces that we do. And one of Robert’s biggest responsibilities is to make sure that this analysis actually is consistent with the factual findings. And not in contradiction to it.   ROBERT PETERS  43:55 Yeah, adding to that getting the what right is inconsequential, if you screw up the so what,. And so, I think that’s one critique I would have just more broadly over even law firm involved investigations, if you don’t have the church culture piece, if you don’t have the scriptural piece, you’re gonna mess up the so what or at a minimum, you’re going to miss an opportunity to address the so what piece of it. It’s so interesting how often we’re moving from, you have entities that are theoretically sola scriptura, but not in this context. Theoretically, Scripture is sufficient for all things, but not here. And so why is the disconnect, right? Why are we not leaning on Scripture to guide our response? And I think there’s some reasons for that, that are not always always very pleasant. So, I think getting that so what use is critical. **   ROBERT PETERS  44:39 I don’t know, Julie, if you’re familiar with I’m sure you’re familiar with the name Victor Vieth. But he wrote a really influential article years ago called Unto the Third Generation, and he posits a very optimistic and I think still realistic and grounded view that child abuse really can be meaningfully reduced to levels that are fractions of what they are now. I think that’s absolutely the case, I think we can lose sight of that just in the work that we do. Right? You’re being exposed to all this stuff. And how does this you know; how does this stuff ever end.**   ROBERT PETERS  45:11 One of the ways it ends is by not just getting a recitation of the facts. And then even if you don’t botch the analysis, stop there. The facts are important. The facts matter, they need light, and survivors deserve that. What also needs to happen is the so what. Okay, given these facts, what are the systems that allowed this to happen? As James Clear states, we don’t rise to the level of our goals, we fall to the level of our systems. What systemically is wrong here? And then by implication, how do we fix it? Because we don’t need to live in a world where every day, there’s a new, terrible podcast topic, probably several that you have to choose from. Right? We don’t have to live in a world where every day there’s more hearts being broken, and more individuals being shown an image of Christ and image of God does anything but what Scripture portrays. This is unnecessary. There is a way forward, and that way forward is the path of Christ. And it’s taking the facts seriously, yes. But it’s also doing the hard work of what do we do now, or the work of culture change. You don’t get there without the Bible. You don’t get there without being sensitive to survivors and being trauma informed. And that’s what survivors deserve in these investigations, regardless of who was conducting them.   Julie Roys  46:22 So, so good.   PETER SINGER  46:24 This is where the words of James come in: to the one who knows to do good, and doesn’t do it, it is sin. When you get done reading the report, there should be a path that’s laid out. Now you know, the path. And if you don’t do it, you are in essence taking God’s name in vain to continue sinning, to continue causing harm, to continue misrepresenting God.   Julie Roys  46:52 Amen. So, so good. And I so appreciate what you guys do. I know that these podcasts even though we keep our news stories and our investigations, we have to as journalists, just report them straight as we can. But I’ve heard from so many people, it’s the podcast where this is our analysis piece, right? This is where we get to speak into these things. And they’ve been so so instructive to our listeners. I hear it all the time. We just had the RESTORE conference, and so many people came up to me and said, thank you so much for the podcast, because voices like yours get amplified, and they get to hear them and get to be able to process the information that they’re hearing. So, so grateful for both of you, Pete, and Robert and Christine, who was with us earlier,. Thank you so much for being a part of this podcast.   PETER SINGER  47:42 Thank you for the opportunity. It was great.   ROBERT PETERS  47:44 Thank you.   Julie Roys  47:45 And thanks so much for listening to The Roys Report, a podcast dedicated to reporting the truth and restoring the church. I’m Julie Roys. And if you’ve appreciated this podcast, would you please consider supporting what we do financially? As I’ve said before, we don’t have any big donors or advertisers. We have you the people who care about exposing abuse and corruption in the church so she can be restored. And this month when you give a gift of $30 or more to the Roys report, we’ll send you a copy of Scot McKnight and Laura Behringer, his book pivot the priorities practices and powers that can transform your church into a Tov culture. So, to donate and to get your copy of pivot just go to JULIEROYS.COM/DONATE. Also, just a quick reminder to subscribe to the noise report on Apple podcast. Google podcasts or Spotify. That way you’ll never miss an episode. And while you’re at it, I’d really appreciate it if you’d help us spread the word about the podcast by leaving a review. And then please share the podcast on social media so more people can hear about this great content. Again, thanks so much for joining me today. Hope you were blessed and encouraged. Read more

Nearly 300,000 American men are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year alone, though most of those diagnosed don't die from it. Ali Rogin speaks with Dr. Charles Ryan, a genitourinary oncologist and head of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, about the screening, diagnosis and treatment of the disease, and what it means to live with it. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Nearly 300,000 American men are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year alone, though most of those diagnosed don't die from it. Ali Rogin speaks with Dr. Charles Ryan, a genitourinary oncologist and head of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, about the screening, diagnosis and treatment of the disease, and what it means to live with it. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Campaigners for one of the nation's deadliest cancers feel like their cause is being ignored this election. At last night's debate, Luxon and Hipkins both promised to lower the age for free bowel cancer screenings going forward. Prostate Cancer Foundation President Danny Bedingfield says the Government has show it cares about people's lives- but their cause needs more support. "What we're looking for is actually a trial of a prostate cancer screening program. We've had to do a lot of this background work ourselves, we've gone to the NZIER and asked them- what would it cost?" LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Prostate cancer campaigners are calling for a trial screening programme to be implemented as a first step towards curbing the 700 deaths a year from the disease. Over 4000 men are diagnosed each year with prostate cancer. Hamilton nurse Kristine Hayward's husband Bruce died from prostate cancer nearly four years ago, aged 66. She's gathered over 30 thousand signatures on a petition presented to parliament last month. Bruce, who was also a registered nurse, had regular medical check-ups with his GP which included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests. These showed that his levels were rising - a key warning sign - but by the time he was referred to a specialist his cancer had spread and could not be treated. Kristine Hayward says current testing is unfunded, disorganised and inequitable, allowing too many men to die and the petition calls for a trial screening programme. Kathryn also speaks with Peter Dickens, Chief Executive of the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

He may well be the busiest man in sports broadcasting. You know Brian Custer as a host of SportCenter on ESPN, along with work as a play-by-play commentator for college football and basketball. It doesn't stop here. He's also the voice of Showtime Championship Boxing. And somehow he still has time to host his acclaimed Last Stand Podcast, conducting one-on-one interviews with prominent sports figures, news anchors, and various entertainment faces, including Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Jake Paul, and more.His impact doesn't stop there. Beyond the mic, Custer champions the Prostate Cancer Foundation, promoting talk about prostate cancer and raising awareness to help save lives. It's a battle he knows personally. Join us as we discuss all of this as we dive into Bryan Custer's inspiring story in the world of sports broadcasting.Follow Brian on Social Media:https://www.instagram.com/bcustertv/?hl=enAnd listen to his Podcast The Last Stand with Brian Custer:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_P5SbZ50pCyPzvb--iWGpg?view_as=subscriber

The Prostate Cancer Foundation funds research into the prevention and cure of prostate cancer. On this episode of The Wednesday Match Play Podcast presented by Mindful "U", Chris Conway, PGA introduces PCF, talks about his journey to the foundation, reminisces on his PAT, and explains "The Jerry". He also remembers West Coast Golf Foundation, details the 2nd Annual PCF Team Challenge, confirms the importance of a PSA test, and explains the impact of fundraising. This was truly an unforgettable conversation and an honor having Chris on this show. Let's tee off.

Tim Cates gets you ready before the Dodgers play the Giants on Father's Day. DV talks to the founder of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Michael Milken. Vassegh also catches up with James Outman.

My guest today is Emmy Award-winning sportscaster Brian Custer. He joined ESPN in July of 2021 as an anchor for SportsCenter and a play-by-play commentator for college football and basketball.   He also has a keen eye for fashion, with his distinct love for picking out patterns for his custom-tailored suits and finding the right tie to complement his ensemble. This renaissance man is an avid watch collector, sneakerhead, and car enthusiast.   Custer holds a degree in broadcast journalism from Hampton University and is a member of Kappa Alpha Psi. A cancer survivor, he is a spokesman for the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Support the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My guest today is Emmy Award-winning sportscaster Brian Custer. He joined ESPN in July of 2021 as an anchor for SportsCenter and a play-by-play commentator for college football and basketball.   He also has a keen eye for fashion, with his distinct love for picking out patterns for his custom-tailored suits and finding the right tie to complement his ensemble. This renaissance man is an avid watch collector, sneakerhead, and car enthusiast.   Custer holds a degree in broadcast journalism from Hampton University and is a member of Kappa Alpha Psi. A cancer survivor, he is a spokesman for the Prostate Cancer Foundation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode of EMS One-Stop With Rob Lawrence is brought to you by Lexipol, the experts in policy, training, wellness support and grants assistance for first responders and government leaders. To learn more, visit lexipol.com. In this EMS One-Stop international edition, this month, Rob Lawrence talks with Professor Tony Walker, immediate past chief executive officer of Ambulance Victoria, a professor with the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences and Bachelor Paramedic Studies at Monash University. While in charge of Ambulance Victoria, Tony led significant transformation to improve the health and well-being of their workforce and the response they provide to the community. In this broad-reaching discussion, Tony explains the structure, organization and funding models of EMS down under and then Rob and Tony identify current challenges, issues and solutions common to both the U.S. and Australia, including the dreaded hospital handover challenges as well as reduction in lights and siren responses. TOP QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE “We know at least one in five people who call triple zero, our 911 equivalent, don't require an emergency ambulance and so new models of care are being developed.” “When people call triple zero, they no longer expect that they will automatically get an ambulance, as often described to people, you don't walk into a hospital triage and say I'd like you to admit me to the coronary care unit,, you get triaged, you work out what is wrong by a health professional and you get the care you need; that's exactly the same being applied in the paradigm of ambulance service delivery here in Victoria and the rest of Australia.” “In the next decade or so, I wouldn't be surprised if we see predominantly women making up the majority of staff working on frontline ambulances.” “New models of care have been developed. We have looked at the MPDS grid and where the disposition of those patients go to so we have reduced significantly the number of lights and sirens responses which has enabled us.” “Issues of transfer of care in hospital are a real challenge for ambulance services in the time it takes to transfer patients and there is no easy fix for that.” “If you are a paramedic who has gone to university, done your training, wants to deliver care and you are spending a significant proportion of your shift in an emergency department caring for your patient before he can offload it, that can be demoralizing and that probably goes against why you joined in the first place.” EPISODE CONTENTS 1:16 Introducing Tony Walker 2:00 The scale and scope of Australian Services 05:45 Healthcare funding – how does the patient get their healthcare 7:45 EMS system organization and deployment 09:15 Degrees and paramedic education 11:50 Student debt … or not! 14:10 Is Australia over-producing graduate medics? 16:40 Alternative treatment models 19:00 Reducing lights and siren responses 21:08 Public expectation education 23:02 Looking after your people 25:50 Handover delay at the ED – a global issue 27:00 Gender and diversity 27:34 Scheduling and rostering – creating a flexible roster that meets the needs of the individual and service 28:40 Hospital capacity and flow issues 31:08 How can you work in Australia? ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Additional EMS One-Stop podcast solutions to EMS staffing woes from down under: Australia EMS medics join the podcast to discuss their efforts to fill U.S. positions with their paramedic surplus On-Demand webinar: Ambulances held hostage: Strategies to unilaterally reduce ED wait times and get back into service Ambulances held hostage: EMS strategies for reducing ambulance offload times ABOUT OUR GUEST Professor Tony Walker, ASM, is a registered paramedic with over 36 years' experience working across senior clinical, operational and leadership roles within the ambulance sector. He was previously chief executive officer of Ambulance Victoria, where he led significant transformation to improve the health and well-being of their workforce and the response they provide to the community. Tony is a Fellow of the Australasian College of Paramedicine and holds a Bachelor of Paramedic Studies, Graduate Certificate of Applied Management, Graduate Diploma of Emergency Health (MICA) and Master of Education.  He is a non-executive director of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, the Emergency Services Foundation and TLC for Kids, a Director of Fairhaven Consulting Pty. Ltd., and an executive member of the Global Resuscitation Alliance and an Associate Investigator with the Australian Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. He is a past non-executive director and chair of the Council of Ambulance Authorities (CAA), the peak body representing the eleven statutory ambulance services across Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, past chair of the Australian Resuscitation Council (Victorian branch) and past deputy convenor of the Australian Resuscitation Council ALS sub-committee. Tony is published in an extensive range of literature relating to advancements in paramedic practice and prehospital systems of care, including prehospital thrombolysis, cardiac arrest, pain relief and prehospital rapid sequence intubation for traumatic brain injury. Tony is a recipient of the Ambulance Service Medal (ASM) for his contribution to the development of ambulance services at a state and national level and awarded the National Heart Foundation President's Award and Australian Resuscitation Council Medal (ARC) and included in the ARC Honor Roll, for his significant contributions to improving cardiovascular health and resuscitation practice and outcomes. He was a finalist for the Australian Mental Health Prize in 2019 in recognition of his work in improving paramedic mental health and wellbeing. CONNECT WITH TONY WALKER Linkedin Twitter RATE AND REVIEW THE EMS ONESTOP PODCAST Enjoying the show? Please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Contact the EMS One-Stop team at editor@EMS1.com to share ideas, suggestions and feedback.

Yesterday on The Panel, Wallace spoke to ACT leader David Seymour about the sale of the 'arrogant prick' transcript he signed alongside Jacinda Ardern. The slice of political memorabilia was sold on Trade Me for $100,100. The funds will go to support the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Wallace also spoke to the auction winner Julian Shorten. During this discussion, a listener requested that The Panel pass on their details to the Julian. We pick up the story today on the final show of 2022.

The transcript of the moment Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was caught calling ACT leader David Seymour an "arrogant prick" in Parliament has sold for $100,100 on TradeMe. Signed and framed, it was put up for sale with proceeds going towards the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Bill Hickman reports.

Club Menangle Racing Manager, David Wonson chats about the club raising funds and awareness for the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia during November.

Dr. Charles Ryan, president and CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF), joins ASCO Daily News Editor-in-Chief Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, to assess impactful prostate cancer research from the PCF's recent conference and discuss Dr. Ryan's vision for the future, including increasing access to cutting-edge care. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Welcome, to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News, and director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute. Today, we'll be discussing compelling research that was featured at the recent Prostate Cancer Foundation Scientific Retreat, and I'm very pleased to welcome Dr. Charles Ryan, the president, and CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Our full disclosures are available on the transcript of this episode, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the ASCO Daily News Podcast are available on our transcripts at: asco.org/podcasts. Dr. Ryan, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. Dr. Charles Ryan: Dr. Agarwal, thank you. It's my pleasure to be with you. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, Dr. Ryan, before I discuss the PCF meeting, I would like to ask you, what made you move to the PCF as the president and CEO when you had a flourishing career as a division chief of a large academic program, and as one of the top and internationally recognized investigators in prostate cancer? Dr. Charles Ryan: Well, thanks. That's a fair question, I guess. And it took me about three minutes to make the decision when I was offered the position, simply because the Prostate Cancer Foundation has been one of my intellectual homes for my entire career. I've been at the University of Wisconsin, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, UCSF, and the University of Minnesota, and all those institutions were affected by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, or previously, CaP CURE. So, I was involved in their research during my time at all those institutions. In addition to my own personal legacy with the PCF, but more importantly, is the fact that it is an organization that funds the deepest scientific inquiry into prostate cancer and the ways that it can cause suffering and death for men with the disease and has made tremendous progress in identifying factors that lead to that lethality. It's also a community of scholars, a community of researchers, that is a platform really for collaboration. And it's also an organization with a world reach - we fund research in 28 countries around the world, and we fund research going from the scope of very basic research to correlative research, to quality of life, and health services research. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That is truly impressive and inspiring. So, what is the mission of the Prostate Cancer Foundation formally? Dr. Charles Ryan: Formally, it's pretty simple. The mission of the Prostate Cancer Foundation is to reduce the death and suffering from prostate cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, the 29th PCF Scientific Retreat was recently held on October 27 to October 29th in Carlsbad, California. What were the goals and objectives of this meeting? Dr. Charles Ryan: The meeting, we call it the retreat, it's an annual event and it always has several goals. One is, it's where we announce and hand out, if you will, our awardees of our various awards that we give. It's also a reporting-in process where those who have been using PCF funding are called to come and discuss their work. We also want it to be an open forum for individuals to come and interact - it's really a collaboration and an interaction vehicle as much as anything. So, when you come to our scientific retreat, we all stay at the same hotel, we all share meals together, nobody goes out for dinner. You don't leave the campus, essentially, of the hotel where we are. We have many, many round tables set out, it's designed to be interactive. We have a big room where people are giving their talks, but if you step outside of the room, there are likely to be many, many conversations happening, and those conversations range from collaborations being formed to people looking for jobs, to people getting advice and mentoring, and even people sharing, as I've done over the years, compelling and challenging patient stories around prostate cancer, and really engaging in what communities do - which is, share ideals, share a mission, and share a passion for what they do. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Very interesting. Very inspiring. Please tell us some of the highlights of the meeting. Dr. Charles Ryan: Sure. Well, there are many highlights. There are many things happening in prostate cancer research. Most notably, there are a number of papers and investigators that are looking at how prostate cancer evolves, and probably the most significant set of observations that have been made in the field in the last decade, have been understanding the diverse and numerous mechanisms that underlie the evolution of prostate cancer from a disease that responds to hormonal manipulation, to one that becomes resistant to hormonal manipulation. And so, a lot of the work that's happening now is identifying, for example, the evolution of neuroendocrine prostate cancer, or mixed types of prostate cancer, or this sort of evolution of it under constant therapy. And that is allowing the exposure of new targets that we can exploit for new therapy development, and that feeds into some of the grant-making process that's going on in the background. And so, you have a lot of individuals who are looking at this or that mechanism pathway related to disease resistance that they can exploit, and whether they can create small molecules to do that, or antibodies to do that, et cetera. At the same time, we have a strong component of discussion of how prostate cancer affects different populations. So, we had some really nice talks looking at healthcare disparities and different populations across the world, and how they're affected by prostate cancer, and how care delivery may be impacted in those groups of patients. And then you have topics ranging around survivorship and other factors that are looking at what is life like for a man with advanced prostate cancer, which is in many cases, you know, men who get prostate cancer, who have recurrent disease, who end up going on systemic therapy are frequently on the treatment for 5, 10, 15 years. And so, survivorship, and how they live their life, and what the complications are of that treatment, is tremendously important because it's such a daily experience for these men undergoing treatment. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, how does the Prostate Cancer Foundation support and build the next generation of prostate cancer researchers? Dr. Charles Ryan: Right. So, the PCF supports the next generation in a very specific way, in addition to the informal way of bringing people together and inducing collaborations. We have a program called the Young Investigator Program. It started formally in 2008, but before that, there were one-off, if you will, Young Investigator Awards being given. So, our Young Investigator Awardees receive $75,000 per year to support their work, and we awarded 34 of those this year. The range is somewhere from 25 to 34 per year. We get over 100 applications for them every year. It's a straightforward application - they need to have a project that's going to be about three years in length, they need to be mentored, and they are best served by describing a mentorship plan for themselves and how that mentorship relationship will help them grow in their careers. Now, once you become a Young Investigator, it's not that we just write you a check and wish you well, we do that, but we also have annual check-ins. So, we try to visit the sites of our Young Investigators, see them in their home institution, and meet with their colleagues and their mentors. And that's one of the things I do, or Howard Soule does-- Howard Soule, is our chief scientific officer, one of those things we try to do. We also bring them to the scientific retreat that we just had last week, and we have them present their data. So, a vast number of the individuals who are presenting at the scientific retreat are in fact, Young Investigators, or they were Young Investigators when they started the projects that they are presenting. And then, the other thing we do is we have another retreat specifically for the Young Investigators, and that's called the Coffey-Holden Retreat, and that's named after Don Coffey, the late researcher from Johns Hopkins, who is really considered to be one of the grandfathers of prostate cancer research, and Stuart or Skip Holden, who is one of the founders of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and a urologist at UCLA. So, that event that we do is designed for people to come to give highlights of the work that they're doing; it's designed to be incredibly interactive. In fact, we have 15 or so minutes of presentation, followed by sometimes 25 minutes of questions for each presenter. There's always a line of people who are waiting to ask questions, and it's designed to engage and have that dialogue with the Young Investigators, to make their science better, and to get it known. And so, the Young Investigator Program, it's about 30 individuals per year on average, and the average age is about 30. Many of these are postdoctoral PhDs, and many of them are fellows, or early-stage faculty, MDs. And I like to think that if somebody's going to work until the age of 70, we're stimulating, or launching a 40-year career with these Young Investigator awards. So, I like to think that if we give 25 out, times 40 years, that's 1,000 years of research that we're sort of stimulating with this Young Investigator program. And I bring that up for the reason that we're very proud of the fact that many of our Young Investigators may start out in prostate cancer, and their ideas, their science, takes them elsewhere. And that's what science does. And we, of course, are very, very focused on solving the problem of prostate cancer, and we want people to do that. But we also understand that by launching a scientist, by launching a scientific career, you may end up with people going off in different directions. And so, we have many examples of that. And in my talk this year, I actually highlighted a person who, let's say she won an investigator award when she was young, it was before the formal Young Investigator Award was named, and this was a person who is creating conjugates for the delivery of chemotherapy to prostate cancer cells. And this was Carolyn Bertozzi up at UC Berkeley, and she just won the Nobel Prize. She didn't win the Nobel Prize for research she did on prostate cancer, but at some point, at one point in her career, this was a direction she was going, and she got two grants from us in 1999 and 2000, that helped her work continue on and go the direction that it did. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yeah. And congratulations. Dr. Charles Ryan: Sure. I'll take credit for that one. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Being the President and the CEO, you deserve the credit. Dr. Charles Ryan: Sure. That's my job. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, we are coming to the end of the interview, but let me ask you this; the prostate cancer field is so constantly evolving. What is your vision for PCF going forward? Dr. Charles Ryan: Well, my vision for the organization is that we are going to continue on our mission to reduce the death and suffering from prostate cancer. But that's a fairly general statement, and one of the ways you can do that is you can research cancer at a molecular level, and you could try to develop new therapies - we're going to continue to do that. But there's also a real problem, especially, in the United States, and actually globally, with individuals with prostate cancer who are not receiving the cutting-edge care, not receiving the cutting-edge therapy. We have some data that in the United States, maybe upwards of 50% of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer are not getting the therapies that are supported by the latest findings from randomized phase III trials. And this may be for economic reasons, it may be communications or an education deficit with their treating clinicians, and there may be other factors as well. So, as we think about the vision of this, we need to be mindful of that, because if we only focus on studying the cancer molecularly, and we don't address what's happening on the other end, then we're not completing the story, and we're not completing the mission. And so, I've started calling Prostate Cancer Foundation the Global Public Square of Prostate Cancer, because I think of four sides of that square - funding research, as of what we just got done talking about, education and communication, is another one, and we do that in the same way that you are doing this today - through podcasts, and web content, and in-person meetings, as well as applied discovery, which is helping our researchers take their discoveries or their findings out into the clinic. Now, you might think, "Well, that's a small molecule, becoming a company going into a phase I clinical trial." Certainly, that's part of it, but it's also the epidemiologist who is making observations about diet and exercise, who is then empowered to do a clinical trial of exercise and diet intervention. It's also the health services researcher who is able to use their data to go talk to payers or talk to organizations about how care may be delivered differently. So, that's applied discovery. And then finally, supporting the patient is part of what we do. So, we also hold patient webinars every month, we've held patient summits at various points around the country where we bring patients together and talk to them about the latest research or about the factors we've discussed, such as survivorship, or quality of life after treatment, or treatment complications, and things like that. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That's wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing your insights. Any final remarks, Dr. Ryan? Dr. Charles Ryan: Dr. Agarwal, thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to speak to another Genitourinary Oncologist, of course, about the field, and the opportunity to talk about the Prostate Cancer Foundation and what we're doing, and the directions we are trying to grow. We've had a great collaboration with ASCO over the years, and I hope that that continues as well. I hope anybody who is interested would come and visit us at: pcf.org, and they can also check us out on: urotoday.com, where we have a lot of content that might be of interest to them. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Dr. Ryan, for taking the time to be with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe, wherever you get your podcast. Thank you very much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's Speakers: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal @neerajaimms Dr. Charles Ryan @charlesryanmd Want more related content? Listen to our podcast on therapeutic advances in prostate cancer and other GU cancers.   Advances in Genitourinary Cancers at #ASCO22 Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, Gilead Sciences  Research Funding (Inst.): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck , Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, crispr therapeutics, Arvinas   Dr. Charles Ryan: Honoraria: Janssen Oncology, Bayer Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Dendreon, AAA, Myovant Sciences, Roivant, Clovis Oncology  

This week's episode is a special one. Dr. Geo is interviewing Fen Yee, a spouse of a late patient of Dr. Geo who unfortunately passed away from prostate cancer. In the interview, Fen Yee shares her experience of caring for her husband during his diagnosis. She also shares how caretakers can take care of themselves while taking care of their loved ones. -- Resources Mentioned Red Door: https://reddoorcommunity.org/ (https://reddoorcommunity.org/) Cancer Care: https://www.cancercare.org/ (https://www.cancercare.org/) The China Study: https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/ (https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/) Forks Over Knives: https://www.forksoverknives.com/ (https://www.forksoverknives.com/) Women Affected by Stage 4 Prostate Cancer: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1701514996753358 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1701514996753358) Clinical Trials: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) Prostate Cancer Foundation: https://www.pcf.org/ (https://www.pcf.org/) PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) -- Thanks for tuning in to this episode of the Dr.Geo Podcast! If you loved what you heard, please leave a review and rating on https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1609860250 (Apple Podcasts). You can also listen to this episode and future episodes on many major podcast platforms by clicking https://link.chtbl.com/8Z6hUclo (here). -- For the latest research in men's health and more, visit https://drgeo.com/ (drgeo.com). Follow Dr. Geo on Social Media https://www.facebook.com/drgeoespinosa/ (Facebook) https://www.instagram.com/Real_DrGeo/ (Instagram) https://twitter.com/drgeoespinosa (Twitter)

Monday Night is going to be nuts! Off a dominant win, can the Bills massacre a team that has given them fits in the past? Injuries, Offense, Defense, and more! Coming to you LIVE this week from 71 West Bar & Grill in my hometown of Fillmore, NY. Prostate Cancer Foundation is in the spotlight this week. Click here to head to the foundation's page: https://www.pcf.org/ I appreciate your support & Go Bills! | Follow the Nerd | IG https://www.instagram.com/thebuffalon... Facebook Page | https://www.facebook.com/thebuffalonerd Twitter | https://twitter.com/thebuffalonerd TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@thebuffalonerd Youtube | https://click.thebuffalonerd.com/b7f233 Host: Colt Schroeder | https://twitter.com/Colt_schroeder Subscribe to the Buffalo Rumblings podcast channel featuring Billieve, Buffalo Rumblings Q&A, Breaking Buffalo Rumblings, Code of Conduct with J. Spence, The Bruce Exclusive, The Buff Hub, Jamie D. & Big Newt, The Overreaction Podcast, Food For Thought, The Chop Up, Hump Day Hotline, Off Tackle with John Fina, Bills Mafia Time 2 Shine, Intentional Grounding, Not Another Buffalo Podcast, Buffalo Nerd Sports Podcast and Circling the Wagons: Click Here for the Buffalo Rumblings Podcast on your favorite player! | https://pod.link/buffalorumblings | #GoBills #NFL #BillsMafia #Football Ask Alexa or Google Home to play the Buffalo Rumblings podcast! Editor's note: If you're viewing this in Apple News, you'll need to head to your podcast app or phone's web browser to hear the embedded audio file. * The Buffalo Nerd is an affiliate and may earn compensation on show affiliate links Intro audio Spirit of War by DeKibo LICENSE #4324126 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's pretty shocking how many prostate cancers went missing during COVID, especially in Melbourne which experienced the most prolonged lockdown in the world. The data is still being cleaned but it is estimated that up to 3000 men who would have been expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer over the past 2.5 years, have not yet been diagnosed. It is prostate cancer awareness month in Australia, so a good time to chat with some experts to better understand the issue of the missing cancers. Plus we hear of some worrying examples. Declan and Renu are joined by Alan White, well known patient advocate, Anne Savage, Chief Executive Director of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, and Professor Grant McArthur, Chair of the Victorian COVID Cancer Network, whose group have been looking at this data in real-time since the start of COVID. Grant is also a prostate cancer survivor himself. Also posted on  YoutubeLinks:PCFAThe Prostate ZonePeter Mac story on missing diagnosesVCCC Alliance 

New Zealand's terrible record when it comes to diagnosing prostate cancer is causing those who receive the diagnosis to lose hundreds of millions in earnings. Research between the NZIER and Prostate Cancer Foundation found that on average, men who get a late diagnosis lose out on about $12,000 over four years. While it might not seem like a huge amount, when you realise that almost 60 percent of cases are late diagnoses, it adds up to more than $300 million in reduced earnings over that four year period. And compare that to catching it early - which means there is no loss of earnings. NZIER principal economist Sarah Hogan did the research and Sarah joined Mike Hosking. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We have two special announcements!Next episode we will be celebrating a decade of DNA Today! That's right, we released our first episode on September 1st, 2012. It also coincides with our 200th episode. We want to mark these milestones with you on the show. So send in your favorite episode. You can write it, or better yet, record a voice memo sharing your favorite episode and why you enjoy listening to the show. After all, our podcast would not be possible without you loyal listeners. That's why we want to celebrate together! Send in your voice memo or written message about your fav episode of DNA Today to info@dnapodcast.com. Deadline is August 27th.Thank you to all you listeners for nominating us in the Podcast Awards, you did it! We have officially been nominated. It's year number 6 being nominated and it might be our third time winning the Best Science and Medicine Podcast Award. BUT that's only going to happen if you check your email inbox for an email from The Podcast Awards with the subject line, “Podcast Awards Final Slate Voting”'. If you got this email you are one of the few that were selected to be a voter. It's imperative that you vote! There is a hyperlink to click to get to the voting page. You do have to quickly log back in. Once you do, select DNA Today in the “Science and Medicine category”, select your other fav podcasts and then Hit the “Save Nominations” button. It's that easy. You have until September 10th to do this, but please do it now if you got the email so you don't forget! In this episode we are educating you about prostate cancer as we are on the cusp of prostate cancer awareness month starting next week. Joining us for this discussion is Dr. Heather Cheng, Director of the Prostate Cancer Genetics Clinic at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Assistant Professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and Associate Professor in the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. She focuses on improving the care of patients with prostate and bladder cancers. An expert in prostate cancer genetics, she is studying ways to use genetics to guide the care of prostate cancer patients and their family members who may also be at high risk for the disease.On This Episode We Discuss:The prevalence of prostate cancerSigns of hereditary prostate cancer in family historyProstate Cancer Registry of Outcomes and Germline Mutations (PROMISE)The goals of PROMISEWho is eligible to enroll in PROMISE and what is requiredThe most common genes that are identified as having a pathogenic variantCurrent treatments available for people with prostate cancerThe lifetime risk of prostate cancerTo learn more about the PROMISE study, visit the study website and check out thisarticle!You can keep up with our guest, Heather Cheng on Twitter, and LinkedIn, and stay up to date with the latest developments in prostate cancer research by following the Prostate Cancer Foundation on Twitter and ​​LinkedIn, and Instagram.Next episode of DNA Today on September 2nd, 2022, we are celebrating 200 episodes and 10 years of the show! New episodes are released on Fridays. In the meantime, you can binge all our other episodes on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, streaming on the website, or any other podcast player by searching, “DNA Today”. Episodes since 2021 are also recorded with video which you can watch on our YouTube channel. DNA Today is hosted and produced by Kira Dineen. Our social media lead is Corinne Merlino. Our video lead is Amanda Andreoli. See what else we are up to on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and our website, DNApodcast.com. Questions/inquiries can be sent to info@DNApodcast.com. PerkinElmer Genomics is a global leader in genetic testing focusing on rare diseases, inherited disorders, newborn screening, and hereditary cancer. Testing services support the full continuum of care from preconception and prenatal to neonatal, pediatric, and adult. Testing options include sequencing for targeted genes, multiple genes, the whole exome or genome, and copy number variations. Using a simple saliva or blood sample, PerkinElmer Genomics answers complex genetic questions that can proactively inform patient care and end the diagnostic odyssey for families. Learn more at PerkinElmerGenomics.com. (SPONSORED)

Men over 50 are forced to wait too long for prostate cancer to be picked up and then treated - according advocacy and support group, Prostate Cancer Foundation. About 650 New Zealand men die of prostate cancer every year. The Foundation says due to Covid there has been a decline in GP visits, and therefore detection of early signs. Its Chief Executive, Peter Dickens, tells Kathryn Ryan, once prostate cancer has been detected, it can take months for a referral to a urologist, further months for a biopsy and more waiting for any curative treatment such as a prostatectomy. Kathryn also speaks with prostate cancer survivor Conor English, who says men ought to treat their bodies like their cars, and get an annual WOF.

Michael Milken, who founded the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Steve Cohen, who's the owner of the New York Mets, join Howie Rose and Wayne Randazzo in-game to talk about how to "Keep Dad in the Game" and the Home Run Challenge.

The Twins head into Memorial Day weekend leading the Central Divison. Minnesota hosts the Kansas City Royals this weekend at Target Field. Today, on the Twins Magazine Show -- Steve talks with Michael Milken, founder and chairman of the Prostate Cancer Foundation. On the field at Target Field today. MLB-PCF Home Run Challenge runs from June 1 through Father's Day. Plus, MLB.com Twins reporter Do-Hyoung Park joins Steve to preview the games this weekend. 

This episode is sponsored by BTG Speciality Pharmaceuticals. BTG provides rescue medicines typically used in emergency rooms and intensive care units to treat patients for whom there are limited treatment options. They are dedicated to delivering quality medicines that make a real difference to patients and their families through the development, manufacture, and commercialization of pharmaceutical products. Their current portfolio of antidotes counteracts certain snake venoms and the toxicity associated with some heart and cancer medications. With almost 25 years of experience as a registered dietitian nutritionist, Natalie is a well-seasoned practitioner. A board-certified specialist in oncology nutrition, Natalie is the founding dietitian for the nutrition program at the University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center and is the clinical nutrition specialist at Smith Integrative Oncology in San Francisco. On a daily basis, she works with patients through her integrative & functional nutrition private practice. Natalie serves as a consultant and speaker for Digestive Care, Inc. and Kate Farms. As a member of the Lilly Lecture Bureau Faculty, Natalie regularly presents to health care practitioners on Nutritional Counseling in Oncology Care. She is a certified LEAP therapist who helps manage adverse food reactions with an emphasis on food sensitivities. Natalie provides nutrition counseling and frequently presents nationally on various cancer and integrative health focused nutrition topics. She has taught college courses and cooking classes, and has been extensively involved in community outreach. Natalie is highly regarded in her industry and is often sought out for her expert opinion. She has been interviewed by The New York Times, NBC, Fortune magazine, Cure magazine, MAMM magazine, Runner's World, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Recent publications include Oncology Nutrition for Clinical Practice (co-editor and author), Health & Wellness: Living with Prostate Cancer for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and nutrition chapters in Clinical Nutrition for Oncology Patients, Everyone's Guide to Cancer Therapy, Everyone's Guide to Cancer Survivorship, Nutritional Issues in Cancer Care, and Supportive Cancer Care: The Complete Guide for Patients and their Families.

Dr. Martin reviews an article written by the Prostate Cancer Foundation. The article is saying that prostate cancer has a sweet tooth. Cancer needs sugar to grow, and it's surprising to Dr. Martin that a cancer foundation is admitting this. In today's episode, Dr. Martin discusses prostate health and why men need to lay off the sugar. He also explains why he calls prostate and breast cancer, identical cancers.  

Men and their loved ones may find themselves blindsided after receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer. They may panic and want to jump straight into treatment without first weighing all their options carefully. On the Prostate Health Podcast up until now, we have spoken to many different experts, leaders, and innovators about various treatment options available for prostate cancer. Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming a prostate cancer survivor, Gogs Gagnon, to share his story. Gogs was diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer in 2017. After having surgery and recovering, he decided to write a book to share his story, inspire others to advocate for their health, and help other men learn from his experiences. His book is Prostate Cancer Strikes: Navigating the Storm.  Gogs is a prostate cancer advocate. He has created a YouTube channel, capturing the details of his diagnosis. He has also developed a website and blog, and is active in various prostate cancer support groups. He is a member of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, British Columbia Support Group Council, and most recently, he took on the role of the Content Creator for ProstateCancer.net. Dr. Pohlman and Gogs have known one another for about a year. They initially crossed paths on social media as prostate cancer advocates. Since then, Dr. Pohlman has had the opportunity to read Gogs's book and provide a testimonial on the impact it has had on affected men and their loved ones.  Today, Gogs joins us to share his story. Be sure to listen in! Disclaimer: The Prostate Health Podcast is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast should be construed as medical advice. By listening to the podcast, no physician-patient relationship has been formed. For more information and counseling, you must contact your personal physician or urologist with questions about your unique situation. Show highlights: Gogs shares his background. Gogs explains how his prostate cancer story began and discusses what happened when he had a prostate biopsy. For the five consecutive years that Gogs had his PSA tested, it was higher each year. Gogs discusses the results that came back after his urologist suggested that he should have an MRI. Gogs talks about his reaction after receiving the devastating news that he had prostate cancer even though he had no issues or symptoms. Gogs had no idea that there were many different treatment options for him to consider when he got his diagnosis. More tests, including a CT scan and a bone scan, followed Gogs's cancer diagnosis. Gogs was advised not to make a rushed decision about the kind of treatment he would opt for before having his surgery. Gogs talks about two of the potential side effects of prostate cancer surgery. Why Gogs opted for an open prostatectomy rather than robotic. The recovery process after surgery. What men can expect in terms of follow-up after surgery for prostate cancer. Some advice from Gogs for men who have recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Gogs explains why he recommends joining a prostate cancer support group as soon as possible. Links: Follow Dr. Pohlman on Twitter and Instagram - @gpohlmanmd  Get your free What To Expect Guide (or find the link here, on our podcast website)   Join our Facebook group  Follow Dr. Pohlman on Twitter and Instagram  Go to the Prostate Health Academy to sign up for the wait-list for our bonus video content.  You can access Dr. Pohlman's free mini webinar, where he discusses his top three tips to promote men's prostate health, longevity, and quality of life here.

Dr. Howard Soule, Chief Scientific Officer of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, joins Dr. Todd Cohen on this episode of The Modern Urologist to discuss his involvement with the Prostate Cancer Foundation. He will also talk through the history of the foundation and where he sees them going in the future. In addition, Dr. Soule gives insight to how the foundation has raised awareness for patient communities around the world. 

Dr. Sudhur IsharwalDr. Isharwal attended medical school at PT B. D. Sharma PGIMS. He spent two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pittsburgh, with a research focus on prostate cancer development and progression. Having completed his fellowship training at the Cleveland Clinic, he was part of a Clinical Research Scholars Program at Case Western Reserve University and completed his Urology residency at the University of Nebraska.  A Board-Certified Urology Oncologist, Dr. Isharwal is currently on staff at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Sudhur is also an assistant professor.  He has also authored several research papers and has presented his work at multiple national meetings.Attachments/Links:American Cancer Society - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer.html Prostate Cancer Foundation - https://www.pcf.org 

Dr. Sudhur IsharwalDr. Isharwal attended medical school at PT B. D. Sharma PGIMS. He spent two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pittsburgh, with a research focus on prostate cancer development and progression. Having completed his fellowship training at the Cleveland Clinic, he was part of a Clinical Research Scholars Program at Case Western Reserve University and completed his Urology residency at the University of Nebraska.  A Board-Certified Urology Oncologist, Dr. Isharwal is currently on staff at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Sudhur is also an assistant professor.  He has also authored several research papers and has presented his work at multiple national meetings.Attachments/Links:American Cancer Society - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer.html Prostate Cancer Foundation - https://www.pcf.org 

Receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis can sometimes catch men off guard and cause them to panic. Their instinct is often to jump straight into treatment without first weighing all their options carefully.  Up until now on the Prostate Health Podcast, we have spoken to many different experts and innovators about various treatment options available for prostate cancer. Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming Gogs Gagnon as our guest. Gogs is a prostate cancer survivor who got diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer in 2017. After having surgery and recovering, he decided to write a book to share his story, inspire others to advocate for their health, and help other men learn from his experiences. His book is Prostate Cancer Strikes: Navigating the Storm.  Gogs is a prostate cancer advocate. He has created a YouTube channel to capture the details of his diagnosis. He has also developed a website and blog, and he is active in various prostate cancer support groups. He is a member of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, British Columbia Support Group Council, and most recently, he took on the role of the Content Creator for Prostate Cancer.Net. Gogs is joining us today to share his story. Be sure to listen in to hear what he has to say! Disclaimer: The Prostate Health Podcast is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast should be construed as medical advice. By listening to the podcast, no physician-patient relationship has been formed. For more information and counseling, you must contact your personal physician or urologist with questions about your unique situation.  Show highlights: Gogs talks about his background. Gogs explains how his prostate cancer story began. What happened when Gogs had a prostate biopsy. For the five consecutive years that Gogs had his PSA tested, it was higher each year. The results that came back after a urologist suggested that Gogs should have an MRI. Getting the devastating news that even though he had no issues or symptoms, he had prostate cancer. At the time of getting his diagnosis, Gogs had no idea that there were many different treatment options for him to consider. More tests, including a CT scan and a bone scan, followed his cancer diagnosis. Gogs was advised not to make a rushed decision about the kind of treatment he would opt for before having his surgery. Gogs was concerned about two of the potential side-effects of prostate cancer surgery. Why he opted for an open prostatectomy rather than robotic. Gogs talks about the recovery process after his surgery. Thirty-nine months out of surgery, Gogs is feeling good and healthy. What men can expect in terms of follow-up after surgery for prostate cancer. Gogs shares some advice for men who have recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Why Gogs recommends joining a prostate cancer support group as soon as possible. Links and resources: Follow Dr. Pohlman on Twitter and Instagram - @gpohlmanmd  Get your free What To Expect Guide (or find the link here, on our podcast website)   Join our Facebook group  Follow Dr. Pohlman on Twitter and Instagram  Go to the Prostate Health Academy to sign up for the wait-list for our bonus video content.  You can access Gogs's book Prostate Cancer Strikes: Navigating the Storm on the Prostate Health Podcast website.