Podcasts about public health policy

In this illuminating episode we speak with Dr. Filippa Juul. An epidemiologist and leading researcher on the impact of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) on human health. Together, we unpack what ultra-processed really means, why it's not just about calories or macros, and how these foods are stealthily contributing to the global rise in obesity, chronic illness, and food addiction. Dr. Filippa Juul is a nutritional epidemiologist and Faculty Fellow at the Department of Public Health Policy and Management at the New York University School of Global Public Health (NYU GPH). She earned her PhD in Epidemiology from NYU GPH in 2020, following a MSc in Public Health Nutrition from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and a BA in Nutrition and Dietetics from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in Spain. Dr. Juul's research focuses on improving cardiometabolic health outcomes at the population level, with a particular interest in the role of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in diet quality, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. She utilizes large U.S. population studies to examine these associations and is also exploring the biological mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on cardiometabolic health.  Dr. Juul explains the NOVA classification system, dives into recent groundbreaking studies, and offers insights into why UPFs are so difficult to resist—and what we can do about it, both individually and at the policy level. Key Takeaways 

In this episode we speak with Jean Bae, Clinical Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management. She shares her journey from Harvard Law to shaping public health policy, tackling critical issues like the impact of the Hyde Amendment and evidence-based laws on public health outcomes. Jean provides valuable insights on the intersection of law and public health, the challenges of translating legal frameworks into actionable policies, and the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. From firearm regulations to abortion laws, she unpacks how policy shapes lives and offers advice for aspiring public health professionals. Whether you're a student, a policy enthusiast, or curious about how laws influence daily life, this episode is filled with actionable insights and inspiration. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

Since RFK Jr., now the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, showed the nation the color difference between Canadian Froot Loops and U.S. Froot Loops, Americans are becoming more aware of what's in the food we eat. And one of the major offenders? Food dyes. Some of the food dyes in everyday products like breakfast cereals and candy actually come from coal tar, petroleum, and other concerning origins. Even worse, these dyes add nothing to the flavor—their only purpose is better marketing for companies. So how did we end up in this situation? And what does the FDA's recent announcement mean for these food dyes? Here to explain is Dr. David Gortler, a Senior Research Fellow for Public Health Policy and Regulation here at The Heritage Foundation. ---- Dr. Gortler on FDA food dyes: https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/fda-gras-additives-and-artificial-food-coloring-banned-many-countries  Dr. Gortler's work at Heritage.org: https://www.heritage.org/staff/david-gortler-pharmd  Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org

2025P2 Regional Editor of AJPH, Prof. Jihong Liu and Dr. Tianchu Lyu, review highlights of the Jan to Mar 2025 Issues and Supplements. The Editor's Corner features Dr. José Pagán, Professor and Chair of Department of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University

In "Public Health Policy is Political," Chris Dall and Dr. Osterholm discuss the ongoing measles outbreak, the latest round of job cuts in the public health workforce, and new studies on long-COVID. Dr. Osterholm also reviews the latest vaccine news for Novavax, seasonal influenza, and H5N1. Studies: 1 in 7 US working-age adults report long COVID, with heaviest burden on the poor (CIDRAP) A Clearer Picture of Covid's Lasting Effects on the Body (NYT, paywall) MORE EPISODES       SUPPORT THIS PODCAST  

John Maytham speaks with Mia Malan about a game-changing development in HIV prevention: lenacapavir, the six-monthly injectable. A recent modelling study reveals that if South Africa’s health department can secure the drug at a price between R2 238 and R4 304 per person annually, it could be a cost-effective and transformative addition to the country's HIV response.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is autism? Is it truly on the rise, along with the broader concept of ‘neurodivergence'? With one in six children now identified as having special educational needs, could this increase be due to over-diagnosis, genetic factors, or something more? In this episode, I'm joined by three pioneers in the field—experts with extensive experience working with thousands of children diagnosed with autism. Together, we uncover the true scale of the issue and explore why our children's mental and physical health is under attack. Joining me are: Dr. Lorene Amet – Director of The Lauriston Centre in the UK, holding a PhD in Molecular Biology from the University of Oxford and a Master's in Autism Education. She has conducted postdoctoral research at Princeton and Edinburgh universities. Beth Lambert – Founder of Documenting Hope, a non-profit dedicated to children's health. She's a teacher and the author of A Compromised Generation: The Epidemic of Chronic Illness in America's Children, as well as co-author of Brain Under Attack. Dr. Heather Tallman Ruhm – A board-certified physician with a Master's degree in Public Health Policy. She has over a decade of experience as a college professor and serves as a medical advisor for Documenting Hope. Together, we dive deep into what's beneath the surface - examining why our children's well-being is increasingly under threat. Further Information Read more in my book Upgrade Your Brain and on my website www.patrickholford.com Book for charity Food for the Brain's online practitioner conference 'Our Children's Brains are in Crisis' on Thursday 24 April, 9.00am - 5.45pm (for health practitioners).  Book webinar Optimising Neurodivergence, Thursday 24 April, 6.30pm (open to all).    

Lester Kiewit speaks to Petronell Kruger, HEALA Programmes Manager, about the growing debate around food labelling and its impact on consumer choices. With the FDA's delayed "healthy" food label initiative in the U.S. and South Africa's proposed labelling overhaul, they discuss whether labelling products as "healthy" can truly influence our decision-making. Petronell also shares insightful examples from Chile, Brazil, and Mexico, and tackles the question of whether pricing strategies, like the sugar tax, are effectively guiding us towards healthier choices.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 2000, the United States declared that measles had been eliminated. But just 15 years later, the disease made a comeback—and it hasn't gone away since. In this episode, Dr. Adam Ratner, director of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at NYU and author of Booster Shots: The Urgent Lessons of Measles and the Uncertain Future of Children's Health, explains why measles outbreaks are occurring again—as vaccine hesitancy and the antivax movement is on the rise—and what this means for the future of children's health.Ratner describes why measles is the most contagious disease we know of, and why it can be particularly harmful to children. As vaccination rates for children and adults continue to decrease in the U.S., are we at risk of undoing decades of medical progress? And what can we do to stop it?

What do crime waves, contagious diseases, and social trends have in common? Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-host Chuck Nice welcome best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell to explore the hidden forces that drive human behavior.NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/revenge-of-the-tipping-point-with-malcolm-gladwell/Thanks to our Patrons Matt Silkowski, Dylan moffitt, Grahan Rossiter, FunThings2See, Anthony Sipple, Micheal Kemp, Alexandria French, Ali Jasemi, Nick Charles, Christopher Scott, Graham Jones, Richarad Negus, Win Lương, Paul Durae Duncan, Ian Diaz, Micheal Kroes, Adam Bodenhamer, Chris, foo red, Micheal Rivera, Charles Stanley-Grey, Samuel Andrews, Damian Cartwright, Maliha Khan, Carleton Chang, Jay Holmes Jr. , Mike McKinney, Justin Zarsky, ImJustBeingLazy, Nicholas Elias, Ruth, Brian Toms, Zach Stein, Melanie, Noah, and Philip Taylor for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ on Apple Podcasts to listen to new episodes ad-free and a whole week early.

Carefully constructed narratives and funding related to public health are being re-evaluated by this new administration, bringing sunlight to disinfect a contaminated NIH. Critics of President Trump and DOGE claim that Trump's actions represent a Constitutional crisis, Politico finally admits that Democrats were wrong to claim the economy was great under Biden, and RFK's confirmation process continues amid significant pushback.The Heartland Institute's Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Bonner Cohen, senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, will cover all of this and more on this episode of the In The Tank podcast.Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET and enjoy the live chat!

In this episode of Transmission Interrupted, join hosts Lauren Sauer and Rachel Lookadoo as they continue their Pathogens in Pop Culture series with a dive into the fascinating intersection of infectious diseases and the entertainment industry with esteemed guest, Dr. Saskia Popescu. Dr. Popescu, an internationally recognized infectious disease epidemiologist and global health security expert, shares her unique experiences providing epidemiological guidance and infection prevention strategies on film sets during the COVID-19 pandemic. From creative risk assessments and navigating ever-changing guidelines to the challenges of implementing health measures in diverse climate settings all around the world, Dr. Popescu provides a candid look behind the scenes of Hollywood's pandemic response. Get a glimpse into how science intersects with Hollywood magic, revealing an industry more receptive and complex than meets the eye. Tune in as we uncover the balance between safety and storytelling, and explore the uncharted territory of infectious diseases in pop culture.Questions or comments for NETEC? Contact us at info@netec.org.Visit Transmission Interrupted on the web at netec.org/podcast.GuestSaskia Popescu, PhD, MA, MPHDr. Popescu is an internationally recognized and experienced infectious disease epidemiologist and global health security expert with a strong background in enhancing healthcare biopreparedness, outbreak response, biosecurity, infection prevention and healthcare epidemiology, biothreat analysis, and pandemic preparedness/response. Skilled communicator directing progress through policy development, project management/team leadership, and providing pragmatic and real-world insight from experiences in leading outbreak field response, biosurveillance initiatives, and healthcare biopreparedness programs.She works at the intersection of science and policy to build capacity and support implementation of policies and collaboration across key stakeholders. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, she has engaged in science communication across media sources, including CNN, SkyNews, BBC, the Trevor Noah Show, This Podcast Will Kill You, NPR, Nature, Science, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlantic, etc.HostsLauren Sauer, PhD, MScLauren is an Associate Professor in the College of Public Health, Department of Environmental, Agricultural, and Occupational Health, at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Core Faculty of the UNMC Global Center for Health Security. She is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine in the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and the director of the Special Pathogens Research Network.She previously served as Director of Operations for the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness where she ran the inpatient COVID19 biobank and served on the COVID19 research steering committee for JHU. Lauren's research focuses on human subjects research in bio-emergencies and disasters, in particular, ethical implementation of research and navigating the regulatory environment. The goal of her research is to provide health care facilities with the tools needed to conduct a clinical and operational research response in emergencies.Rachel Lookadoo, JDRachel Lookadoo is an Assistant Professor in the Epidemiology department of the College of Public Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and serves as the Deputy Director of the Center for Biosecurity, Biopreparedness, and Emerging Infectious Diseases. She also acts as the Director of Public Health Policy for the Water, Climate, and Health program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Ms. Lookadoo's background is as an attorney, and she focuses on the various legal...

Dr. Sejal Hathi, the nation's youngest state health director, discusses Oregon's groundbreaking Medicaid transformation that expands coverage beyond traditional healthcare to include housing, climate health, and nutrition. Learn how this innovative model achieved 97% coverage while addressing social determinants of health and setting new standards for healthcare policy nationwide.Oregon's expanded Medicaid model demonstrates how healthcare funding can effectively address social determinants of healthIntegration of housing, climate health, and nutrition support creates more comprehensive health outcomesState-level innovation can drive national healthcare policy transformationPersonal experience and diverse perspectives are crucial for reimagining healthcare systemsSejal Hathi, MD, MBA, Director, Oregon Health AuthorityMegan Antonelli, Chief Executive Officer, HealthIMPACT Live 

2025P1 Regional Editor of AJPH, Prof. Jihong Liu and Dr. Tianchu Lyu, review highlights of the Oct to Dec 2024 Issues and Supplements. The Editor's Corner features Dr. José Pagán, Professor and Chair of Department of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University

For many years in talks that I gave, I showed a slide with an ingredient list from a food most people know. Just to see if the audience could guess what the food was. based on what it was made of. It was very hard for people to guess. A few people might come close, but very few people would guess. And it was pretty hard because the food contained 56 ingredients. This is in one food. And the ingredient list had chemical names, flavorings, stabilizers, and heaven knows what else. But 56 things in one, just one food in the food supply. Pretty amazing to think what kind of things we're bombarded with in foods we eat in our everyday lives. So, one key question is do we know what all this stuff does to us, either individually or in combination? So, how does ingredient 42 interact with ingredient 17? Even if we happen to know what they do individually, which we may not. And, who's looking out for the health of the population, and who has regulatory control over these things? Today we're joined by the author of a new article on this topic published in the American Journal of Public Health. Jennifer Pomeranz is an attorney and is Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management in the School of Global Public Health at New York University. The food, by the way, was a chocolate fudge Pop Tart. Interview Summary So, who has regulatory oversight with these things that are added to foods? The FDA has the authority over all of those packaged foods. So, Pop Tarts, all of that type of packaged foods and the ingredients in there. Can you explain the nature of their authority and the concept of GRAS and what that stands for? Yes. So, there are two main ingredients in our food, but there is also color additives and other things that we didn't get to in our study. But the two main ingredients are called 'food additives' and then 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS substances. And these are the two ingredients that are in all the processed foods. They're both complex substances, but they're regulated differently. GRAS is assumed to be safe. And food with GRAS substances is presumed to be safe as long as there's a generally agreement among scientists that it's safe, or if it's been in use in food since 1958. Food additives, on the other hand, are presumed to be unsafe. And so, foods that have food additives must have the food additive be approved for the condition of use. So actually, the FDA issues regulations on the food additives. Is it true that the FDA authority covers lots of these chemical type things that get put in foods that we discussed? But also, things that occur naturally in some things like caffeine? Yes. And so, caffeine is considered GRAS or generally recognized as safe. The FDA has a tolerance level for cola-type beverages for caffeine. It actually doesn't enforce that as you see, because we have energy drinks that far exceed that type of level. So, there's different types of GRAS substances. But they can be very complex substances that are actually not so different than food additives. Who decides at the end of the day whether something's safe or not? You imagine this battalion of scientific experts that the FDA has on hand, or consults with, to decide whether something's safe or not. But how does it work? Unfortunately, that's not exactly the case. When it comes to food additives, the industry must petition the FDA and provide evidence showing that it's safe. And the FDA promulgates a regulation saying that it agrees it's safe and it can be used for the things that it set forth in the regulation. For GRAS, there are two mechanisms. One is the industry can notify the FDA that it thinks something's safe. And then it actually goes through a similar transparent process where the FDA will evaluate the evidence submitted. Or, shockingly, the industry can actually decide that it's safe for themselves. And they don't have to notify the FDA. And they can add it to their food without the FDA or the public actually knowing. Now they might disclose this on a website or something, but it's actually not even required to be based on peer reviewed literature, which is actually one of the concerning aspects about this. Concerning is polite language for what one might call shocking. So, in the case of some of these things that go into the food, the industry itself decides whether these things are safe. And in some cases, they have to at least tell the FDA that something they declare as safe is going into the food. But in some cases, they don't even have to do this. Right. So, they only have to if they've determined that it's a food additive. But actually, the industry itself is deciding that it's a food additive versus GRAS. Once it made the decision, it's GRAS, it doesn't even have to notify the FDA that it considers it safe. If they do, they are supposed to rely on their own research saying that it's safe. But actually, there's some alarming parts about that as well. The other outside research that's not my own found that the panels of experts that they employ, 100 percent of the people on those panels have financial conflicts of interest. So, that's already worrisome. They're receiving money from the food industry in some way. Yes. To say that the ingredient is safe. Another scary part is that if they do notify the FDA and they're not happy with how the FDA is reacting to their GRAS notification, they can actually request a cease and desist. The FDA will issue a cease and desist letter, and then they can actually go to market with that ingredient. Pretty amazing. Like loopholes that not only a truck can go through, but a train and everything else. That's really pretty remarkable. So one could say that the risk built into this system is hypothetical, and it works pretty well. But is that true? I mean, are there cases where things have gotten through that probably shouldn't have? Or is it just that we don't know? I think there's a lot of unknowns. The Environmental Working Group does that research and they have identified things that they find to be concerning. A lot of it is that we actually don't know what we don't know, right? So even the FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know. And that is, is part of the concern, that you can't just identify this by looking at the nutrition facts label where they list ingredients. Sometimes they just use terms like spices, flavorings, colorings, chemical preservatives. But that could be masking an ingredient that has never been examined and for which It's unclear that it's actually safe. I know there have been some policy efforts in places such as California to prohibit use of some of these things that have otherwise been considered safe by the FDA, or perhaps just by industry. Is that true that's happening more and more? Yes, actually there has been. Because of the gap in the FDA's oversight, we are seeing states, and it's actually a pretty shocking situation, that California banned four ingredients that the FDA did not. And it's saying that those ingredients are not safe to be in food in California. And given what a huge market California is, the thinking is that the industry will have to change their ingredients across the nation. And frankly, they've already taken those ingredients out of the same foods in Europe, where those ingredients are not allowed. So how much do you trust this self-policing by the industry? To be honest, I'm quite concerned about it. The FDA has the authority to review substances post market, so after they're already in the ingredients. But we see that it can take years or even decades. In the case of, remember, partially hydrogenated oils, which were artificially produced trans-fat. It took decades for them to get that removed from the food supply, despite significant research showing that it had caused health harm. So, even when there is evidence of harm, it takes quite a long time for the FDA to remove it. And in the case of another ingredient recently where California banned it, then the FDA decided to ban it. So, it does worry me that even their post market authority is not being utilized to the extent that it should. Let's think about what a good set of defaults might be and how this might actually play out in practice. If you'd assume these things that go into foods are not safe by default, then the question is what would it take to make sure they're safe before they're allowed in the food supply? And it would take toxicology studies, studies with lab animals perhaps, studies with humans. I don't know exactly how these things are tested, but one can imagine it's not an easy or a quick process. Nor probably an inexpensive one. But somebody would have to do it, and if government can't do it, you can't rely on industry to do it. I wonder if the default might be fewer things in the food supply and whether that might not be a pretty good thing? I love that you said that because that's the conclusion I came to as well. Why do we need all these new ingredients? We already have ultra processed foods, which are by definition contain all these ingredients that we don't really know what they are. And why do we even need new ingredients? I think they could even put a moratorium on new ingredients and say, let's take a, take an analysis of what we've got in the food supply at this point. And to be honest, it would take Congress to act to change FDA's authority to give them more authority to do what you just suggested. And of course, resources, which would be personnel like you described. So maybe that chocolate Pop Tart that has 56 ingredients could get by with 41 or 32 or 17. And you know, maybe we'd be just fine having it with fewer ingredients. One interesting thing that I've heard about, but I'm not an expert in because my background isn't law, is I know it's possible for outside parties to bring lawsuits against government for failing to execute its duties. Has there been any talk about possible lawsuits taking on the FDA for failing to protect the public's health with regard to these things? Well, actually, there was a lawsuit already. These consumer protection organizations sued the FDA, arguing that they weren't protecting the public. And that they were actually ceding authority to the industry, which, they by definition are. But according to the law, because Congress didn't require them to review these ingredients pre market, the court found that the FDA did not violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. And so, they were operating according to the law. But also, to your point, I could see other lawsuits would be possible about them not actually exercising their post market authority to protect the public. Those could be from private lawsuits or a state attorney's general. There are different ideas there. So, what do you suggest going forward? You know what? Don't eat the Pop Tart. I think you got to avoid the many truly ultra processed foods and go for the lower processing levels. It's kind of that original advice. If you can't understand the ingredient list, maybe pick something different. And there are options within the same categories, right? There are potato chips that have three ingredients and there's potato crisps that have something like 12. So there are different options in that way. Bio Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

Commentary by Dr.  Hailei Liu

In this episode of "Hawk Droppings," Hawk interviews Dr. Melanie Matheu, PhD (Laughter in Light on TikTok), an immunologist and scientist, to discuss H5N1 bird flu. Dr. Matheu explains that H5N1 is a highly pathogenic influenza virus that has historically had a 52-56% mortality rate in humans, though this rate could decrease if the virus becomes more widespread. While the virus currently cannot spread between humans, Dr. Matheu warns that it is likely only one mutation away from gaining this ability, which she estimates could happen within the next two years.The conversation explores how H5N1 differs from COVID-19, noting that influenza viruses generally require higher viral loads for infection and spread less easily than coronaviruses. Dr. Matheu discusses existing H5N1 vaccines and their potential effectiveness, explaining that while vaccines exist, the U.S. only has about 4.8 million doses stockpiled. The discussion also covers how prior COVID infections or Long COVID might impact susceptibility to H5N1, with Dr. Matheu explaining that COVID-related immune system dysfunction could make people more vulnerable to future infections.The interview concludes with a broader discussion about the state of scientific communication and trust in the United States. Both host and guest express concern about the spread of medical misinformation and the potential impact of losing platforms like TikTok, which has served as an important channel for scientists to communicate directly with the public. They also discuss their apprehension about how future public health crises might be handled given the current political climate and declining trust in scientific institutions.Dr. Matheu's Substack article on H5N1 - a good companion read for what is discussed in this episode: https://lilscience.substack.com/p/is-h5n1bird-flu-the-next-pandemicDr. Matheu's Social Media Links:Substack: https://lilscience.substack.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/melanie_matheu_phd/Threads: https://www.threads.net/@melanie_matheu_phdBlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/lilscience.bsky.social Episode Correction: The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) revoked the board certification of Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, a cardiologist who promoted controversial views about COVID-19 (not his license to practice medicine). SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Droppings On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Droppings RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

Trump has made his picks for key public health roles in his administration, nominating family medicine doctor and Fox News contributor Dr. Janette Nesheiwat to be the next surgeon general, Johns Hopkins surgeon Dr. Marty Makary to lead the FDA, and former Florida congressman Dr. Dave Weldon as director of the CDC. Politico reporter Alice Miranda Ollstein joins Laura Barrón-López to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Get your gold and silver from the only company I trust! Colonial Metals Group has specials incentives for the Joy audience so get started today! www.colonialmetalsgroup.com/JoyThis is a learning moment.You are being gaslit.Yesterday, as Trump was traveling to a WWE, fake wrestling match he decided to post a message on his playground platform Truth Social.Unbelievably he wrote this:“We're coming up on the five year anniversary of Covid, and if you recall, under President Trump's leadership, we had incredible public health policies. President Trump's unparalleled creation of Operation Warp Speed was one like we've never seen before! - Dr. Janette Neishewat, FoxNews”Amazingly, he posted this on the same day that a major paper (establishing a causal link between Trump's shot and death) was peer reviewed and published after being censored for over a year. The research was conducted by Dr. McCullough, Dr. Makis and a critical group of medical freedom doctors and is linked below.This publication proves that the data is CLEAR and the shots will likely go down as the deadliest in human history. This fact, along with multiple judgements in favor of vaccine injured and public sentiment shifting rapidly makes Trump's post VERY confusing and troubling.Trump knows that his base HATES his vaccine.Yet he continues to shove it down their throats.The question is WHY?This appears to me to be strategic gaslighting and a very troubling sign that the pivot BACK to ‘The Science' is imminent unless we stand up and speak out as critics.Watch HERE ———>https://rumble.com/v5qka6n-trump-declares-his-covid-shot-was-incredible-public-health-policy-on-truth-.htmlShannon's Top Headlines November 18, 2024MAJOR Paper Published Establishing Causal Link Between COVID Jab & Death:https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/a-systematic-review-of-autopsy-findings-in-deaths-after-covid-19-vaccination/Vaccine Makers See Stocks Fall After RFK Jr. Announcement:https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bp-vaccine-makers-stocks-fall-rfk-jr-announcement/Techo-Populism Like Moths To A Flame:https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/technopopulism-like-a-moth-into-the?r=i14cc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true‘Digital Twin' Of Earth Being Created To Predict The Future, Micro-Manage Everythinghttps://www.technocracy.news/digital-twin-of-earth-being-created-to-predict-the-future-micro-manage-everything/SJ Show NotesCheck out Shannon's Patriot TV landing page! www.patriot.tv/joyPleas Extra special bonus from Field of Greens!!!!Plug in the promo code SHANNON for an additional 15% off your purchase!Go to www.fieldofgreens.com to shop and save! Support the showPlease Support Our Sponsors! Achieve financial independence with Colonial Metals Group!!! Set up a SAFE & Secure IRA or 401k with a company who shares your values and supports this show! Learn about your options HERE ——>https://colonialmetalsgroup.com/joy

On today's Midday Healthwatch, our monthly conversations about public health with Dr. Leana Wen, we discuss the future of public health policy as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to begin his second term. Given his administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic during his first term, what can we expect in the case of a future health crisis? And what will the fate of agencies like the FDA or CDC be? Wen will answer your questions about your health concerns, including bird flu, COVID-19 and more. Wen was the Health Commissioner of Baltimore City from 2014 to 2018. In addition to being a columnist on health matters for the Washington Post, she also writes on medical topics for CNN, and she serves as a scholar at George Washington University and the Brookings Institution.Email us at midday@wypr.org, tweet us: @MiddayWYPR, or call us at 410-662-8780.

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter McCullough and Malcolm – It was a historical election that will change the trajectory of our nation with an opportunity to bring Americans together and to make America a healthier and more prosperous nation. We will put forth the framework for Public Health Policy and a Healthier America on today's broadcast. Dr. McCullough calls for strong clinical leadership in healthcare...

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter McCullough and Malcolm – It was a historical election that will change the trajectory of our nation with an opportunity to bring Americans together and to make America a healthier and more prosperous nation. We will put forth the framework for Public Health Policy and a Healthier America on today's broadcast. Dr. McCullough calls for strong clinical leadership in healthcare...

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter McCullough and Malcolm – I find myself without a candidate -- with the looming possibility that our elections could be theater... I do get tight-chested and get irregular beating, but my ECGs and EKGs are fine. Should I worry?... How long does the spike protein from the vax last in the body?... The vaccine exhausts the T-cells and makes the body IGg4 tolerant, but is this true for everyone?

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter McCullough and Malcolm – I find myself without a candidate -- with the looming possibility that our elections could be theater... I do get tight-chested and get irregular beating, but my ECGs and EKGs are fine. Should I worry?... How long does the spike protein from the vax last in the body?... The vaccine exhausts the T-cells and makes the body IGg4 tolerant, but is this true for everyone?

On New York University Week: There's a lifeline for those in psychological distress, but how many people know about it? Jonathan Purtle, Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at the School of Global Public Health and Director of Policy Research at the Global Center for Implementation Science, examines this. Dr. Purtle's research focuses […]

Nurses Out Loud – In this episode, we examine critical issues in public health: Judge Edward M. Chen's ruling on fluoride's risks, raising concerns about children's cognitive health, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s potential leadership in HHS, promising new transparency. Joined by expert guests, we address regulatory accountability, health policy shifts, and the safety of America's water and health standards.

Nurses Out Loud – In this episode, we examine critical issues in public health: Judge Edward M. Chen's ruling on fluoride's risks, raising concerns about children's cognitive health, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s potential leadership in HHS, promising new transparency. Joined by expert guests, we address regulatory accountability, health policy shifts, and the safety of America's water and health standards.

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (10/25/24). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.  !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v5hvbn9","div":"rumble_v5hvbn9"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (24) Diana Panchenko

Our guest is Matthew Halma, member of the FLCCC Alliance and one of the three authors (the other two being Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough) of a research paper recently published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. Matthew discusses the biological plausibility of harm from secondary exposure to mRNA shots through bodily fluids.Reference Linkshttps://informedchoicewa.substack.com/https://covid19criticalcare.com/experts/matthew-halma-msc/https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/inadvertent-exposure-to-pharmacologically-designed-lipid-nanoparticles-via-bodily-fluids-biologic-plausibility-and-potential-consequences/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Our guest is Matthew Halma, member of the FLCCC Alliance and one of the three authors (the other two being Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough) of a research paper recently published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. Matthew discusses the biological plausibility of harm from secondary exposure to mRNA shots through bodily fluids. Reference Links https://informedchoicewa.substack.com/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/experts/matthew-halma-msc/ https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/inadvertent-exposure-to-pharmacologically-designed-lipid-nanoparticles-via-bodily-fluids-biologic-plausibility-and-potential-consequences/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In supporting Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is reportedly vying for a possible position in his administration related to healthcare policy or food regulation. On Today's Show:Rachael Bedard, MD, geriatrician, palliative care doctor and a writer, talks about how a Trump win - and the likelihood for a plum position in the administration for RFK, Jr. - would harm public health.

For years, people felt good drinking a glass or two of red wine for the supposed health benefits, but last year the World Health Organization declared that “no level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.” The debate over alcohol and health is happening as the federal government prepares to release new dietary and nutrition guidelines next year. We'll talk to experts about whether light drinking is harmful and what we can expect from the new guidelines. And we want to hear from you, how much alcohol do you deem safe? Guests: Esther Mobley, senior wine critic, San Francisco Chronicle Dr. Gregory Marcus, cardiologist, electrophysiologist and professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco Adam Sherk, scientist, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria - He is also a researcher for the World Health Organization's Collaborating Centre for Alcohol and Public Health Policy.

Join us as we speak with Leroy Akoto, an MPH student studying Public Health Policy and former personal trainer turned public health advocate. Leroy shares how his early experiences in fitness and nutrition sparked a deep passion for helping others, ultimately leading him to pursue sociology and public health. We explore his commitment to addressing social stratification, criminal justice reform, and mental health, particularly within marginalized communities. Leroy also discusses his creative side and how he uses storytelling to challenge societal perceptions.  To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

 In this segment of "Kim on a Whim," Kim St. Onge delves into the recent bird flu outbreak in Colorado, where 1.8 million chickens are set to be culled. She questions the necessity of such drastic measures and discusses the potential political motivations behind the upcoming International Bird Flu Summit in Washington, DC. Kim also draws parallels with the COVID-19 pandemic, expressing concerns about renewed travel restrictions and mass vaccination efforts.

Chair and Science Director of the Hood Medicine Initiative, Dr. Neecey Hudson, and Founder of Masked Together America, Julie Lam, to discuss public health policy particularly as it relates to the future of covid.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Each year, ASTHO publishes their anticipated top 10 public health policy issues. It is perhaps no surprise that opioids and nicotine products make this list based on the current trends.  In this episode of the Public Health Insight Podcast, their Chief Medical Officer talks about the chronic nature of addiction and the importance of addressing social determinants of health. The conversation also delves into the successes and challenges in tobacco control, particularly the rise of e-cigarettes. Dr. Plescia emphasizes the need for effective policy interventions, changing social norms, and the role of young public health professionals in reducing health disparities.Guest◼️ Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, Chief Medical Officer at Association of State and Territorial Health OfficialsReferences◼️ Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH Profile on UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health◼️ ASTHO Unveils Top 10 State Public Health Policy Issues to Watch in 2024◼️ 2023 Environmental Scan of Current and Emerging Public Health PrioritiesHosts & Producers◼️ Gordon Thane, BMSc, MPH, PMP®◼️ Leshawn Benedict, MPH, MSc, PMP®Production Notes◼️ Music from Johnny Harris x Tom Fox: The Music RoomSubscribe to the NewsletterSubscribe to The Insight newsletter so you don't miss out on the latest podcast episodes, live events, job skills, learning opportunities, and other engaging professional development content here.Send us a Text Message to let us know what you think.

Israel Cross, an officer in the United States Public Health Service, has devoted his career to improving the lives of older adults from a policy level. He discusses the most pressing challenges facing older adults, including financial security, caregiver support, access to technology, and the dangers of climate change.. About Israel LCDR Israel Cross is a gerontologist and a dedicated United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps officer with over fifteen years of experience. He is celebrated for his interdisciplinary approach to improving the quality of life for vulnerable populations, particularly older adults. Cross's collaborative efforts with professionals from healthcare, health information technology, and community engagement have been instrumental in elevating the standards of care for the populations he serves. His work is deeply rooted in addressing health equity, with a focus on the intersection of older adult health, caregiving, and climate change. As a passionate advocate for older adult health and caregiving, Cross is committed to ensuring equitable access to healthcare and improving the well-being of underserved communities. His expertise and dedication make him a valuable asset in advancing health equity initiatives and driving meaningful progress in addressing the complex challenges facing aging populations. He is a certified dementia practitioner and holds an aging-in-place and home modification certification from University of Southern California. Key Takeaways The most pressing multigenerational challenges of aging are financial security, caregiver support, access to technology, and the dangers of climate change. Currently, there are not enough policies that support economic security in later life. Older adults often lack adequate retirement savings, posing a significant challenge for multiple generations. The Latin phrase "cogito ergo sum" means "I think, therefore I am." Thinking about yourself positively as you age can have a significant impact. There is a shift from social determinants of health to social drivers of health. The term "determinants" implies a sense of finality, stripping people of their agency to manage their own health care and well-being. The principle of “Nothing about us without us” emphasizes the importance of involving people in decisions that affect their lives. The critical intersection of climate change and aging relates to health equity. Older adults are most likely to be left behind during disasters. During Hurricane Katrina, over 70% of those who died were over 65. In the California wildfires in 2018, over 85% of those who died were over 80. In Hurricane Florence, over two-thirds of those who died were over 60. During the 2023 Hawaii fires, over 70% of those who died were over 60.

State and local government public health agencies lost nearly half of their employees between 2017 and 2021. This and many other factors have contributed to a shortage in the workforce. The confusing part is that more people are graduating with public health training than ever before but only 17% are landing in government jobs after finishing school.In this episode of the Public Health Insight Podcast, Dr. Marcus Plescia of ASTHO joins us to help us make sense of this all and to share various solutions that are being explored by states and territories. Guest◼️ Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, Chief Medical Officer at Association of State and Territorial Health OfficialsReferences◼️ Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH Profile on UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health◼️ ASTHO Unveils Top 10 State Public Health Policy Issues to Watch in 2024◼️ Strengthening the Public Health Workforce: Streamlining Government Processes and Dedicated Sustainable Funding◼️ 2023 Environmental Scan of Current and Emerging Public Health PrioritiesHosts & Producers◼️ Gordon Thane, BMSc, MPH, PMP®◼️ Leshawn Benedict, MPH, MSc, PMP®Production Notes◼️ Music from Johnny Harris x Tom Fox: The Music RoomSubscribe to the NewsletterSubscribe to The Insight newsletter so you don't miss out on the latest podcast episodes, live events, job skills, learning opportunities, and other engaging professional development content here.Send us a Text Message to let us know what you think.

After initially considering a career in architecture before high-school, Dr. Marcus Plescia went on to pursue a career in medicine and is now the Chief Medical Officer at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO).In this episode of the Public Health Insight Podcast, Dr. Plescia shares his experience:◼️ Pursuing a dual degree in medicine and public health;◼️ Working in the Bronx during the HIV epidemic;◼️ Shifting to focus on non-communicable diseases;◼️ Providing leadership to health departments and entire agencies;◼️ Maintaining a good work-life balance despite all the commitments Guest◼️ Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, Chief Medical Officer at Association of State and Territorial Health OfficialsReferences◼️ Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH Profile on UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health◼️ ASTHO Unveils Top 10 State Public Health Policy Issues to Watch in 2024◼️ 2023 Environmental Scan of Current and Emerging Public Health PrioritiesHosts & Producers◼️ Gordon Thane, BMSc, MPH, PMP®◼️ Leshawn Benedict, MPH, MSc, PMP®Production Notes◼️ Music from Johnny Harris x Tom Fox: The Music RoomSubscribe to the NewsletterSubscribe to The Insight newsletter so you don't miss out on the latest podcast episodes, live events, job skills, learning opportunities, and other engaging professional development content here.

David Fidler, senior fellow for global health and cybersecurity at CFR, discusses the factors shaping U.S. health and climate policy included in his Council Special Report, A New U.S. Foreign Policy for Global Health. Penelope Overton, climate reporter at the Portland Press Herald, speaks about her experiences reporting on climate and environment stories in Maine and their intersection with public health outcomes. The host of the webinar is Carla Anne Robbins, senior fellow at CFR and former deputy editorial page editor at the New York Times.  TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations Local Journalists Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher focused on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. This webinar is part of CFR's Local Journalists Initiative, created to help you draw connections between the local issues you cover and national and international dynamics. Our programming puts you in touch with CFR resources and expertise on international issues and provides a forum for sharing best practices. We're delighted to have over thirty-five participants from twenty-two states and U.S. territories with us today, so thank you for joining this discussion, which is on the record. The video and transcript will be posted on our website after the fact at CFR.org/localjournalists. So we are pleased to have David Fidler, Penelope Overton, and host Carla Anne Robbins to lead today's discussion on “Climate Change and Public Health Policy.” David Fidler is a senior fellow for global health and cybersecurity at CFR. He is the author of the Council special report A New U.S. Foreign Policy for Global Health. Professor Fidler has served as an international legal consultant to the World Bank, the U.S. Department of Defense, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And his other publications include The Snowden Reader, Responding to National Security Letters: A Practical Guide for Legal Counsel, and Biosecurity in the Global Age: Biological Weapons, Public Health, and the Rule of Law. Penelope Overton is the Portland Press Herald's first climate reporter. She's written extensively on Maine's lobster and cannabis industries. She also covers Maine state politics and other health and environmental topics. In 2021, she spent a year as a spotlight fellow with the Boston Globe exploring the impact of climate change on the U.S. lobster fishery. And before moving to Maine, Ms. Overton covered politics, environment, casino gambling, and tribal issues in Florida, Connecticut, and Arizona. And, finally, Carla Anne Robbins is a senior fellow at CFR and cohost of the CFR podcast The World Next Week. She also serves as the faculty director of the Master of International Affairs Program and clinical professor of national security studies at Baruch College's Marxe School of Public and International Affairs. And previously, she was deputy editorial page editor at the New York Times and chief diplomatic correspondent at the Wall Street Journal. So thank you all for being with us. I'm going to turn the conversation over to Carla to run it, and then we're going to open up to all of you for your questions, which you can either write in the Q&A box but we would actually prefer you to raise your hand so we can hear your voice, and really open up this forum to share best practices and hear what you're doing in your communities. So with that, Carla, over to you. ROBBINS: Thank you, Irina. And I'm glad you're feeling better, although your voice still sounds scratchy. (Laughs.) Welcome back. So, David and Penny, thank you for doing this. And thank you, everybody, for joining us here today. This is—Penny, at some point I want to get into the notion of covering cannabis and lobsters because they seem to go very well together, but—(laughs)—and how you got that beat. But, David, if we can start with you, can you talk about the relationship between the climate and public health threats like the COVID pandemic? I think people would tend to see these as somewhat separate. They're both global threats. But you know, why would rising temperatures increase, you know, the emergence or spread of pathogens? I mean, are they directly driving—one driving the other? FIDLER: Yes. I'll just give a quick public health snapshot of climate change as an issue. In public health, the most important thing you can do is to prevent disease threats or other types of threats to human health. In the climate world, that's mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. That hasn't gone so well. That creates, then, the second problem: If you have—if you're not preventing problems from emerging, threatening human health and the infrastructure that supports human health, then you have to respond. And that's climate adaptation. And in climate adaptation, we deal—public health officials and experts are going to have to deal with a range of issues. Close to if not at the top of the list is the way in which the changing nature of the global climate through global warming could increase—and some experts would argue is increasing—the threat of pathogenic infections and diseases within countries and then being transmitted internationally. And this leads to a concern about what's called a one health approach because you have to combine environmental health, animal health, and human health to be able to understand what threats are coming. And climate change plays—is playing a role in that, and the fear is that it will play an even bigger role. Coming out of the problems that we had with dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, this also fills public health officials with alarm because we didn't do so well on that pathogenic threat. Are we ready to deal with potential pathogenic threats that global warming exacerbates in addition to all the other health threats that are going to come with climate change? ROBBINS: So can we just drill down a little bit more on that, as well as a variety of other health threats from climate change? So, like, with malaria, like, more water; water, you know, pools; mosquitoes; malaria spreads itself. With COVID, there was this whole question about, you know, loss of jungles, and maybe animals come in closer to humans, and things spread that way. Can you talk some more about what changes happen to the world around us that—with climate change that could increase the possibility of people getting sick, as well as other stresses on our bodies? FIDLER: Yes. In terms of vector-borne diseases such as malaria or dengue fever, the concern is that as global warming happens the area in which the vectors that carry these diseases will expand. So if you have malaria-carrying mosquitoes, if global warming is expanding the range of possibilities for those mosquitoes to inhabit, then there's a(n) increased public health threat from those vector-borne diseases. If you have a situation in which that global warming is also happening in connection with waterborne diseases, it's both the excess amount of water that you might have with flooding as well as potential shortages of water that you have could also increase the threat of waterborne diseases. So global warming has these effects on potential pathogenic threats. Deforestation is a concern in connection also with humans coming more into contact with pathogens that we haven't experienced before. Unfortunately, we still don't really know what the origin of the COVID-19 virus was, largely because of geopolitical problems. But also, as global warming affects forested areas or other types of ecosystems, the possibility for pathogens to emerge and effect public health increases. ROBBINS: And then there are other effects, like loss of access to water, and rising heat, and all these other things which are part of—because I would suppose that in a lot of places, you know, people would think, well, you know, I live in Kansas; I'm not going to be really worried about loss of a jungle or something of that sort. So in the United States, if you're a public health official, and you haven't thought about climate change as a—as a public health issue, and you want to go make the pitch, what would you say that—how climate is already potentially affecting people's health? FIDLER: Yes, and this is one of the most interesting policy challenges about climate adaptation. Different areas of every country are going to experience climate change differently. So in some parts it might be wildfires. In another part it might be extreme heat. In another part it might be the spread of vector-borne diseases. And in other—in coastal areas, you know, sea level rise. In other areas, shortage of water because of drought. And so for any given locality, right, there could be diverse and different effects of climate change on public health from even a neighboring state or certainly a state, you know, across the country. City and county public health officials and state public health officials are already trying to start to get their head around the types of threats that their communities are going to face. And that's what's going to be interesting to me about today's conversation, is how those types of effects are being discussed at the local level. A critical principle that's usually put in—on the table for any policy discussion, whether it's foreign policy or local policy, is that if you don't have community buy-in, you don't have community commitment to dealing with some of these problems, the policy solutions are going to be far more difficult. ROBBINS: So, Penny, you are new—reasonably new to this beat, and your newspaper created this beat, which is—you know, which is a sort of extraordinary thing. I mean, how big is your newsroom? OVERTON: I think it's about fifty people— ROBBINS: And the notion— OVERTON: —if you include, you know, sports reporters and everybody. ROBBINS: So the notion that they would—maybe your newspaper's the rare local newspaper that's doing really well, but most local newspapers are, you know—(laughs)—are battling these days. Why did they decide that they wanted to create a climate beat? OVERTON: I think that our readers were asking for it. I mean, everybody—I think you find that every newspaper is writing climate stories, you know, in some way, even if it's just running wire—like, national wire stories. And of course, papers are and every news outlet is obsessed with metrics, and we know what readers are looking for. Sometimes the stories aren't necessarily labeled climate, but they are, you know, climate-related. And so in trying to sort out during a general newsroom kind of reshuffle about what readers, especially what our online readers—since that's where everything is kind of moving towards—what they were really looking for, climate was one of the topics that kind of rose to the top. And then also we're part of a newspaper family in Maine where there's a—you know, every—a lot of weeklies, several dailies that all belong under one ownership. It's actually a nonprofit ownership now, as of about a year ago. So I don't think it's a coincidence that it went nonprofit at the same time that they decided to do a climate beat. But one of the topics that unite all of the papers across a really, you know, far-flung state with the areas where you have really well-off people that live along the shore, people who aren't so well-off in the interior, there's not a lot that sometimes unites our state, but everybody was interested in this from the fishermen—who may not want to call it climate change, but they know that things are changing and it's impacting their bottom line; to the loggers up north who can't get into their—you know, their forest roads are now basically mud season for much longer than they used to be, they're not frozen anymore for as long as they were so they can't get in and harvest the way that they were; farmers. I mean, the three Fs in Maine—forestry, farming, and fishing—are, you know, pretty big, and they all care immensely about climate because they know it's affecting their bottom line. So I think that that really united all of our newsrooms. ROBBINS: So can you talk a little bit more about that? Because I—you know, you've lived in places other than Maine, right? I mean, I used to live in Miami, and it's really hot in Miami these days. And the New York Times had this really interesting interactive a couple of years ago in which you could put in the year you were born and your hometown, and it would tell you how many more days of the year would be over 90 degrees. And it was just wild how many more days in Miami it would be. I mean, it's pretty hot in Miami, but many more days now than it was. And you've seen already this spring how bad it is in Miami. So I think to myself, Maine. I mean, Maine—I went to school in Massachusetts; I know what Maine is like. So I would think that Maine would be—it's going to take a while for—you know, for it to come to Maine, but what you're saying is it's already in Maine. So can you talk about how—you know, how it is? And, obviously, it's affecting Maine for them to create a beat like that. So what sort of stories are you writing? OVERTON: Well, I mean, Maine is definitely—you know, its impacts are going to be different. The actual climate threats are different in Maine than they are, say, like in Arizona where I used to live and report. You know, but contrary to what you might think, we actually do have heatwaves—(laughs)—and we have marine heatwaves. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99 percent of the, you know, world's ocean bodies, and so the warming is definitely occurring here. But what we're seeing is that just because it's not—the summer highs are not as high as, like, you know, Nevada, Arizona, Southern California, the Midwest, we also are completely unprepared for what's actually happening because nobody here has ever really had to worry about it. Our temperate climate just didn't make air conditioning a big, you know, high-level priority. So the increasing temperatures that are occurring even now are—we don't have the same ability to roll with it. Warming stations in the winter? Yes, we have those. Cooling stations in the summer? No, we don't have those. And I mean, there are a few cities that are now developing that, but if you don't have a large homeless population in your city in Maine you probably don't have a public cooling station. It's really just the public library is your cooling station. So some of those—that kind of illustrates how sometimes it's not the public health threat; it's actually the public health vulnerability that a local reporter might want to be focusing in on. So you can go to the National Climate Assessment and you can pull up, like, exactly what, you know—even if you don't have a state climate office or a climate action plan, you can go to one of those National Climate Assessments, drill down, and you can get the data on how, you know, the projected temperature increases, and precipitation increases, and the extreme weather that's projected for 2050 and 2100 in your area. And those might not be, you know, nightmare stuff the way that it would be for other parts of the country, but then you'd want to be focusing in on how—what the infrastructure in your state is like. Are you prepared for what will be happening? And I think the air conditioning thing is a really good example. Maine also happens to be, you know—Florida will love this, but Maine's actually the oldest state as far as demographics go. And so you have a lot of seniors here that have been identified as a vulnerable population, and so with the combination of a lot of seniors, with housing stock that's old and doesn't have air conditioning, and that they're a long distance from hospitals, you know, don't always—they don't have a lot of emergency responder capability, that's kind of a recipe for disaster when you start talking to your local public health officers who are going to start focusing in on what happens when we have extreme weather, and the power goes out, and these people who need—are reliant on electricity-fed medical devices, they don't have access, they can't get into the hospital. You can see kind of where I'm going with the vulnerability issue. ROBBINS: David, Penny has just identified the sort of things that one hopes a public health official on a state, or county, or local town or city level is thinking about. But in your report, it says the United States faces a domestic climate adaptation crisis. And when we think about climate and adaptation, and when we look at the COP meetings, the international climate change meetings, the Paris meetings, we usually think about adaptation as something that we're going to pay for for other countries to deal with, or something of the sort. But can you talk about the concerns of our, you know, adaptation policies, and particularly state-level weaknesses? FIDLER: Yes, and I think Penny gave a nice overview of what, you know, the jurisdiction in Maine, you know, faces, and public health officials and experts are beginning to think about how do we respond to these new types of threats, which for most public health agencies and authorities across the United States is a new issue. The data is getting better, the research is getting better. The problems that public health agencies face sort of a across the United States are, one, they were never really built to deal with this problem. Some of it overlaps, so for example, if you have increased ferocity of, you know, extreme weather events—tornados, hurricanes—public health officials in those jurisdictions that are vulnerable know how to respond to those. They work with emergency management. As the scale of those types of events increases, however, there is a stress on their capabilities and their resources. Other things are new—air pollution from wildfire, the extreme heat of that; sea level rise, salination of drinking water from that; or even sinking in places where groundwater is being drawn out because of a lack of rainfall. Part of the problem that we have, that I talk about in my report coming out of COVID, is that among many issues today, the authority that public health agencies have at the federal and state level is polarized. We don't have national consensus about public health as an issue. So unfortunately, coming out of COVID, we're even less prepared for a pandemic as well as climate change adaptation. And that's something that we need to have better federal, state, local cooperation and coordination on going forward. Again, it's going to be very different from dealing with a pandemic, or even dealing with a non-communicable disease like tobacco consumption or, you know, hypertension because of the diversity—geographic—as well as the particular problem itself. So this is going to be a real challenge for federal and public health agencies, which at the moment are in some of the weakest conditions that I've seen in decades. ROBBINS: Penny, how much do you have to deal with your local public health, state public health agencies? And do they have a climate action plan? How developed are they on this? You talked about going to a particular website. Do you want to talk a little bit about that, as well? The assessments that you are making, is that information that you've gotten from your local public health agencies or from your state, or is this something that you yourself have come up with? OVERTON: Well, the state is—I think that the state of Maine is actually pretty far down the road for its size. It's like punching above its weight, I guess, when it comes to climate. They have—they published their first climate action plan in 2020, and they updated it with a—kind of like how close are we coming to our goals in 2022, and then they're in the process of developing the next four-year kind of installment, which will be due out in December. So the first one was kind of like—to me as an outsider, it felt like a “climate change is happening, folks” kind of report. In Maine we definitely—we have a split. We have an urban, you know, core that's kind of—it's liberal, and you don't have to convince those people. We have a lot of rural parts of the state where, if you ask, you know, is climate change real, you're still going to get a pretty good discussion, if not an outright fight. (Laughs.) But one of the things that I've found in this latest update is that, as they are focusing in on impacts, you get a different discussion. You don't have to discuss with people about why the change is happening; you can just agree to discuss the changes, and that pulls in more communities that might have not applied for any type of, you know, federal ARPA funds or even—Maine makes a lot of state grants available for communities that want to do adaptation. So if you can get away from talking about, you know, the man-made contributions, which, I mean, I still include in every one of my stories because it's just—you know, that's actually not really debatable, but as far as the policy viewpoint goes, if you can just focus in on the impact that's already occurring in Maine, you get a lot of people pulled into the process, and they actually want to participate. And I also have found that the two—the two impacts in Maine of climate change that are most successful at pulling in readers—(laughs)—as well as communities into planning processes are public health and extreme weather. I don't know if it's, you know, all the Mainers love their Farmers' Almanacs—I'm not sure. I mean, I'm originally from West Virginia. I still have a Farmers' Almanac every year, but I just kind of feel like extreme weather has been a wakeup call in Maine. We got hammered with three bad storms in December and January that washed a lot of our coastal infrastructure away. And, I mean, privately owned docks that fishermen rely on in order to bring in the lobster catch every year, and that's a $1.5 billion industry in Maine. Maine is small—1.5 billion (dollars), that dwarves everything, so anything the messes with the lobster industry is going to have people—even in interior Maine—very concerned. And everybody could agree that the extreme storms, the not just sea level rise, but sea level rise and storm surge, nobody was prepared for that, even in places like Maine, where I think that they are ahead of a lot of other states. So you start pulling people in around the resiliency discussion. I think you kind of have them at that point. You've got their attention and they are willing to talk, and they're willing to accept adaptations that they might not be if you were sitting there still debating whether or not climate change is real. The public health has been something that has really helped bring interior Maine into the discussion. Everybody does care. Nobody wants to lose the lobster industry because that's an income, like a tax revenue that you just wouldn't be able to make up any other way, even if you are in a Rumford or a Lewiston that have nothing to do with the shoreline. But public health, that unites—that's everybody's problem, and asthma, and, you know, all of our natural resource employees who are out working in the forests, and the blueberry fields, and whatnot, extreme heat and heat stroke—those things really do matter to them. They may disagree with you about what's causing them, but they want to make sure that they are taking steps to adapt and prepare for them. So I just have found public health to be a real rallying point. And I also think that, for local reporters, if you don't have a state action plan—because even though Maine has one—we're a lean government state—they don't—you know, they're still gathering data, and it can be pretty slim pickings. But you can go to certain things like the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, and you can start looking for—drilling down into your local Census tract even. So you don't need something at your state. Even if you're in a state that, say, politically doesn't want to touch climate change with a ten-foot pole, you can still use those national tools to drill down and find out where your community is both vulnerable to climate threats, but then also the areas that are least prepared to deal with it. And then you can start reporting on what nobody else wants to write about or talk about even. And isn't that the best kind of reporting—is you kind of get the discussion going? So I think public health is a real opportunity for reporters to do that, and also your medical—the medical associations. If you talk to doctors here at the Maine Medical Association, they may not want to talk about humanity's contribution to climate change, but they already know that climate change is posing an existing health risks to their patients, whether that be, you know, asthma, allergies, heat stroke, Lyme disease, or just mental health issues; whether you're a lobsterman worried that you're not going to be able to pay off that million-dollar boat because the lobsters are moving north, or if you are a young person who has climate fatigue. We don't have enough mental health providers as it is. Anything that's going to exacerbate a mental health issue in Maine, I mean, we don't have the tools to deal with what's already here. That's a gap that reporters feast on, right? We write about those gaps to try and point them out, and hopefully somebody steps in to resolve them. So I rambled a bit, but there's—I feel like this bee— ROBBINS: No, no, no, you— OVERTON: —it's like never like what stories—boy, what stories can I write; it's more like how am I going to get to them all, you know, because I feel like everybody out there, even if you are not a climate reporter, I guarantee you there is a climate aspect to your beat, and there is probably a public health climate aspect to your beat. I mean, if you are a crime reporter, are your prisons—(laughs)—I mean, most prisons aren't air conditioned. Just think about the amount of money that's being spent to deal with heat stroke, and think about the amount of—I mean, I'm making this up as you go, but I guarantee you if you are a prison reporter, that you're going to find, if you drill down, you're going to see disciplinary issues go through the roof when you have a heat wave. That's what I mean by, like, you can find a climate story in any beat at a newsroom. ROBBINS: That's great. I always loved the editors who had story ideas if they gave me the time to do them. David, can we go back to this—the United States faces a domestic climate adaptation crisis? If I wanted to assess the level of preparation in my state to deal with some of the problems that Penny is doing, how do I do that? What do I look for—climate action plans? Where do I start? FIDLER: Well, I think you would start at the—you've got to start both at the federal level, so what is the federal government willing to do to help jurisdictions—local, county, state—deal with the different kinds of climate adaptation problems that they're facing. And even as a domestic policy issue, this is relatively new. I think Penny gave a great description of how that has unfolded in one state. This is happening also in other jurisdictions. But again, because of the polarization about climate change, as well as fiscal constraints on any federal spending, how the federal government is going to interface with the jurisdictions that are going to handle adaptation on the ground is important—state government planning, thinking, how they talk about it, how they frame the issue, do they have a plan, is it integrated with emergency management, is it part of the authority that public health officials are supposed to have, how is that drilling down to the county, municipal, and local level. Again, it's going to be different if it's a big urban area or if it's a rural community, and so, as the impacts—and Penny is right about it—it's the impacts on human lives, direct and indirect, including damage to economic infrastructure, which supports jobs, supports economic well-being. That's a social determinant of health. And as I indicated, there are efforts underway, not only in individual states, but also in terms of networks of county and city health officials, tribal health officials, as well, for Native American areas—that they're beginning to pool best practices. They're beginning to share information. So I would look not only at those governmental levels, but I would look at the networks that are developing to try to create coordination, cooperation and sharing of best practices for how to deal with different issues. So if you have a situation where you are like Penny described in Maine, you know, you really haven't had to have air conditioning before; now you've got a problem. What are the most efficient and effective ways of dealing with that problem? Share information. Research, I think, is also ongoing in that context. And so there is a level of activism and excitement about this as a new, emerging area in public health. Again, there are lots of constraints on that that have to be taken seriously. At some point, it's just also a core principle of public health and epidemiology that you need to address the cause of these problems. And if we still can't talk about climate change and causes for that, this problem is only going to metastasize in our country as well as the rest of the world. And there are not enough public health officials at the state, county, local level, and there's not enough money if we don't try to bring this more under control. That's mitigation. We've squandered four decades on this issue. We have no consensus nationally about that question, and so that just darkens the shadow in, you know, looking forward in terms of what public health officials are going to have to handle. ROBBINS: So I want to throw it open to our group, and if you could raise your hand. We do have a question already from Aparna Zalani. Do you want to ask your question yourself, or shall I read it? Q: Can you guys hear? ROBBINS: I will—I'm sorry. Yes, please. Q: OK, yeah, basically I just wanted to know if you guys know if anybody is collecting good heat-related death data—data on heat-related deaths. ROBBINS: And Aparna, where do you work? Q: I work for CBS News. ROBBINS: Thank you. OVERTON: I'm just looking through my bookmarks because, yes—(laughs)—there are. I know that those are factored into Maine's climate action plan, and I can guarantee you that is not a Maine-only stat. That would be coming from a federal—there's just not enough—the government here is not big enough to be tracking that on its own. It is definitely pulling that down from a federal database. And I'm just trying to see if I can find the right bookmark for you. If you—and I'm not going to because, of course, I'm on the spot—but if you add your contact information to the chat, or you can send it, you know, to me somehow, I will—I'll send that to you because there is, and it's a great—there's emergency room visits, and there are other ways. They actually break it down to heatstroke versus exacerbating other existing problems. It's not necessarily just—you don't have to have heatstroke to have, like, say, a pregnancy complication related to heat illness, or an asthma situation that's made far worse. So they do have, even broken down to that level. FIDLER: And when I'm often looking for aggregate data that gives me a picture of what's happening in the United States, I often turn to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. And so they're often collecting that kind of data to build into their own models and their research, also in terms of the assistance that provide state and local governments on all sorts of issues. And because adaptation is now on the radar screen of the federal public health enterprise, there might be data on the CDC website. And then you can identify where they are getting their sources of information, and then build out a constellation of possible sources. Again, it's something—there's the National Association of City and County Health Officers—NACCHO is the acronym—that, again, it's one of those networks where you could probably see those health officers that are having to deal with extreme heat and the morbidity and mortality associated with that. There could be data that they are generating and sharing through that sort of network. And on the— OVERTON: And one thing I would add— FIDLER: Sorry. Drilling at the global level, WHO would be another place to think about looking if you wanted a global snapshot at data. OVERTON: I was going to add that will probably be underreported, as well, because in talking to, like, say—because, I mean, we're just ultra-local, right—talking to the emergency room directors at our hospitals, there are—the number of cases that might come in and really should be classified as heatstroke, but then end up being listed instead in the data, you know, in the documentation as, like, a cardiac problem. You know, it's—I think you are limited to how quickly someone on the ground might identify what's coming in as actually being heat-related versus like just whatever the underlying problem was. They might list that instead. And the other thing, too, is to make sure that—this is the hardest part about climate reporting is the correlation aspect versus causation. You're going to mostly be finding, look, heat waves are—when we have heat waves, you see this spike. You have to be really careful because it could be that the spike that's coming in emergency rooms is actually because there was also a power outage. Now I would argue extreme weather still adds that—you know, makes that linked, but you have to be careful about making sure you don't jump from correlation to causation. I'm sure you know this, but it's the same thing with every statistic, but sometimes my first draft of a story I'm like, oh, look at that. I just made climate change responsible for everything. (Laughter.) And I have to go back and like, you know, really check myself because the minute you overstep in any way is the minute that you, like, lose all credibility with the people out there who are already skeptical. FIDLER: And this is sort of—it's often where adaptation becomes a much more complicated problem for public health officials because there are underlying health problems that have nothing to do with climate change, that when you meet, you know, warming, extreme temperatures or even, you know, problems with, you know, sanitation, or water, or jobs, it can manifest itself in very dangerous diseases or health conditions that then lead to hospitalization and to biased statistics. So what Penny is saying is absolutely right, and there needs to be care here, but from a public health point of view, this is why this is going to be a monster problem. ROBBINS: Can we just—because we have other questions, but talking about bookmarks, Penny, you had—when you were talking before, you went through some other places that you go to for data and information. Can you just repeat some of those you were talking about? OVERTON: Yeah, the National Climate Assessment, the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, good old Census Bureau. (Laughs.) I mean, there are a couple of—the other thing, too, I would say that if you are in a state that doesn't have—say that public health officers are under intense pressure not to talk about climate change, still go to your local university because I guarantee you that there are grad students, you know, coming in from the blue states someplace that might be going to school in a red state, but they're going to be studying those topics, and they are going to be collecting data. I, you know—geez, countless stories based on grad student work. So I would keep those folks in mind, as well. And the other thing is that, if we're talking about public health, I always think of public health and climate in three ways. It's the threat, you know, the actual increase, something like tick-borne illness if you are Mainer because we never had ticks here really before because our winters were so awful, and the ticks couldn't last. Well, now they're here, and Lyme disease has gone through the roof. So I think about it—that's like a threat. And then there's the vulnerability issue that I was mentioning. But there's also the accountability issue—is that you want to make sure as a reporter that you are following the infrastructure money that's coming through, and that they are actually going to the places that need it the most. And public health is something that I think is a good lens to look at that. If all your money is going into the shoreline communities in Maine because they're the ones with grant officers that are writing the grant applications to get the infrastructure money, do they really need it, or is it that town in the middle of the state with no grant officer, and huge public health needs and vulnerabilities that really need it. So I would think about public health as being an important accountability tool, as well, because if you've got public health data, you can easily point out the communities that need that money the most, and then find out who is actually getting the cash. ROBBINS: So Debra Krol from the—environmental reporter from the Arizona Republic, you had your hand up. OVERTON: I love your stories, Deb. Q: Thank you very much. Just a brief aside before I ask the question because I know we're running short on time. We did a story here a few months ago about a nonprofit group that's helping these underserved communities obtain grants and do the grant reporting, and I remembered something that we learned at a local journalist get-together at CFR, so that's what influenced me to do that. So kudos to our friends over there. But my question is, is data sharing between agencies—you know, we're always trying to get statistics out of the Indian Health Service, and every other state that has tribal communities or tribal health has the same problem. So how much of these stats do you think are actually coming from tribal health departments? OVERTON: I know in Maine they are coming. In fact, Maine's five federally recognized tribes are kind of blazing a path as far as looking for grant applications. And of course, once they apply for a grant, you could go through all that data when they're looking to justify the need, right? And that will help you in just getting the, you know, situation on the ground. But I—yes, I mean, I don't know about whether there may be certain parts of the country where that's not leading the way, but also—I would also urge you to look at—go through the Veterans Administration, as well, just because I'm sure that, you know, that there's a large overlap between Indian Health Services, BIA, and the VA. And it's the way the VA provides public health care and the outcomes they get when they are serving indigenous veterans are far different than what Indian Health Services and BIA sometimes get. And they are more forthcoming with their data. FIDLER: I know that one of the issues that's on my list to do some more research for my foreign policy analysis is to look at the way the federal governments, state governments, and tribal authorities interact on climate adaptation. And that comes loaded with lots of complicated problems—just the history of relations between tribes and the federal government, the concerns that the Indian Health Service has about problems that have been around for decades, layering on top of that adaptation. So some of it, I think, gets involved in just political disputes between tribes and the federal government. Some of the data-sharing problems I think relate to a lack of capabilities to assess, process, and share the data. The tribal authorities are on the list, at least, of the federal government's radar screen for improving how they do adaptation. I personally think that how that jurisdictional tension is resolved could be a very valuable model for thinking about U.S. foreign policy and how we help other countries in adaptation. I also think there is variable experiences between tribal authorities and the federal government. A lot of activity is happening in Alaska with adaptation that I think is more advanced than it is with some of the tribal authorities' relations with the federal government in the continental United States. So we just also need to start looking, you know, beyond for best practices, principles, ways of making this work better as adaptation becomes a bigger problem. ROBBINS: Debra is—Debra Krol is offering to speak with you offline. She has some recommendations on research. Debra, thank you for that. Q: You are welcome. ROBBINS: And for the shoutout. Garrick Moritz, an editor of a small town newspaper in South Dakota. Can you tell us the name of your paper and ask your question? Q: Yeah, I am the Garretson Gazette. Hello, if you can hear me. ROBBINS: Absolutely. Q: Oh, yeah, we just get frequent—we get frequent notifications from the state health department about, you know, like West Nile and several other, you know, vector diseases, and it mostly comes from mosquitos, and mosquito populations are a real problem in a lot of places. And it's definitely one here. And so, I guess, in my own reporting and in basically reporting from people across the country, how can—what are practical tips that we can give to people, and things we can recommend to our city, state or county officials? ROBBINS: To protect themselves. OVERTON: You know, I think that if you were to go to the, you know, U.S. CDC, you're going to see that there's a lot of, you know, straight up PSAs about how to handle, you know, even right down to the degree of, like, you know, the kinds of mosquito repellent you can use that doesn't have DEET in it, you know, like it gets pretty specific. I think that that's—you could probably—and in fact I think they even have infographics that, you know, are public domain that you are able to just lift, as long as you credit the U.S. CDC. So it's almost like—and also Climate Central. And there's a couple of—I would say a couple of kind of groups out there that basically serve it up for reporters. I mean, I love Climate Central. I love Inside Climate News. These are some places that specifically work with reporters, and for smaller markets, they even do the graphic work. And it's a great resource. I would urge you to look there, too. ROBBINS: Can we talk a little bit more about other— FIDLER: And I think one of the— ROBBINS: Yeah, David, can you also talk about other resources, as well as answering—whatever answer to your question. What should we be reading and looking to for information? FIDLER: Well, in terms of vector-borne diseases, many states and the federal government has vast experience dealing with these. There's a fundamental problem—is that as the geographic range of vector-borne diseases begins to expand into areas where the history of that type of vector control just really hasn't been, you know, part of what public health officials have had to worry about, so the infrastructure, the capabilities. And then, also importantly, how you communicate with the public about those kinds of threats: what the government is doing, what they can do to protect themselves. We're sort of present at the creation in many ways, and some of these places have a whole new way of doing public health. One of the things that worries people the most in our polarized society is the disinformation and misinformation that gets in the way of accurate public health communication—whether it's COVID-19, or whether it's climate change, or whether it's something else. So that communication piece is going to be vital to making sure that people can take the measures to protect themselves, and they understand what the state governments and the local governments are doing to try to control vectors. ROBBINS: And Inside Climate News—where else do you get your information that you would recommend for our— OVERTON: Well, I just— FIDLER: Sorry, go ahead, Penny. OVERTON: Oh, no. You can go ahead. I'm actually pulling some up right now that I can put in the chat. FIDLER: Again, my go-to source is the CDC, and the CDC then also has its own information sources that you can track in terms of how, you know, public health authorities, public health policies, practices, implementation plans can be put together for all kinds of different public health threats. And the spread of vector-borne diseases has been near the top of the list longer, I think, than some of these other health threats from climate change. So that's a little bit more advanced, I think, based on the history of controlling vectors as well as the identification of that being an ongoing threat. There are synergies with what we've done in the past. With some of these other problems we don't have those synergies. We're having to create it from scratch. ROBBINS: Penny, you were talking about places that actually—smaller, you know, that newspapers can—or other news organizations can get info, can actually, you know, get graphics gratis, or something of the sort. Does Poynter also have help on climate or are there other reporting centers where people are focusing on climate that provide resources for news organizations? OVERTON: Yes, I mean, Climate Central has—I should have just like made them like the co-beat, you know, reporters for me in the first six months when I was starting this because anything that I needed to—you know, every day it was something new. OK, geez, today I've got to know everything there is to know about extreme weather and climate, you know, in such a way that I can bulletproof myself when the troll inevitably calls me and says, you know, this isn't true. And I need to have, you know, a little bit of armor prepared, right down to I need graphics, and I don't have—we don't have a graphics person, but—so Climate Central is a great place for a reporter in a small market to start. They actually, like just this past week, came out with what they call a summer package, and it basically has an overarching umbrella viewpoint of, like, here's like the climate topics that are going to brought up this summer. Inevitably it's going to be heat waves, it's going to be drought, or extreme rainfall. It's going to be, you know, summer nights getting warmer and what that means—the benefits, the longer growing seasons than some areas that, like in Maine, for example, climate change will not be all bad for Maine. It's going to mean that we have longer growing seasons in a place that has been pretty limited by the—you know, the temperature and by the amount of time that we could actually grow a crop. And then, also, I mean, we're going to have—we're going to have migration in because, like I was saying earlier, we are not going to be dealing with the extreme heat of like the Southwest, so people who are escaping like the California wildfires—we're already seeing groups of people moving to Maine because it is more temperate, and you do have a longer horizon line before you—you know, you get miserable here. And I think that if you look at those issues and you figure out how do I even start, going to Climate Central where they can actually—not only do they have the infographics, but you can type in, like, the major city in your state, you know. I can't tell you the number of times I've typed in Portland, Maine, and I get some amazing number, and it's, oh, wait, this is Portland, Oregon. So you could pull, like, your individual state, and even Maine has three states that Climate Central—or excuse me, three cities that Climate Central lists. I guarantee you that your state will probably have many more. So it will be probably a place pretty close to where you are located. And you can have the infographic actually detailed, without doing anything besides entering in the city. It will be information that's detailed to your location. That's an incredible asset for a small market reporter who doesn't have a graphics person or the ability to, like, download data sets and crunch a lot of numbers. Also— ROBBINS: That's great. OVERTON: —I would urge you to look at the National Climate Assessment. There is a data explorer that comes out with those, and that allows you to drill down to the local level. That's the way that I found out that there's a small place in Aroostook County, Maine, which is like potato country, that's going to see the greatest increase in high precipitation days in the next—I think it's in the next 50 years. I can't think of many things that aren't potato related that Aroostook County stands out for, but the fact that you play around with the data enough, and you see, look, there's a small place here in Maine that's going to be the number one greatest increase. That's why I think the climate assessment and the data explorer is so important. ROBBINS: So we're almost done, David. I wanted to throw the last question to you. I'm a real believer in comparison. I always say that to my students: Comparison is your friend. Is there any city or state in the United States, or perhaps someplace overseas that has a really good state plan for dealing with the health impacts of climate change that we could look at and say, this is really what we should be doing here? FIDLER: I mean, given that I'm a foreign policy person, I'm probably not the best person to inquire about that, but as I began to do my research to see how this is happening in the United States, I've been surprised at the number of cities, counties, state governments that have really begun to dig into the data, develop plans, you know, for whatever problem that they're going, you know, to face. I live in the—you know, the Chicagoland area. The city of Chicago has been working on adaptation for a while. The problems that it faces are going to be different than the problems that Miami faces. There's also, again, networks of cities that are starting to talk to each other about what they are doing in regards to these issues. The data is becoming better, more accessible, data visualization tools. Penny just described those sorts of things. My recommendation to those working in local journalism is to begin to probe what your jurisdictions are doing, where they are getting their information. How are they implementing and turning that information into actionable intelligence and actionable programs? And I think that local journalism will help fill out our understanding of who is taking the lead, where should we look, what are the best practices and principles around the country. ROBBINS: Well, I want to thank David Fidler, and I want to thank Penny Overton for this. And I want to turn you back to Irina. This has been a great conversation. FASKIANOS: It really has been a fantastic conversation. Again, we will send out the video, and transcript, and links to resources that were mentioned during this conversation. Thank you for your comments. We will connect people that want to be connected, as well, so thank you very much to David and Penny for sharing your expertise, and to Carla for moderating. You can follow everybody on X at @D_P_fidler, Penny Overton at @plovertonpph, and at @robbinscarla. And as always, we encourage you to go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for the latest developments and analysis on international trends and how they are affecting the United States. Again, please do share your suggestions for future webinars by emailing us at localjournalists@CFR.org. So again, thank you to you all for today's conversation, and enjoy the rest of the day. ROBBINS: Thanks, everybody. (END)

Nurses Out Loud with Nurse Michele, RN – Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, founder of IPAK Research Institute and IPAK-EDU, advances scientific knowledge and public health education. He publishes groundbreaking research on pediatric dose limits for injected aluminum, champions integrity in scientific research, and leads "Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law." His work bridges science and public understanding...

Nurses Out Loud with Nurse Michele, RN – Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, founder of IPAK Research Institute and IPAK-EDU, advances scientific knowledge and public health education. He publishes groundbreaking research on pediatric dose limits for injected aluminum, champions integrity in scientific research, and leads "Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law." His work bridges science and public understanding...

Approximately 115 people die every day in the United States from an opioid overdose, amounting to more than 400,000 deaths in the last two decades alone. The numbers are high, but we must never forget that there's a story behind every single number. Making progress in addressing this crisis requires systems thinking across a multitude of sectors and industries.What you'll hear in this episode of the Public Health Insight Podcast with Dr. Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia is:◼️ The impact of slowly evolving policies on the worsening opioid crisis;◼️ The role of stigma in hampering progressive approaches; ◼️ The value of adopting a systems thinking approach with a variety of stakeholders;  ◼️ Barriers to systems thinking include lack of funding, resources, motivation, and champions for the process;◼️ A readiness implementation tool can help coalitions and task forces assess their progress and plan strategically for a systems approach; and◼️ The conversation concludes with Dr. Loeffler-Cobia sharing her personal motivation for doing this work, reminding us that there is a story behind every statistic.Guest◼️ Dr. Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia, DrPH, MS, Director of Justice and Public Health Policy and Practice at WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center; University of Southern California Adjunct Associate ProfessorReferences◼️ Helping Leaders Address the Opioid Crisis: A Q&A With Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia◼️ The White House is now tracking opioid overdoses that don't kill. Why that's important.◼️ Understanding the Epidemic◼️ The triple wave epidemic: Supply and demand drivers of the US opioid overdose crisisHosts & Producers◼️ Gordon Thane, BMSc, MPH, PMP®◼️ Leshawn Benedict, MPH, MSc, PMP®Production Notes◼️ Music from Johnny Harris x Tom Fox: The Music RoomSubscribe to the NewsletterSubscribe to The Insight newsletter so you don't miss out on the latest podcast episodes, live events, job skills, learning opportunities, and other engaging professional development content here.

There are many stories out there about how the opioid crisis has now become one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. Some stories may be more accurate than others, but to get to the truth and truly understand the current opioid crisis, we must go back in time.What you'll hear in this episode of the Public Health Insight Podcast is our conversation with Dr. Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia, where we develop a chronological timeline of the three waves of the modern opioid crisis in the U.S., including the early use of opium and morphine, development of non-opioid pain relievers, overprescribing of OxyContin, transition to heroin, and the introduction of fentanyl. The conversation also explores the role of illicit markets in sustaining the overdose crisis.Guest◼️ Dr. Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia, DrPH, MS, Director of Justice and Public Health Policy and Practice at WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center; University of Southern California Adjunct Associate ProfessorReferences◼️ Helping Leaders Address the Opioid Crisis: A Q&A With Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia◼️ The White House is now tracking opioid overdoses that don't kill. Why that's important.◼️ Understanding the Epidemic◼️ The triple wave epidemic: Supply and demand drivers of the US opioid overdose crisisHosts & Producers◼️ Gordon Thane, BMSc, MPH, PMP®◼️ Leshawn Benedict, MPH, MSc, PMP®Production Notes◼️ Music from Johnny Harris x Tom Fox: The Music RoomSubscribe to the NewsletterSubscribe to The Insight newsletter so you don't miss out on the latest podcast episodes, live events, job skills, learning opportunities, and other engaging professional development content here.

The opioid crisis is as rampant as any other time in history and a lot of work remains to be done until we can feel the progress being made.  Every so often though, we have the privilege of meeting someone behind the work, someone who's committed a significant portion of their profession and of their lives to creating a world where the opioid epidemic is no more. What you'll hear in this episode of the Public Health Insight Podcast is a captivating conversation with Dr. Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia, Director of Justice and Public Health Policy and Practice at WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center. She shares her journey into public health and her transition into criminal justice, why she got her DrPH many years after her Master's degree, and her experiences advocating for policy change on Capitol Hill. We also get to learn more about her in the Insight Blitz segment, where she talks about living in Utah and the worst piece of advice she's ever gotten. Guest◼️ Dr. Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia, DrPH, MS, Director of Justice and Public Health Policy and Practice at WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center; University of Southern California Adjunct Associate ProfessorReferences◼️ Helping Leaders Address the Opioid Crisis: A Q&A With Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia◼️ The White House is now tracking opioid overdoses that don't kill. Why that's important.◼️ Understanding the EpidemicHosts & Producers◼️ Gordon Thane, BMSc, MPH, PMP®◼️ Leshawn Benedict, MPH, MSc, PMP®Production Notes◼️ Music from Johnny Harris x Tom Fox: The Music RoomSubscribe to the NewsletterSubscribe to The Insight newsletter so you don't miss out on the latest podcast episodes, live events, job skills, learning opportunities, and other engaging professional development content here.

Mark Blaxill and Cynthia Nevison discuss their recently published paper: Autism Tsunami: The Impact of Rising Prevalence on the Societal Cost of Autism in the United States. Reference LinksBlaxill, M, T. Rogers, and C. Nevison. 2023. Autism Tsunami: The Impact of Rising Prevalence on the Societal Cost of Autism in the United States. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law 4:227-256.https://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/_files/ugd/adf864_231644ca239249dc9ac579b5d332d872.pdf Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Mark Blaxill and Cynthia Nevison discuss their recently published paper: Autism Tsunami: The Impact of Rising Prevalence on the Societal Cost of Autism in the United States.   Reference Links Blaxill, M, T. Rogers, and C. Nevison. 2023. Autism Tsunami: The Impact of Rising Prevalence on the Societal Cost of Autism in the United States. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law 4:227-256. https://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/_files/ugd/adf864_231644ca239249dc9ac579b5d332d872.pdf

Larry and Tone invite Jazzmyne Adams on the pod to discuss all things related to her career in public health.About Jazzmyne:Jazzmyne oversees research initiatives to improve health outcomes in the community as they relate to otolaryngology diseases. In 2018, she received her Masters in Public Health with a concentration in Public Health Policy and Administration from University of Wisconsin Milwaukee-Zilber School of Public Health. Jazzmyne is a native of Milwaukee (a proud resident of Halyard Park). She has over 7 years of healthcare research experience and has also served on a number of coalitions in efforts to reduce and prevent drug abuse amongst youth in Southeast Wisconsin. When she is not working, Jazzmyne enjoys self-guided food tours with her husband Brent and exploring new parks with her children.Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=H_GNgC0AAAAJ&hl=enWelcome to the ScholarChip$ podcast hosted by Larry Alexander and Tone Gaines. Larry is a transactional attorney at a Fortune 500 Company. Tone is a Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions attorney at a large law firm in Chicago. But more importantly, both Larry and Tone are Black Men from the inner city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The duo started ScholarChip$ to (1) create a platform to have candid conversations with scholars and (2) normalize academics as a viable way to achieve upward mobility in Black and Brown communities. In other words, WE CHAMPION ACADEMIC SUCCESS.Discussions in this podcast are for general information and entertainment purposes only. Nothing contained in this podcast constitutes financial, legal, tax or any other professional advice. Always consult a professional regarding your individual circumstance. NOR DOES IT CONSTITUTE AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL GUEST. ALWAYS DO YOUR DILIGENCE. 

Health Affairs' Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil interviews Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine's Chidinma Ibe on her recent paper that provides a closer understanding of the value of community health workers' (CHW) voices, social risk factors, and how structural racism shapes CHWs' approach to intervention delivery in structurally vulnerable communities.Ibe and co-authors state their findings underscore the need to embed antiracist principles in the policies and practices that affect the public health workforce.Order the "Tackling Structural Racism in Health" issue of Health Affairs.Currently, more than 70 percent of our content is freely available - and we'd like to keep it that way. With your support, we can continue to keep our digital publication Forefront and podcasts free for everyone.

The Hawk's Nest Tunnel Disaster involved thousands of workers being exposed to silica dust, and many continued to get sick and die for years after the tunnel was finished. The project was run with total disregard for workers' lives and safety. Research: Investigation Relating to Health Conditions of Workers Employed in the Construction and Maintenance of Public Utilities : hearings before the United States House Committee on Labor, Seventy-Fourth Congress, second session, on Jan. 16, 17, 20-22, 27-29, Feb. 4, 1936.” https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=OhHRhNWDGi4C&pg=GBS.PA1&hl=en Cherniack, Martin G. "Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster." e-WV: The West Virginia Encyclopedia. 14 March 2023. Web. 08 August 2023. Cherniack, Martin. “The Hawk's Nest Incident: America's Worst Industrial Disaster.” Yale University Press. 1986. Crandall, William “Rick” and Richard E. Crandall. “Revisiting the Hawks Nest Tunnel Incident: Lessons Learned from an American Tragedy.” Journal of Appalachian Studies , Fall 2002, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Fall 2002). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41446542 Georgius Agricola “De re metallica.” Translated by Herbert Clark Hoover and Lou Henry Hoover. The Mining Magazine. 1912. https://archive.org/details/georgiusagricola00agririch Harrington, D. and Sara J. Davenport. “Review of the Literature on the Effects of Breathing Dusts, With Special Reference to Silicosis.” United States Bureau of Mines. House of Representatives Subcommittee Report. “Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Second Session of the Jordan, Jennifer. “Hawks' Nest.” From the West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly, 12:2(April 1998): 1-3. https://archive.wvculture.org/history/wvhs/wvhs122.html Lancianese, Adelina. “Before Black Lung, The Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster Killed Hundreds.” Weekend Edition Sunday. NPR. 1/20/2019. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/20/685821214/before-black-lung-the-hawks-nest-tunnel-disaster-killed-hundreds Marcus, Irwin M. “The Tragedy at Gauley Bridge.” Negro History Bulletin , April, 1976, Vol. 39, No. 4 (April, 1976). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44175749 Quail, M. Thomas. “Special Report.” Journal of Environmental Health , January/February 2017, Vol. 79, No. 6. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26330599 Rosner D, Markowitz G. A Short History of Occupational Safety and Health in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2020 May;110(5):622-628. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305581. Epub 2020 Mar 19. PMID: 32191514; PMCID: PMC7144431. Rosner, David and Gerald Markowitz. “Workers, Industry, and the Control of Information: Silicosis and the Industrial Hygiene Foundation.” Journal of Public Health Policy. 16, No. 1 (Spring, 1995). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3342976 Rukeyser, Muriel. “The Book of the Dead.” With an introduction by Catherine Venable Moore. West Virginia University press. 2018. Seventy- Fourth Congress of the United States of America. Vol. 80, pt. 5. Washington: GPO, 1936.” From West Virginia Archives and History. https://archive.wvculture.org/hiStory/disasters/hawksnesttunnel04.html Spencer, Howard W. “The Historic & Cultural Importance of the Hawks Nest Disaster.” PSJ Professional Safety. February 2023. https://www.assp.org/docs/default-source/psj-articles/vpspencer_0223.pdf?sfvrsn=afa39647_0 Stafnaker, C. Keith. “Hawk's Nest Tunnel: A Forgotten Tragedy in Safety's History.” Professional Safety. October 2006. Wills, Matthew. “Remembering the Disaster at Hawks Nest.” JSTOR Daily. 10/30/2020. https://daily.jstor.org/remembering-the-disaster-at-hawks-nest/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.