Podcasts about so rich

After having Anastasia on the pod back in March, I KNEW that I had to have her back on! Her heart for women and desire to see them shine where God has them is so beautiful and encouraging. We didn't come to the table with many notes, but with the hope that the Holy Spirit would let the conversation flow where He wanted... and GURL, it did! Anastasia touches on how rest looks different for each person and especially in different seasons of life. We chat about the importance of being still enough to hear God's whispers to us, how to rediscover truth in different areas of your life, and what it looks like to flex different spiritual muscles. The convo was just SO GOOD and SO RICH with so much truth scattered throughout, and I know you will finish this episode feeling refreshed and restored! Follow me on Instagram: Kathryn @kcoll Heart + Sole @heartandsolepodcast Sole Fitness @sole_fitness Join the Facebook Group! "Heart + Sole Podcast Insiders" Follow Anastasia on Instagram: @anastasiarjd Check out her Retreats - Tulum, Mexico & 3-Day Sacred Weekend Retreats: www.perennialbrand.co/retreats FREE 50 Questions to Reignite Your Creativity Email her at: hello@stasiarose.com Sign up for the Sole Online Training App! Use coupon code 'SOLE20' for 20% off your first month!! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/heartandsole/support

A question Rich often invites people to ask is, "Holy Spirit, what are you inviting me into today?" Usually, it's small and meaningful things rather than massive visions. So Rich encourages us to go for the new V. Forget about being part of Gen X, Gen Y or Gen Z. What's the new V? Listen to Rich's challenging and inspiring talk to find out.

This week the boys take a much needed rest from all the craziness they have come up against. So Rich decided to put out a short message to everyone. Stay tuned to the next episode where they boys talk about E3 and then the following episode is about that great game World of Final Fantasy! Please support the show at patreon.com/rpgafteryears Join us on our Discord server! discord.gg/3WPBgur Watch the show live on Twitch! We typically stream the main episodes at 9am EST on Sundays. Keep an eye out on Twitter and Discord for extra bonus recordings or time changes. It's all at twitch.tv/rpgafteryears You can also find Scott on Twitch over at twitch.tv/the_scott_spot! Send a Carrier Pigeon or Whatever: Twitter: @RPGYEARS Personal Twitters: Rich: @Hailblue1569, Scott: @TheScottSpot, Jay: @jaydhizzle, Bill: @Metunnica, Corey: @VFLCorey Email: rpgafteryears@gmail.com Check out our merch store at https://www.redbubble.com/people/RPGAfterYears/explore We Can Make This Work Probably Network: This podcast is a production of the We Can Make This Work (Probably) Network follow us below to keep up with this show and discover our many other podcasts! The place for those with questionable taste! ProbablyWork.com,Twitter, Facebook, Instagram @ProbablyWorkEmail: ProbablyWorkPod@gmail.com Master list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13CgtJfptz1S3Da2HUsJDK86SfAIPMGA-Rmi4YZUpTGw/edit?usp=sharing Album art by Dizzy Designs: designsbydizzy.com

Retiring ASCO Chief Medical Officer Dr. Richard L Schilsky gives a far-reaching interview with ASCO in Action podcast host ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis, who examines Dr. Schilsky’s trailblazing medical career, his leadership in ASCO and indelible mark on its research enterprise, and what he sees for the future of oncology. ASCO’s first-ever Chief Medical Officer even offers some friendly advice for Dr Julie Gralow, who starts as ASCO’s next CMO on February 15, 2021. In a touching tribute, Dr. Hudis also shares what Dr. Schilsky’s friendship and mentorship has meant to him personally, and suggests that Rich will still be supporting ASCO on critical priorities moving forward. Don’t miss this exchange with one of oncology’s greats! Transcript DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. CLIFFORD HUDIS: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insights into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. The ASCO in Action podcast is a series where we explore the policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for-- people with cancer. My name is Dr. Clifford Hudis. And I'm the CEO of ASCO and the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am especially pleased to have as my guest my friend, colleague, and mentor Dr. Richard Schilsky, ASCO's chief medical officer. Now, I am sure that many of our listeners have already heard that Dr. Schilsky will be leaving ASCO in February of 2021, retiring. However, I want to reassure everybody that even in retirement, he will continue to make contributions and provide leadership to all of us. And his illustrious and path-blazing career in oncology spanning more than four decades is not quite over thankfully. Rich is ASCO's first chief medical officer. And as such, he has made a truly indelible mark on all of us. He started with a proverbial blank piece of paper. The position had no precedent. It had no budget. It had no staff. But now after just eight years in the role, he has helped make the CMO a critically important position at the society. And I have to say that success is more than anything due to Rich's vision and his leadership. And that's some of what we'll be talking about today. So Rich, thank you very much for joining me today for what I hope is going to be a great casual but informative conversation about your amazing career, your unique role at ASCO, and maybe most importantly in the end what you see for the future of oncology not just in the United States, but around the world. Thanks for coming on, Rich. RICHARD SCHILSKY: Thanks, Cliff. It's great to be here today. CLIFFORD HUDIS: So with that, let's just dive right in and start at the very beginning. Rich, tell everybody why you decided to become an oncologist and maybe share a little bit about what those early days looked like for you and, in that context, what it was like to have cancer at the beginning of your career. RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, I knew from an early age that I wanted to be a doctor. And in fact, I had written a little essay when I was in sixth grade as a homework assignment called My Ambition. And my mother had tucked that away in a scrapbook. And I found it a number of years ago. And on rereading it, it was quite amazing to me to see what I was thinking about even then. Because I said not only did I want to be a doctor, but I didn't think that was enough, that I wanted to be a medical researcher because I wanted to discover new information that would help people heal from whatever their diseases might be. And so it was never really any doubt in my mind that I would be a physician. I went to medical school at the University of Chicago. But I was living in New York City at the time having grown up in Manhattan. And the only year we had off in medical school, the only time we had off in medical school, was the summer between the end of the first year and the beginning of the second year. So during that time, I went back to Manhattan. And I was able to get a fellowship from the American College of Radiology that allowed me to essentially hang out in the radiation therapy department at New York University Medical Center, which was within walking distance of where I grew up. And so I would go over there every day. And I was taken under the wing of a young radiation oncologist. And of course, I wasn't really qualified to do anything at that point except to follow him around, talk and listen to the patients. But that turned out to be a really formative experience for me because we saw the whole gamut of cancer. We saw head and neck cancers. We saw lung cancer. We saw patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer. And in those years-- this is the early 1970s-- many of these patients have fairly locally far advanced disease and were quite debilitated by it. But listening to their stories, hearing about their hopes and their struggles, really demonstrated to me the human side of cancer. So I went back to school and thought about this in the context of my own personal experience, which dated back to when I was in college when my mother's mother, my maternal grandmother, was diagnosed with breast cancer. This was 1968. And as you well know, there were very few therapies available for breast cancer in the late 1960s, mostly hormone therapies. And my grandmother had the treatment that was considered standard of care at that time, which was extended radical mastectomy followed by chest wall radiation. And some years after that first mastectomy, she had a breast cancer that developed in the opposite breast and had a second extended radical mastectomy and chest wall radiation. And these were very traumatic and disfiguring procedures for her to go through. Anyway, long story short is after another few years, she developed bone metastases and then brain metastases. And there was really very little that could be done for her other than hormone therapies. And having observed her go through that illness and realizing how limited our treatment options were and then having the experience after my first year in medical school pretty well cemented for me that I wanted to be an oncologist. I thought actually about being a radiation oncologist. But then I did my internal medicine rotation in medical school, fell in love with internal medicine. And that sort of put me on the path to be a medical oncologist. The clinical challenge of caring for cancer patients, the emotional attachment to those patients, and, of course, even then, the unfolding biology of cancer was so intellectually captivating that I actually applied for oncology fellowship when I was a senior medical student. So even before going off to do my medical residency, I had already been accepted as a clinical associate at the National Cancer Institute to start two years hence. And that's how I became an oncologist. CLIFFORD HUDIS: So it's so interesting. Because, of course, the story I'm sure for many people interested not just in oncology, but even medical education, there are little things that don't happen nowadays that happened with you like that last little vignette about the early acceptance into an advanced training program before your fellowship among other things. Can you remind us about the timeline? Because I think one of the things that many of our listeners often can lose sight of is just how new oncology really is as a specialty. ASCO itself founded in 1964. And the first medical oncology boards were mid-'70s, right? So you were in med school just before that second landmark, right? RICHARD SCHILSKY: That's right. I graduated from medical school in 1975. I started my oncology fellowship in 1977. And I got board-certified in medical oncology and joined ASCO in 1980. And so that was the time frame at that point. CLIFFORD HUDIS: So the internal medicine was actually, if I heard you right, just two years, not the now traditional four. RICHARD SCHILSKY: Yeah. I was a short tracker. I did only two years of internal medicine training rather than three. I did my training at Parkland Hospital and University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas with at that time a legendary chair of medicine, Don Seldin, who I had to get permission from him to leave the program prior to completing the third year of residency because I had already been accepted into fellowship at NCI. And he, Seldin, who was a brilliant chairman and a brilliant nephrologist, was not at all interested in cancer. And it took a bit of-- I was going to say arm twisting, but it really took bleeding on my part to get him to agree to allow me to leave the residency program to go to the NCI. But he eventually agreed. And in those years, the first-year clinical fellowship at the NCI was like being an intern all over again. There were about 15 of us. We were on call overnight in the clinical center once every two weeks. We cared for all of our inpatients as well as had a cadre of outpatients. We did all of our own procedures. We had no intensive care unit. So patients who were sick enough to require ventilator support, we cared on the floor in the inpatient service on our own with guidance from senior oncologists. It was a bit different from the way it is now. But, of course, it was fantastic on-the-job training because we just learned a ton and had to learn it very quickly. CLIFFORD HUDIS: So that's actually a great segue to the advances because there was a lot to learn then. But, wow, there's a lot more to learn, I think, now. And I have real sympathy for trainees and younger oncologists for the breadth of what they need to learn. Again, just testing your memory, but platinum came along pretty much in the mid-'70s as well, right? That was a pivotal expansion of the armamentarium for us. So what do you see-- when you summarize progress in cancer research and care over these decades, what do you think are the most pivotal or revolutionary milestones that you identify over the span of your career? RICHARD SCHILSKY: Yeah. It's really interesting to think about it historically. There were the early years of discovery in oncology from the 1950s to the 1970s when we really had the introduction of the first chemotherapy drugs and the miraculous observation that people with advanced cancer could actually obtain a remission and, in some cases, a complete remission with chemotherapy and combination chemotherapy in particular. And so that was the formative years of oncology as a medical specialty and really proof of concept that cancer could be controlled with drugs. When we got into the 1980s, the 1980s in many respects were the doldrums of progress in clinical oncology. There really was not a lot of innovation in the clinic. But what was happening and what was invisible to many of us, of course, was that was the decade of discovery of the fundamental biology of cancer. That's when oncogenes were discovered, when tumor suppressor genes were discovered, when it became clear that cancer was really a genetic disease. And that is what transformed the field and put us on the path to targeted therapy and precision medicine as we think of it today. So I think that clearly understanding the biology of cancer as we do now and all that it took to lead us to that point, which was a combination of understanding biology, developing appropriate technology that would, for example, enable the sequencing of the human genome and then the cancer genome. And the other formative technology in my opinion that really changed the way we care for cancer patients was the introduction of CT scanning. When I was still a fellow at the NCI, we did not have a CT scanner. If we needed to get detailed imaging of a patient, we did tomography. And if you remember what tomograms looked like, they were really blurry images that you could get some depth perception about what was going on in the patient's chest or abdomen. But they really weren't very precise. When CT scanning came along, it really revolutionized our ability to evaluate patients, assess the extent of disease, stage them in a much more precise way, which then allowed for better patient selection for curative surgery, better radiation therapy planning. So we don't often point to imaging advances as some of the transformative things that paved the way in oncology, but I think imaging is really overlooked to some extent. So I think the technology advances, the biological advances, are the things that really allowed the field to move forward very quickly. And by the time we got into the mid-1990s, we were beginning to see the introduction of the targeted therapies that have now become commonplace today. And then it was around 2000, I think, that we saw the introduction of Gleevec. And I'm reminded always about an editorial written by Dan Longo in The New England Journal a few years ago. And Dan and I were fellows together. We worked side by side on the wards at the clinical center and became very good friends. And Dan in his role as a deputy editor of The New England Journal wrote an editorial a few years ago that was titled "Gleevec Changed Everything." And Gleevec did change everything. It changed our entire perception of what were the drivers of cancer and how we might be able to control cancer very effectively and potentially put it into long-term remission. Now, of course, we know now that the whole Gleevec story is more of an exception than a rule in targeted therapy. And, of course, we know that tumors become resistant to targeted therapies. But we couldn't have known any of this back in the early years of oncology because we had no real insight into what caused cancer to grow or progress. And the notion of drug resistance, while we realized that it occurred, we had no idea what the mechanisms were. So it's such a different landscape now than what it used to be. It's quite remarkable. CLIFFORD HUDIS: So as you tell the story, there's, of course, a lot of focus on technology, whether it's biology and understanding the key features of malignancy or imaging or more. But what I also note in your story and I want to come back to is the people. And I can't help but reflect on where we are in this moment of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yes, we've moved to telemedicine. Everything can be accomplished via technology. And, yet, the human touch is so important. When we think about being in the room with people, when we think about face to face from the context of career development and your own career, you touched on Dr. Seldin, I think, already from the perspective of internal medicine training. But are there are other mentors or important shapers of your career that you think we should know about? RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, probably, the most influential person early in my career in medical school was John Altman. John, you may know, was the inaugural director of the University of Chicago's NCI-designated Cancer Center, which was one of the very first NCI-designated cancer centers in 1973 after the National Cancer Act of 1971 created the cancer centers program. And John, who was a leading oncologist studying Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, was a faculty member there. He was the director of our cancer center as I said. He took me under his wing even when I was in medical school and served as a real role model and mentor to me. When I was in my internal medicine training as I mentioned earlier, Don Seldin, the chair of medicine, was never particularly interested in oncology. So, to some extent, I didn't have-- I had great internal medicine training. But I did not have good mentorship in oncology. When I got to the NCI, then my whole world really opened up. And the two pivotal people there in my career were Bob Young, who was chief of the medicine branch and was my clinical mentor and remains a mentor and friend to this day, and then, of course, Bruce Chabner, who was the chief of the clinical pharmacology branch. And in my second year of fellowship when we all went into the laboratory, I went into Bruce's lab. And that's where I really got interested in the mechanism of action of anti-cancer drugs and ultimately in drug development and early phase clinical trials. And both Bob and Bruce remain very close to me even today. CLIFFORD HUDIS: So I'm concerned about time on our call today on our discussion. Because we could obviously fill lots of hours on all of these remarkable experiences and amazing people you worked with. But I'm going to ask that we fast forward a little bit. You and I share, I think, passion and love for ASCO. So I think that it's reasonable for us to focus a little bit on that for the time we have left here. You didn't start out obviously as chief medical officer at ASCO. But you were a really active ASCO volunteer and leader. Maybe tell us a little bit about some of the ASCO volunteer roles that you engaged in and what that meant to you at the time and how that led to this role. RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, I'll be brief. I joined ASCO in 1980 at the first moment that I was eligible to join ASCO. I had attended my first ASCO meeting the year before, 1979, when I was still in my fellowship training. And it was clear to me even then when the whole annual meeting was about 2,500 people in two ballrooms in a hotel in New Orleans that that was a community of scholars and physicians that I wanted to be a part of. And so, over the years, I did what people do even today. I volunteered to participate in whatever ASCO activity I could get involved with. Over the years-- I think I counted it up not too long ago-- I think I served or chaired 10 different ASCO committees, more often serving as a member, but in a number of those committees also serving as the chair over many years. And as I became more deeply involved in ASCO and saw other opportunities to engage, I had the opportunity to run for election to the board and was-- after a couple of tries was elected to serve on the board and then eventually elected to serve as ASCO president in 2008-2009. But the attraction of ASCO in many ways was a community of diverse but, in many ways, like-minded people, people who had similar passion and drive and focus. But I think what you get at ASCO in many ways is the wonderful diversity of our field. If you work in a single institution for much of your career as I did and as you did, you get to know that institution pretty well. You get to know its perspectives and its biases and its strengths and its weaknesses. But there's a whole world of oncology out there. And you can get exposed to that at ASCO because you meet and work with colleagues from every clinical setting, every research setting, people who have remarkable skills and interests and passions. And it's just a wonderful environment to help develop your career. So I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to have had the journey in ASCO that I've had culminating, of course, with ultimately my coming on the staff as ASCO's first chief medical officer. CLIFFORD HUDIS: We often joke about that blank sheet of paper. But in retrospect, it's very obvious that you had built up that collection of LEGO blocks, and then you assembled them all into the ASCO Research Enterprise, a name you gave it. And it really, in retrospect, builds, I think, very cleanly upon all of your prior experience, but also the vision that you developed based on that experience for how research should be conducted. Can you maybe share with everybody the scope and vision for the ASCO Research Enterprise, what the intent was, and where you see it going, and what it includes today? RICHARD SCHILSKY: Sure. I won't claim that I came to ASCO with the whole thing fully developed in my mind. As you said, when I came, I literally did have a blank slate. Allen Lichter, who hired me, said, come on board and help me make ASCO better. And so I, in a sense, reverted to what I knew best how to do, which was clinical research. And having in my career been a cancer center director, a hem-onc division chief, a cooperative group chair, I had a lot of experience to draw on. And it was obvious to me that ASCO was fundamentally an organization that took in information from various sources, evaluated it, vetted it, collated it, and then disseminated it through our various channels, most notably our meetings and our journals. But ASCO itself did not contribute to the research enterprise. And that seemed to me to be a lost opportunity. We knew that ASCO had lots of data assets that could be of interest to our members and to the broader cancer community. But they were scattered all around the organization and not particularly well annotated or organized. So we began to collate those. And they are now available to ASCO members on the ASCO data library. I recognized that we did not have an organized unit in ASCO to support or facilitate or conduct research. So, in 2017, we formed the Center for Research and Analytics and brought together staff who were already working at ASCO but scattered in different departments but all people who had an interest in clinical research or research policy and brought them into this new unit, which has really become the focal point for research work at ASCO. We recognized that ASCO members for many years were interested in surveying their colleagues, surveying other ASCO members, to help advance research questions. But ASCO actually had a policy that prohibited that. So that never really made good sense to me. It seemed like a lost opportunity. And we were able to create a program and have the ASCO board approve it whereby any ASCO member could opt in to participate in what we now call the Research Survey Pool. And in doing so, they are essentially agreeing to participate in research surveys conducted by their colleagues. So that program is now up and running. There are, I think, eight surveys that have been completed or are currently in the field. And this is now a service that ASCO provides through CENTRA to its members to enable them to survey their colleagues for research purposes. Most importantly, I think we saw an opportunity back in 2014 or 2015 to begin to learn from what our colleagues were doing in clinical practice as they began to deploy precision medicine. And there was a lot of genomic profiling that was going on at that time. It was revealing actionable alterations in roughly 30% or so of the tumors that were profiled. But there was a lot of difficulty in doctors and patients obtaining the drugs that were thought to be appropriate to treat the cancer at that particular time because most of those drugs would have to be prescribed off label. And there was not a sufficient evidence base to get them reimbursed. And, moreover, even if they could be reimbursed, there was no organized way to collect the patient outcomes and learn from their experiences. So that led to us developing ASCO's first prospective clinical trial, TAPUR, which really solves both of those problems. Through the participation of the eight pharmaceutical companies that are engaged with us in the study, we are providing-- at one point, it was up to 19 different treatments free of charge to patients. These are all marketed drugs but used outside of their FDA-approved indications. And we were collecting data on the patients, the genomic profile of cancer, the treatment they received, and their outcomes in a highly organized way. And so now this is a study that we launched in 2016. We're now almost to 2021. We have more than 3,000 patients who have been registered on the study, meaning consented to participate, more than 2,000 who have been treated on the study. And we are churning out results as quickly as we can about which drugs are used or not useful in the off-label setting for patients whose tumors have a specific genomic profile. So we built all this infrastructure. And having this in place has also then allowed us to respond rapidly to unmet needs. So when the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed all of us, and when our members were looking for information about what was the impact of COVID-19 on their patients, one of the things we were able to do because we had CENTRA, because we had a skilled staff and an infrastructure, was to very quickly stand up the ASCO COVID-19 registry, which we launched in April of this year. And there are now about 1,000 patients who've enrolled in the registry from around 60 practices that are participating. And we will follow these patients now longitudinally and learn from their experiences what has been the impact of the COVID-19 illness on them and their outcomes, how has it disrupted their cancer care, and ultimately how that impacts their overall cancer treatment outcomes. So as I now contemplate leaving ASCO after eight years having started with a blank slate, I'm very proud of the fact that I think I'm leaving us with a remarkable infrastructure. We now have a clinical trials network of 124 sites around the country participating in TAPUR that we never had before. We have through the work of CancerLinQ a real-world evidence data generator that is beginning to churn out valuable insights. We have a capacity to survey ASCO members for research purposes. We have an ability to stand up prospective observational registries to gather information longitudinally about patients and their outcomes. We have a core facility in CENTRA with highly skilled data analysts and statisticians that can support these various research activities. So ASCO is now primed, I think, to really contribute in a very meaningful way to the gaps in knowledge that will forever exist in oncology just because of the complexity of all the diseases we call cancer. And that's what I mean by the ASCO Research Enterprise. It is in fact remarkable and, I think, powerful enterprise if we continue to use it effectively. CLIFFORD HUDIS: Well, that's an interesting segue to my next thought, which is really about what comes next. I'll talk about you. But let's start with ASCO first. Your successor, Dr. Julie Gralow, obviously has been announced publicly. She's an accomplished clinician and researcher. She has a known recognized passion for patients, patient advocacy, clinical research through her leadership at SWOG but also health care equity and global oncology. So from your perspective, having created all of these assets and resources, what advice would you give Dr. Gralow publicly on how to make the position hers, what to take us to next? And I do want to acknowledge for everybody listening that the hints I've been making up until now are that Rich has agreed that he will continue to contribute as a leader to TAPUR for the short term, at least, at least the next year helping Julie get fully oriented to this program and others. So what will your advice be to Julie? RICHARD SCHILSKY: That's a great question. She's a great selection. And congratulations on hiring her. I think there are two key issues, I think, maybe three. One is to have a broad scope and cast a wide net. Oncology care and cancer research and cancer biology are incredibly complicated and nuanced and broad in scope. And although Julie is an accomplished breast cancer clinician and researcher, in this role at ASCO, you have to be very broad. You have to understand all of cancer care, all of cancer research, all of policy and advocacy not as an expert in necessarily in any one aspect of ASCO's work, but you have to understand the impact of all of those things on cancer care providers and on cancer patients. And it's important to always be looking to the future. The future is going to be here before you know it. And we as a professional society have to prepare our members for that future. So that leads me to the second point, which is listen to the members. The members are the people on the front lines who are delivering care to patients every day. And, fundamentally, ASCO's job is to be sure that our members have all the tools and knowledge and resources that they need to deliver the highest quality care to patients every day. So listening to what they need, what their struggles are, what their burdens are, is extremely important. And then the third thing I would recommend to her is that she get to know the staff and colleagues that she'll be working with. ASCO has a remarkably accomplished, skilled, motivated, passionate staff, many of whom have been with the organization for years, if not decades, who understand what ASCO can and cannot do and who understand what our members need. And she will be well advised to spend a good portion of her first few months on the job just listening and learning from her colleagues. CLIFFORD HUDIS: That's always good advice for anybody making a big career move. But, of course, the wisdom you bring to it is palpable and much appreciated. And I'm sure Julie will be taking your advice. And, by the way, so will I continue to do that even after you make your move. So speaking of your retirement, can you share with us a little bit about what it's actually going to look like for you? Is it about family? Or are you still going to have some professional engagement? Again, I suggest that there might be some already, but maybe you could expand on it. RICHARD SCHILSKY: Yeah. I'm still fully focused on my work at ASCO. And, of course, as you know, when I wake up on February 15, I will no longer be ASCO's chief medical officer. And it's going to be a bit of a rude awakening. Fortunately, I will be able to continue my engagement with ASCO through the TAPUR study as you mentioned. I will, of course, forever be at ASCO member and a donor to Conquer Cancer and be willing to serve the society in any way. I have a number of activities that I've been involved with even throughout my time at ASCO. Not-for-profit boards, for example-- I'm on the board of directors of Friends of Cancer Research. I'm on the board of directors for the Reagan-Udall Foundation for FDA. I plan to continue with those activities as long as they'll have me. I've been serving the last few years on the board also of the EORTC, the large European cooperative clinical research group. And I expect to continue in that role. Beyond that, I will see what opportunities come my way. I think one of the things about retirement if you will that I'm looking forward to is the opportunity to pick and choose what to work on based on what interests me without having the burdens of having a full-time job. On the personal front, of course, we're all looking forward to crawling out from the pandemic. I've basically been locked in my home outside Chicago since March. And I'm looking forward to getting back out to a little bit of a social life. As you know, I have two grown daughters and now three grandchildren, two of whom are in Atlanta, one of whom is near by us in the Chicago area. So looking forward to spending time with them as well. So it will be a change for me to be sure after working as hard as-- I feel like I've worked for really now 45 years since I graduated from medical school. But I also feel like I'm not quite done yet and that I still have ways in which I can contribute. I just feel like at this point, maybe it's time for me to choose how I want to make those contributions and spend a little bit more time doing some other things. CLIFFORD HUDIS: Well, both you and my predecessor, Allen Lichter, are modeling something, have modeled something, that I think is not often discussed but can be very important. For people and for institutions, change is not a bad thing. And setting the expectation that you will pour your heart and soul into something but not necessarily do it alone or forever and not prevent others from taking that role at some point, that's a really-- I think it's a selfless kind of sacrifice in a way. Because, of course, you could stay and do what you're doing for longer. But as you and I have discussed, there is a value for all of us collectively in having fresh eyes and new people take organizations in a new direction. That's how I ended up here frankly. And I think that's the kind of opportunity you're creating right now, something that should be celebrated in my opinion. RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, thanks. And I couldn't agree more. When I look back at the arc of my career and having all the different kinds of leadership roles that I've had, I basically have made a job change every 8 to 10 years. I was the director of our cancer center for nearly 10 years. I was associate dean for clinical research at the University of Chicago for eight years, another position that I created from a blank slate at that institution. The exception was serving 15 years as a CALGB group chair. But that was a position I really loved and enjoyed and felt like at the end of the first 10 I hadn't quite accomplished everything I wanted to accomplish. But the point is that I think it is both necessary for organizations to have regular leadership change. And it's also refreshing for us as individuals. There gets to a point where you feel like you can do your job in your sleep. And I actually think that's a good time to make a change. Because if that's the way you feel, you're not being sufficiently challenged. And you're probably not being sufficiently creative. And so it's a good time to move on and refresh your own activities and give your organization a chance to bring in someone to hopefully build on whatever you've created and bring it to the next level. CLIFFORD HUDIS: Well, I agree with all that, although I think your comment there about doing the job in your sleep would not apply because I'm pretty confident that the environment and opportunities have continued to evolve in a way that has made it interesting from beginning to end. But you don't have to rebut me on that. I just want to thank you very, very much, Rich. As we set up this podcast, I expected that we would have a really fun and enlightening conversation. And, of course, you did not disappoint. We could talk for much, much longer if we only had the time. On a personal note to you and for the benefit of our listeners, I want to share that Rich has been for me a remarkable friend and mentor and colleague. I first met Rich at the very beginning of my career when my mentor, Larry Norton, pushed me out from Memorial into the larger world. And he did that first and primarily through ASCO and the Cancer and Leukemia Group. Those are really the two places where I was exposed to the world. And through the CALGB, Rich really began to offer me and others, many others, opportunities that shaped careers plural, mine and others. So when I got to ASCO as CEO, Rich was there. And I knew I could always depend on you to be clearheaded, intellectually precise, constructive, visionary. And the thing about you, Rich, is that you never would say yes to anything unless you knew for sure you could do it and indeed, I think, how you could do it. I always share this story which your staff at CENTRA pointed out to me. And I have to admit that I hadn't picked it up myself. But in all the years of now working down the hall from Rich, probably hundreds and hundreds of hours of meetings, he never has taken a note in front of me. And, yet, everything we talk about, every action item we conclude to pursue, they all get done. So I don't know, Rich. You have a remarkable way of organizing your thoughts and your plans, keeping it together, and getting things done. And I'm going to miss that tremendously in the years ahead. So, Rich, I want to say congratulations. Congratulations on reaching this really important milestone in your life. Thank you on behalf of ASCO and the broader oncology community and the patients we care for and their families for making the world a better place. And just as a small thing, thank you for joining me today for this ASCO in Action podcast. RICHARD SCHILSKY: Thank you, Cliff. It's been great. CLIFFORD HUDIS: And, for all of you, if you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. And, while you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The ASCO in Action podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all of the shows at podcast.asco.org. Until next time, thank you for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast.

This Black Oxygen episode featuring Denise Thomas, President and Owner of the Effective Communication Coach, is SO RICH. We cover many topics including being a single Black woman, dating, knowing your worth, what survival means for Black women, and so much more. She ends our conversation by reminding us all that, “you are not losing control. Your why and your purpose will never change. You just have to reinvent your how.” To learn more about Denise Thomas and the Effective Communication Coach please visit her website: https://www.realcommcoach.com  

When the shutdown first hit we did a 90 Day Sponsorship Plan episode to share how you can come out on top and survive with your sponsors.We're 100 days into the sports shutdown. SO Rich & I thought it would be best to follow up.This week on The Inches Rich & I dive into how you should be thinking about the next 100 days as we plan the next stage of sponsorship in sports.------The Inches Podcast is a podcast that looks at sports & event sponsorship and how digital is affecting the industry and landscape. Hosted by Rich Franklin, VP of Corporate Partnerships at the Portland Winterhawks Hockey Club and Nick Lawson, Co-founder of SQWAD.

This week's EPIC podcast guest is Dr. Jade Teta. Jade is all kinds of amazing things. He is a super smart Naturopathic Physician, An Author, A philosopher, a strength and conditioning specialist, a podcast host to his epic show, call the Next Level Human Podcast, and in addition to all of that, Jades operates a HIGHLY successful multifaceted online business.   Outside of that incredible list — from my perspective, Jade is a warm, creative, wise, and deep individual who I could have kept talking to for hours.  I love this talk so much because Jade and I have so many shared passions from health/fitness/performance/self-development + philosophy so picked his brain in all of those areas as much as I could in this talk without making it a 5-hour talk— not an easy task at all.  I will say this talk takes a DEEP dive Self-Development so talks around self-identity, passion, purpose in life, process + Jade's powerful perspectives/ frameworks in these areas. A few of the powerful takeaways you will gain from this talk: How/away Jade found interest in hormones/endocrinology and evolved his career in all areas of his purpose  Listening to yourSelf to live on your highest path  How Pain is a powerful catalyst for powerful growth Choosing to NOT be a victim in your life Jades empowering and unique perspective on the quote “Everything happens for a reason”  The different between Purpose and Passion 3 Jade breaks down his belief on the reasons we are here: To Learn to Teach and to Love  Getting energetic validation for your work- what is this, why is this important?  The stories about we create about ourselves that can trap us in identities that do not serve us Operating Life froth lens that YOU are more than a human, You are an EXPERIENCE  How your Physical state impacts your mental state + Jades breakdown on his 4 jobs: CAREER+ FINANCES HEALTH/FITNESS  PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS PURPOSE + MEANING  and how these important aspects of our lives affect the others. And SO much more. This conversation is SO RICH in thought-provoking ideas that will FOR SURE make you think deeper about yourself, your passions and purpose in life, your approach to your health, and investigate the ways that you can become more rooted, clear + stronger in all of these important areas of your life.  I loved every minute of this talk with one of my new favorite friends that is the amazing Jade Teta— and I Believe you will too.   Let us know by screen-grabbing this, throwing it up on your IG stories and tagging us both- @ROXYLOOK + @JADETETA  Enjoy! STAY CONNECTED Website: www.jadeteta.com  Jade Teta Youtube INSTAGRAM: @JADE TETA NEXT LEVEL HUMAN PODCAST PODCAST MENTION: NEXT LEVEL HUMAN EP 50: Estrogen, Progesterone, and Contraceptives in Female Athletes PS. My weekly LOVE❤️NOTES are ALIVE and ready to elevate your mindset + heart! Sign up to start receiving one weekly empowering, encouraging, bite-size LOVE❤️NOTE that is also available in audio format. I want you to start your day with this short but sweet love note so that you feel AMAZING as you tackle the hustle of your day like a BOSS. You can sign up for them here VIA WWW.BLACKBELTBEAUTY.COM

So Rich and The old Man trying to get up and Going. Luckily the Chatters and Vito Help us out. I hope all is well with everyone.

So Rich and the Old Man started the show off having to deal with a little nonsense in the chat. in doing so we talk to a Nut out there with a Podcast Make me. we will see if he is any good but all in all we let him have it. Erika came in today and we enjoyed our talk and topics of family kids. we seem to get to the answers of life. I hope everyone has a great day and weekend. Stay Safe.

Agriculture is a remarkably complex, fascinating, and important topic. We all eat of course, but often we don't know much about the story of our food, how it gets produced, where it comes from, how technology, for example, can help provide wholesome, healthy, and safe food, and more. There are some remarkable people out there who see the big picture and who understand both the past and future of agriculture. One such person is our guest, Richard Linton.  About Richard Linton Richard Linton is the dean of the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences at North Carolina State University. He earned a doctorate in Food Science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. His research focus encompasses modeling the growth and inactivation of foodborne pathogens such as Listeria, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella within different food systems, and; development of rapid detection technologies for biological and chemical foodborne hazards. Throughout his career, Richard has worked with various segments of the food and agricultural industry integrating applied research projects and impactful outreach programs. Nationally, he has been recognized by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) for his leadership in research and outreach programs with the Howard Macy Award and the Myron Solberg Award.  Interview Summary So let's begin with this. You're in a land grant university, but not everyone might know what land grant universities are, or why they're so important in agriculture. Can you explain? Sure. I can tell you from firsthand experience, there's a lot of research and education and outreach that's dedicated to agriculture and food systems going on at the Land Grant University system around the United States. I earned a bachelor's, master's and PhD all at Virginia Tech University, and my career has expanded across three other land grant universities, Purdue University as a faculty member, the Ohio State University as a department head, and now very proudly as the Dean at NC State university. A Land Grant University is focused on serving the people. It's the people's university through research, teaching and outreach. And the outreach component is done through a cooperative extension that works through teaching. We produce an educated workforce ready to tackle the grand challenges of agriculture and food systems. Through research and extension combined, we create new tools and innovations, and then we share this information with the citizens of our state. For example, if we identify a new technology or a new production practice at the farm level that could improve coin yield, we would utilize our vast extension network to share this information, and educate farmers on the benefits. We can do that throughout the state because of our strong cooperative extension network. We're the only country in the world that has universities that are focused on the land grant mission, and have this broad cooperative extension message to translate this information to end-users. So Rich, let's go right to some of those big picture issues that you just referred to as grand challenges. What do you see the grand challenges being for agriculture today? Arguably the most important one is finding solutions to help feed our rapidly growing population. From the years 2000 to 2050, our global population will nearly double, and we must find a way to feed them. And that's not an easy challenge. New innovations will be to essential to improving yields for plant and animal products, despite facing new disease, decreasing farmland, less access to water, and increasing environmental concerns. This past year, the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Mathematics published a report that identified by breakthrough areas that will be critical to explore if we want to be able to feed a growing population. First and foremost, we need to create a systems-based approach. We need to focus on understanding the nature of interaction among the different elements that incorporate the food and agricultural system, and how they can be leveraged to increase overall system efficiency, resilience and sustainability. This report also went on to say that rapid detection and monitoring system, and application and integration of data science, gene editing, and an increased understanding of the microbiome, will all be essential creating a successful and sustainable future. That connection between human health and agriculture and food systems was also identified as a key need for research and education. Prior to the National Academy report that I just mentioned, the Association Of Public And Land Grant Universities, or APLU, assembled to be able to put together a committee to improve human health and reduce chronic disease, things like diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, by integrating food, environment and agricultural systems through alignment of science, education, community engagement, and strategic partnerships. This is an important issue. This is a critical issue for agriculture. In order to feed our people and keep them healthy, it will require significant effort and a drastic change in our approach, and that new approach needs to start happening now. While we're doing a good job with agriculture research, and an equally good job with human health research, we don't do a very good job of leveraging them together. We are not lacking in development of new technologies. What we need to do is focus more on consumer education and effective education for the end user, the farmer, and the agribusiness person. Then hopefully we can increase the rate at which new technologies are embraced. Tell me how North Carolina State University and North Carolina itself are in a unique position to tackle some of these big challenges, and are there some of the key areas that your own college is focused on? It's a great question, Kelly. I don't know of any other state in the nation that has the capacity to partner and lead like we do in North Carolina. North Carolina has a very robust agriculture and life science industry. North Carolina State, North Carolina A&T State university, are a lead agricultural university. The University at North Carolina, Chapel Hill tops in public health, and Duke of course is a world leader in policy. There are several large life science businesses like Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science that are conducting research in our state, as well as hundreds of entrepreneurs and small business people. We have the benefit of being located within about 20 miles of research triangle park, where there are over 650 life science companies. In addition to the tremendous amount of talent and industry developing in our area, we are also fortunate to live in a very agriculturally diverse state. We have many different soil types and climates, and over 90 different commodity groups. As a university we have 18 different research stations and 10 field laboratories spread across the state to take advantage of the soil and climate diversity, and our cooperative extension network is the second largest in the country. NC state partners with community leaders in all 100 counties to identify and develop solutions for local challenges. Our college is focused on five programmatic areas, the plant sciences initiative, the North Carolina food innovation laboratory, the food animal initiative, student access and leadership programs, with additional resources slated to improve water use and water management, and of course what we're talking about today to build a better connection between human health and agriculture in food systems. So it's very impressive how diverse North Carolina is, as an agriculture state. I was impressed with that when I moved here nearly six years ago, and it's really been eye-opening, and I'm happy you are able to highlight that. Let me move on to a little bit different topic. You were appointed by the governor of North Carolina as the chair of the Food Manufacturing Task Force, a group that evaluated the opportunities to grow food manufacturing and in North Carolina. Can you talk a little bit about the work of the task force, and are there lessons from that, that might apply nationally? Yeah. In North Carolina as a state and an NC state, we're trying to tackle the challenges of plant systems and agriculture from all angles in all aspects. The plant sciences initiative will be housed in Raleigh, North Carolina, and this looks at improving yield and quality of plants. But we also have the plants for human health institute that's located in Kannapolis, North Carolina, that identifies health-promoting compounds from plants that are used to prevent disease. The North Carolina Food Manufacturing Initiative's goal was to produce new and novel food products that are considered value added, and that they are more convenient for consumers, they taste better, and or they can be beneficial to health. This summer we will open the North Carolina Food Innovation Laboratory also to be housed in Kannapolis, North Carolina. This new initiative will help us find solutions to new, value-added products. Another goal of this initiative is to find ways to grow the agricultural economy in North Carolina. An economic feasibility study showed that value-added plant products could boost to our economy in North Carolina by more than $10 billion, and create thousands of new jobs, adding to an already strong $87 billion agricultural economy. Another great reason that the North Carolina food innovation lab makes really good sense to do, I think what we've seen nationally, is other land grant universities trying to mimic some of the great work that we're doing here at North Carolina State in the connection between plant systems and productivity, and human health. But also things that can be done for the state to be able to create jobs and boost the economy. So all very good reasons to move in this direction.

James: Hi, audience and listeners. This is James Kandasamy from Achieve Wealth at Real Estate Investing podcasts. Last week, we had Jake and Gino from Wheelbarrow Profits. You know, Jake and Gino have tons and tons of deals on their own and you know, recently have moved into syndication space as well. And their story is just very interesting in terms of knowing how did they get started, how did they refinance their first deal to launch their multifamily investing career.   Today I have Rich Fishman from Dallas, and Rich has almost 8,000 units right now across 23 complexes and he has been buying in Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Mississippi, and South Carolina. So Rich is going to be giving us a lot of valuable insights into how he had bought so many apartment units. And imagine half of that 8,000 units is fundamentally owned by Rich itself and the other half of it is more of a partnership and syndication. Hey Rich, welcome to the show.   Rich: Well, thank you, James. Glad to be here.   James: Good, good. So, Rich, it's going to be a very interesting podcast because, and I'm going to be learning so much from you and I'm sure my listeners is going to be learning so much from you. How did you get started? I mean, you have like 8,000 units right now. You started almost 20 years ago. So walk back, how did you get started in multifamily immediately when you get started in real estate?   Rich: Well, actually, I was the owner of a mortgage company in the San Francisco Bay area in Berkeley, California and I financed mostly half homes, but I also financed apartment complexes. And I had a deal to finance, it was a six-plex in Alameda, California, and it was a foreclosure. Back then, there were a lot of foreclosures and the realtor gave me the deal, I got the loan, and then the buyer fell out of escrow; they didn't like the deal. And then there was another buyer; same thing happens. And I said to the realtor, I said, “What's wrong with this deal? It looks like it makes money.”  And she says “Nothing's wrong with the deal.”  And I said, “Well, I don't know how to manage anything like this.”  She says, “Well, I know management company, don't worry about it.” So I went to the property, then I dragged my wife there.   And it's a funny story because my wife is from Scandinavia and they don't do very well there. And so we went to the property and we had one of those, you know those long screwdrivers that the termite guys have because we are poking around, seeing if it was well-built. And the screwdriver went right through the wood into the drywall. And my wife says, "No, I can't buy this with you.”  I said, "No, we're buying this.”  And she looked at me and she said, “Okay.”  And so we bought this six-plex. And the six-plex was the beginning of us starting to buy real estate in earnest. So that's the story is we cut aside. There was a sidebar from the mortgage business.   James: Got it, got it, yeah. I always wonder, like whenever I meet brokers, mortgage brokers, and even brokers, I always ask them, why not you guys buy these deals, right? Why are you just doing transaction? And a lot of times, I mean not a lot of times I think once I talk to someone who went from a mortgage broker to become an investor. I'm sure you know him; it's like Michael Becker, right? Yeah. I think he's a big buyer in Dallas. I asked him this question because he used to be working in Wells Fargo and he told me not everybody likes to take risks like a business owner.   Rich: It's not only about the risk. The main reason that people get into the investment side is because, when you're doing transactions as a broker, you're making income and you're only as good as your last deal. You have to keep churning and closing deals to make a living, and every broker is off to the next listing, or the mortgage person is off the next loan and you'd live and die by the transaction. So eventually, most people either say, I've got to own this stuff; build wealth rather than income. Or I'm not interested; I really don't want to own anything. It takes the risk and the responsibility of owning property. So that's the thing, I had to make a decision to own it, take care of it, use my free time because I was still a mortgage broker. I had to use my weekends to run the real estate with my wife. We want to get started because we couldn't just go into multifamily; we needed the income from the mortgages. So it takes a lot of sacrifice for the first couple of years to get into something like this.   James: Got it, got it. So you must know the industry; working as well in the mortgage and to really successfully become owner and take advantage of that knowledge as well. So after how many years or after how many unit count that you, you said, okay, I'm going to give up this mortgage business, I'm going to be just a fulltime, a real estate investor?   Rich: I think we hit about a thousand apartments. And at that point, I let go of my duties in the mortgage company and concentrated on just buying and selling apartments.   James: Got it, got it. So, 20 years ago you started buying the six-plex, when did you see your fastest acceleration of purchase or acquisitions?   Rich: Well, we hit about 4,000 units and then the recession came 2009 to 14, 12, 13 as on the area of the country, and that was really hard. So we didn't really grow during that period. We were selling off as fast as we were buying, just kind of trying to keep our head above water. We got to about 5,000 units, about two or three years ago, and then we've grown a lot more. I could probably have 50,000 apartments today if I wanted them. I would have to basically align myself with someone on Wall Street or some investment banking for like a Goldman Sachs or something like that. And they would be happy to raise the money and give me all that money and I could then own five or 10% or 15% or whatever it is that is bought, BUT I'm not that going to ho for that strategy.   So the growth at this point is really about organic growth for me and our company, and also quality of life because when you have institutional mining, you have to take care of it in a way that suits the institutions. And they have requirements that family and friends and other people don't have. For example, they might want audited books every year. That doesn't sound like a lot because we don't; we have books [inaudible 08:46] and everything, but that just takes a lot of time to get an audit done. And if you multiply that by 15 or 20 EO, now you have to have a whole audit department, and CPAs work who for you and things like that. So it's been really about opportunity and raising money mostly from either my own, resources or family and friends and other methods.   James: Got it, got it. So, Rich, I think you bring a really good perspective in terms of economic cycle because you have went through, I mean, you started 20 years ago, you went through that 2008 and everybody said 2008 multi-family, you know, fat better than any other asset classes, they are very, very low. What you call, you know, who went into a receivership or bankruptcy; multifamily, so is that true?   Rich: That's not true at all. Most of the people who are in multifamily today, we're not even involved in the business.   James: Exactly, that's what I'm asking because everyone is sort of newbies--   Rich: A lot of people were wiped out in that recession and a lot of other people were underwater. I mean, there were thousands of apartment complexes that were foreclosed on. Now was it as bad as office buildings or retail? Maybe not, I really don't know, but it was bad. Now they say anybody who lasted eight years, they could come out the other side feeling good. But most people don't have the capital to take five or six or seven years of losses, and large losses. If you're not making debt coverage, if you're not able to pay your loan and you're coming out of pocket, that might be okay for one deal. But if you have 20 deals like that, yeah, that's a whole different story. So it's quite a different thing than when people say. Now, the multifamily was hitting extremely hard, and I think the default ratio was up to about 8%.   James: 8%. Okay.   Rich: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. That doesn't sound that bad compared to student loans. But if you think about it 8% is, you know, you're talking about housing that touches the lives of millions of people.   James: Got it. Yeah. It's very interesting data because you are giving me true data. I mean, sometimes we read in the news and they say low delinquency rate and it was not a hard hit and we don't have real, true story. Right, because a lot of it depends on the sub-marker, depends on which class we are talking about, and you know, depends on the operator as well. So how did you survive the 2008 crash?   Rich: Well, I have some properties that cash barge really well and I had others that really couldn't survive and I got rid of them. I sold them off or actually, I had you cut my portfolio down in order to survive and retrench a little bit, but I only had a few deals that were like that, the rest, I didn't have the leverage. If you were totally leveraged up in a bad market, then you cannot save yourself because, and if you're a partnership, you can't save yourself either. Because, if you own 10 or 20% of the deal and the loan is negative, then you would actually have to make a capital call every month on your partners in order to make those payments, and if you raise money. You know that there are two words that should never be spoken ‘capital costs’.   James: Exactly.   Rich: And so it's hard to really get money out of people to feed something that's losing money. So, there are a lot of people who gave; I know one fellow in the Houston market, he had property all over Houston, Atlanta, I think he gave up about 40 yields back. And there were other people like that who had just a tremendous amount of deals that they gave back to the banks.   James: So was this deal when they give back did Fannie and Freddie was giving non-recourse loan at that time?   Rich: Yeah, non-recourse loans, they just won't; if you give them deals back, they don't want to lend to you again unless you pay a heavy penalty to offset their losses because they take losses, themselves or the service or takes the loss. And in Fannie Mae's case, the loan originator slash servicer usually takes about five to 10% of the risk of the loan. So, you know, that could be pretty substantial too, to them because they're usually own companies by either large wealthy individuals or by banks. They don't like taking losses at all.   James: Got it, so they--   Rich: Hopefully we won't be there again.   James: Yeah, absolutely, we didn't want to be there again. So it was non-recourse and the owners were able to just give up their property, they lose their equity and the service that takes some loss and they gave it back to Fannie Mae and that's it.   Rich: Fanny Mae never own; one of the problems with the way the system was set up, is that Fannie may never really own the loan. People don't realize this, but Fannie Mae is just a broker.   James: Really? Okay.   Rich: There's really like nobody, you know, there's not like someone in Mumbai who owns or in Shanghai who owns all these loans. I mean, they basically securitize the loans and they sell the loan as a bond in the world financial markets. And so there's a special servicer who represents the interests of the bondholders and that person is delegated decision making, but they're not able to cut deals on Fannie Mae loan. So, they don't generally go and say, we see that you're negative, and why don't we go from 5% to 3% and you can owe us the money later? Things like that; they're not flexible. So, actually, Freddie Mac is, is more flexible, they act more like a bank, and so they can do workouts in a much better way than Fannie Mae can. It's just one of the things people don't know.   James: Got it. Wow, that's interesting. That's a lot of information out there. Yeah, I mean, Fannie Mae does a, securitize the loan and they sell it to the investor who buys it as a bond and they get certain percentage out of it. And in the middle there's servicer, there's Fannie Mae, everybody makes a few percent like this one [inaudible 15:59].   Rich: Everybody is making money, and at the end, the only people who generally lose money are the bondholders.   James: Okay, are the bondholders. But if the deal is given back, I mean the equity holder, whoever, the owner also lose the money as well, right? So there are two people, the buyer, and the seller, right?   Rich: The borrower absolutely loses a whole lot of their entire investment. And then the lender, if the lender can't be made whole by the sale of the real estate, they may lose money too. Things can get pretty bad in that cycle, that the value of the property often sunk below the outstanding balance of the loan. There're a lot of negative things to talk about, but let's talk about more positive things.   James: Got it. So you talked about people who are highly leveraged, right? So let's say you're buying a deal at 75% leverage. Do you think that's high level, I mean, can you define highly leverage? What is the highest leverage that you think?   Rich: Well, in today's world, you can leverage up to, Oh, even 90% for the first and second or preferred equity. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just that you don't want to leverage that high on a stabilized property. It's one thing if you buy a property that's a value add and that you're going to add value and renovate a property, increased rents, increased value, and you're looking on a stabilized basis that okay, you went high leverage, but within a year or two you're going to be catching up and the leverage point will be at 60%, 65 or 75% or something. But if you're basically highly leveraged in stabilized properties without any value add then. If the rents go down five or 10%, then you're underwater, you want to have some protection; you want to certainly have 20% or debt coverage or something like that.   James: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, that's the reason where I'm going with the question because we buy deals, we buy deals or value at deals even at 80% leverage, but in one to two years, that 80% leverage is going to be, 70 to 65% leveraged. So basically it's not leveraged at the start of the loan, it's basically, where are you going to be once you're stabilized; that's the more important thing. Sometimes people get confused that you shouldn't be highly leveraged? Why highly leverage and you don't understand that we are looking for buffer for DSCR? We want to be as further up from the debt service coverage ratio. That's the fundamental discussion about what highly leverage and costing higher risk.   Rich: Right, leverage is your friend, if you're using the leverage to invest capital, if you're using leverage to service debt or to pay out dividends, then you're making a huge mistake.   James: Okay, absolute point, that's an awesome point. That's well-said. I couldn't have said it better. So what about the guys who have done breach loans at that time in 2008 what happened to them and what would you give advice to that kind of people who are doing--   Rich: You mean the answer 2007 or 2008 with a value add deal, and then they had a bridge situation. While those people probably suffered, I mean they didn't execute. If they executed, that's fine. It was hard to push rents back then, everything is based on increase in rent. Fundamental multifamily strategy is how can I increase the rent? What value can I give the tenant so they'll pay more? Now, between 2008 and 2012, the only value add strategy that I know that worked was the fixed deferred maintenance to make sure you kept the lights on, for the most part. So beyond that, I didn't see people putting granite countertops in and all this other stuff because everyone was just trying to supply.   So those people, many of those people who got in at the cycle; at the end of the cycle, didn't make money unless they stayed all the way through 2015-16, so there were about seven years. But you would have to stay in that deal in order to make it. Now I did buy a property in the Midwest that I bought for about 15,000 units. You can get things that way back then. And I bought it in 2006 and I did do really well on it, but it was unusual because I got it so cheap; my basis lever was very high. But at the time it seemed like I had really jumped the shark as they say because the economy wasn't very good, and it wasn't easy to rent up any apartments for a while.   James: So coming back to Midwest, which I believe is MAVA secondary or tertiary market, right? So like right now in 2019 right now, market is so hard and people can't buy in the hot cities like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, people are, I mean, I'm just looking at Texas, right? I mean, we're in Florida, we have Orlando, Tampa, and what Jacksonville, and I mean a lot of people have started going to other States and tertiary market or States which is like supposedly supposed to be upcoming. So, what would you give advice to them?   Rich: Well, I think my advice on the States like South Carolina or those kinds of places, is that to study the local market and make sure that it's vibrant, that there are good jobs there. There are a lot of great secondary and tertiary markets. Huntsville, Alabama or Hoover, Alabama or you know, Greenville, Columbia, South Carolina, I mean there's just, you know, Asheville, North Carolina, there's a lot of great secondary markets. I think the biggest problem that people have in these markets, one is they think they can increase rents more than they can. Because if you go to some of these markets and you think you can get $200 for putting in a new kitchen, you might find out you can only get $35 and 20 cents because there's a limit to what a lot of these people were willing to pay in these markets.   And if you go too high, they just want [inaudible 22:56], but there are still some markets that are small that people are really surprised at. I mean if you've been to Indiana and you know, there is Columbus, Indiana, well that sounds like a real nothing place, but Commons is located there, it's a very large company, and it's a pristine town with really high rents. Bloomington is also a great town in Indiana; it's got the college there. So there's a lot of college towns and there are capitals and there are places where there's a lot of manufacturing that's particularly in the Southeast that they didn't have manufacturing before. Some of these places have become very desirable for retirement and for our businesses like Charleston, South Carolina, nothing was going on there except history about 20 years ago. If you've been they are now, they are building homes like crazy. People are moving there to retire. There's a huge tourism business, I think ranked the number one wedding venue one year recently. And then they have they're making small planes there; just tremendous amount of activity going on.   James: What happened to this kind of tertiary market? I'm sure you had similar tertiary market during 2008 where you thought, okay, this is really good to go in and invest in. Looking at some of the cities that you're looking at it right now, what happened to that kind of market in 2008 how did they do compared to the major cities that are well known for--?   Rich: I own the property, and the answer is different. Every tertiary market was different, just like every major market. For example, if you look at the major markets or the secondary major markets take Tucson. Tucson was wiped out in the recession, now people say it's a good investment. Phoenix was wiped out, Vegas was wiped out, Reno was wiped out. Today Reno; people think Reno is part of California. It's hard to buy something under 150 a door in Reno now. So back then it was 50 a thousand a door was a great retirement exit. So I own property in Sierra Vista, Arizona, and there is an army base there. Now, I will never buy another property next to an army base. I don't care what the numbers look like because the politics of the army base are things that I cannot control.   And they decided that army base that they didn't need hardly anymore. So they cut the enrollment at the army base there by about half. And it was the town that depended upon the army base almost completely, not just the army people, but the people who were feeding and the vendors, and everybody else. And so the town really; rents went down about 30-40% in the town, but then there are other locations. I owned a property in Davenport, Iowa and it got hit, but it didn't get hit that bad. And agriculture, which was a real feeder for Iowa, stayed pretty good. And you know, they had the ethanol and that was pretty good. We never got below in general 90% occupancy in the properties that we own there, so it just really depends, you've got to do your research. Just how you can't make a blanket and say tertiary market, secondary market; core markets; it wasn't long ago that people considered Baltimore to be almost a core market.   Because of its proximity to DC on the Amtrak corroder from New York, the new Harbor that they had built there with the aquarium and today, a lot of people don't think of Baltimore as a core market and back then people didn't see DC as a core market. They thought it was crime, wedding blah, blah, blah, you know, stay away from DC. And now today, I mean, you're talking about very expensive real estate all over DC.   James: Awesome, awesome. That is a lot of insights there. So Rich, which market have you been focusing on, I mean, you bought in a lot of markets before these and you probably own some of it over there, but what has your strategy has been at this hot--?   Rich: Right now my strategy is really to buy more in DFW.   James: Okay.   Rich: Our office is here. This is probably the best multifamily market in the country. The cranes are all over the skyline. The jobs are coming in like crazy every day or week there is another multinational company that's relocating from California generally to Dallas Fort worth. There's a lot of vibrancy here. Rents keep tricking up. I like DFW. I've liked Houston a lot in the past; Houston is very squatty though, and there's a lot, I can't just tell you that Houston's going to do well because every part of Houston is so different and there's no zoning, so it doesn't have a character. Neighborhoods don't have as much character that they do here. But Houston is great Austin is great, it's just the real question, isn't what do I like, the real question is, is there an upside? Where is the upside in multifamily today?   And the answer is that there isn't the kind of upside today that there was until a couple of years ago because we were still basically catching up from the recession; a lack of housing, deferred maintenance and household formation. During the people said to me, "aren't there going to be more renters?" Because people were foreclosed, I don't know if you remember that. They will say, "You're in a great business". All these foreclosures, they have to rent now. No, they didn't have to rent. They moved in with their families, they hold up; whatever they had to do. People are much more flexible and adaptable than statisticians and university professors. So people didn't create households, kids stayed in the basement, and so here we are 2012 wondering where are all the renters? Well, it turns out that they were hiding out.   So when the economy got good and they got jobs, they all came out and that created a lot of household formation, a lot more renters. And that created a boom in multifamily. So, either more and more people who need rental housing, absolutely, and particularly in areas like Dallas, Fort Worth where they're coming in for the jobs, they need housing; Austin, they need housing. That puts pressure on rents and they usually start building a lot more too. The areas that have a declining population, I wouldn't invest.   So if a deal's in a city that has a declining population, I automatically say no, I'm not interested in, even if I could fix it up and make some money, to me that's; I'm going against the tide. I'm just one guy, I can't make an ocean. I have to get in my little boat, and I have to have the-- I want the ocean to work for me and not against me. I don't want to fight that. Same or crime; if I'm in an area that has just tremendous amount of crime, it's still, crime is [inaudible31:42], but if it has a lot of crime, I don't want to own it because I can't do all the things necessary to stop crime in my neighbor. I'm not a police department. I'm just one person owning one complex or two in a neighborhood and I've got to have an ability to deliver safe housing to the people who rent from us.   James: Got it, got it. Just want to add one thing to the listeners and audience. If you want to find a city where there's declining on appreciating one free resource, which is very quick to check, it is called bestplaces.net. Bestplaces.Net, and you can go and enter the city information and you can go to a household. I believe it's a real estate statistics and it shows you whether there's a declining population or increasing population. I mean in general, I think Texas is increasing in general. Everybody's moving to Texas and I believe Florida as well, so--   Rich: I mean, if you're looking in Texas and you say, well, why don't I buy in Amarillo or Abilene or these kinds of places, I don't have anything to say. I don't know those markets, but those are not vibrant places generally.   James: It makes sense; vibrant. Okay, got it. But I think the major cities in Texas are pretty vibrant.   Rich: The major cities are really San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Then you have cities like El Paso, Lubbock, Tyler, you know, places like that that are in the second tier. Corpus Christi is another one that is in between the second and third-tier cities. Aon, actually in Corpus Christi real estate, and that's on a lot of people's radar because they are putting along money to the ports and the petroleum industry, but it's not as vibrant as it San Antonio or Austin.   James: Got it. Got it, got it, very interesting. So but Dallas, I mean, I know you're focusing on Dallas, but Dallas prices have appreciated from what 50,000 a door. I mean, I think all over Texas it's like this, right? For the past five years, $50,000 a door to almost a hundred thousand a dollar for a C-class property. So how are you planning to buy deals? I mean since, don't you think at some point the price per door is just going to be limited by the rent wage growth of the--?   Rich: Well, I think that it's a mistake to really focus on price per door. I think it's a better thing to focus on cap rates.   James: Cap rates, okay.   Rich: And if you could buy something over a five cap rate and put loan on it for under 4%, then you have positive arbitrage, and you're going to make money. So a lot of properties are expensive, but property in San Francisco is 350,000 a door. Now, I was a mortgage broker there when they were going for 100,000 a door, and I thought people were crazy. Who would ever pay that? So, we can't let a number and you shouldn't let a number per door impact your buying decision. What your buying decision should be based on is what return on your investment you're going to get. Now, it's true that you want to make sure there's an exit there, meaning that there's somebody else who would buy a property at more per door if that's a problem.   Now there are some markets where maybe that is an issue still, but they're generally very depressed; places like Detroit or things like that or Cleveland. But even those places are not any more per door oriented. So I've seen deals recently that are 120,130 a door. They were bought for 80 a door just three, four years ago. And before that, they had one for 55 a door. And I don't really care what people bought them for in the past, I just care what can I do? What's my return going to be? If I could hit my numbers and I don't really care. Now the question is, can I hit my numbers? Am I chasing a dream that's-- is the ship already sailed? Is there really any more room in this property to enhance value? And the answer has to be yes. And a lot of the areas in Dallas are improving. The income levels are going up in some of these places. The number of jobs in the area is going up, so they're not static environments. Today, a suburb of Dallas is not the same place as it was 20 years ago because now there are four times as many people living in the area, shopping in the area, working in the area, and those people are all competing for housing.   James: Wow, that's interesting. Okay, so how do you underwrite your deals? I mean I'm sure you're looking for upside, right? That's what you talk about in any deals and whether you can make a return on your investment, right?   Rich: I'll tell you my tricks of the trade, which is nothing unusual; first of all, we go into the numbers and make sure we understand the expenses. And we also increase the property taxes based on what we think the assessor will increase the taxes too. Yeah, that's a really big thing; people don't realize they come from out of the outside Texas that your property is assessed every year a new bag. So you can't look at a tax that your seller's paying and think that you're going to have the same tax. So we get the real expenses, and then if we're going to do a value add, we want to find a property that's very similar, same vintage and everything that's already done the value add and see what rent they're achieving, what they've done, and we're not going to go past that.   In other words, I'm not going to be a pioneer and decide that I need golden faucets or Berber carpets or whatever it is; I'm going to make a nice value-add, the same as everybody else. Maybe you are a little better, but I'm not going to a guest that I can get more rent, so that's where I get my revenue, just estimating how many of this was going to renovate? What rents can we get today, today in the marketplace, not tomorrow? And then use those numbers, and if those numbers show that I can get a great return based on what it costs and what the money we put into the property, then it's a go. If the numbers, there's nothing here, I can't get a return from doing this or the rents are tapped out, that kind of thing. Then I pass. And we use a model. I think we use the CRM model. We bought the model because it got too complicated for Excel for us. And so we use a model that we bought to program the IRR and all that stuff.   James: What about the rent growth assumption? How do you usually predict that?   Rich: We don't put more than two or 3% a year in there? We're not looking to create false expectations. 5% rent growth sounds nice, but that doesn't happen all the time. In fact studies in Houston show that there's been virtually no rent growth in two or three years in Houston. And every year they say that they had four or 5% rent growth. And I asked the realtors, is the four or 5% rent growth that these reports say? And nobody seems to know where the data's coming from.   James: Yeah, absolutely. But do you think we can get that 3% rank growth moving forward from now on the next five years? I mean, do you think it's real estate?   Rich: I think we can get the two to 3% rent growth just by doing nothing; if you're in a market that is strong.   James: So it depends on the market as well.   Rich: It all depends on one thing and one thing only, which is wage growth in the market you own.   James: Correct.   Rich: I own a lot of property in San Antonio and there was virtually no wage growth in San Antonio. And I have property that I've owned there now six years, seven years. And the last two or three years there's been virtually no increase in wage growth or rents in none of these markets. The cap rates keep going down, so people keep paying more for these properties. They expect wage growth and rent growth, so everyone has a different expectation.   James: Got it, got it. So what about the, I mean, you mentioned that I mean, you did this for 20 years, own like 8,000 units, you could have multiplied 10 X your holdings by going with private equity money which some people have done. And some people have gone to private equity and came back to be a [inaudible41:31]. Some people are trying to get into working with private equity because it's easier to rent and raising money from retail investors which is like family and friends. I know you mentioned some perspective, but can you give a full perspective on why you didn't choose that route at all?   Rich: Well, we do have family and friends, and private equity, and some family offices in our deals. I have three deals that I have is tuition in, and I just prefer the flexibility that-- I prefer working with individuals and with people I know because multifamily is not a straight line. You buy something a lot of times prizes after you close, you don't know, some problems that you run into. Sometimes you have to replace staff. A lot of times you have a staffing issue. It could take a year or two longer to execute your business plan. And still, it's very good. When you execute your business plan, you make a lot of money, but instead of taking one or two years, it could take five years or four years. And when you have institutional money, they're not very patient and they are very willing after; if you don't make your numbers for one to two years, they're very willing to take the management away or threaten you with your cramming, taking away your investment. Actually, you're cramming down; they call it crammed down; to make the return.   It can be pretty nasty, so that's one of the reasons. It's getting easier to raise money from family offices privately. There are a number of crowd-sourcing platforms; we've done some crowd-sourcing rising for a couple million dollars as infill, you know, to fill in a partnership after a family or friends invest, and we still have a couple million left. Well, we've been successful at raising that money there. We've also used preferred equity, which is kind of a hybrid deal. It's not secondary financing, like mezzanine financing, but it's similar. What they do is there is a pay, they want a pay rate of around four to 6%, and then they want a complete return of let's say nine to 11% or 12%. They'll take the difference when you sell the property well when you refinance. So, it gives you more leverage, you might say, but it's not partnership money, so it reduces the money that you have to raise as a partnership.   James: Got it, got it. And what would you give advice to people who are saying that you know, when the market turns, I mean, they will not be any more private investors anymore, I mean, you have to go back to private equity? Do you think that's the true case?   Rich: You mean institutional equity? You have to go back to-- that's all private equity. I think the reality is when the market turns, everyone goes back into their little clamshell, so what you call it and money is money. And if people don't feel that they can make a return, then they won't invest. Now, what happens is that if the market turns and people are not making return, some deals will go south and will go sour, and then you'll start a new cycle of this trust real estate. And then there'll be opportunity funds or vulture capital guys who are trying to invest in those deals and they'll be looking to invest. So every part of the cycle has a different kind of investor. Right now the profile of the average investor is looking to clip coupons. Most people know that the glory days of making two, 300% on their money is over and they're very happy with what they'd done and now they really don't want to lose their principal. There have gotten more conservative as wealthier people do, and then they say, well, can I get a seven or an 8% or 6% coupon clip every month when you send me a check? And there are a lot more of those people today. There is virtually none of those people in 2008, nine, 10, 11, 12. Yeah, but today, most people have the profile as investors of wanting to have lower risk and are willing to take less reward.   James: So what you're saying is in 2008, everybody disappeared; nobody invests retail, right? And then after that, there is some vulture capital and then now people are looking more into stabilized assets with lower risk.   Rich: The people who appeared in 2008 were the people who worked at Goldman Sachs or Blackstone or these other Carlisle group and these other large accumulators of capital. And what they saw is a tremendous amount of blood on the street as they say. They saw just a lot of financial suffering and they were looking at enabling because of their massive amounts of capital to scoop up troubled assets for pennies on the dollar. So a lot of the mortgages that went bad were sold off for 20, 30, 50% of their mortgage value to these conglomerate; these large companies. And then they went through the process of foreclosing on individual assets. Some of them actually created management companies themselves, and they got the properties back. A bunch of then they put them back on the market and made a lot of money. So there was a lot of business, a lot of wealth created in that time frame, but it wasn't created by people like you and I, it was created in Goldman Sachs, and in Blackstone, and these kinds of places.   James: Got it, got it. So where do you think we are heading in the next two or three years or five years? Are we going to have a slowdown bump or it's going to be a crash into like 2008 or there is just going to be a coupon rolling in multifamily?   Rich: I don't think that we're going to have a crash. I see it more that it's just a steady market and I just think it's going to go up and down a little bit here and there, and I don't see much change from where we are for a couple of more years. I can't see out too far into the future. Sometimes politics and things like that intercede, and we don't know if someone politically comes in and starts changing the tax code like they did in 1986 or something like that. But the way I see it is that America is fundamentally becoming a retro society. People are living a lot longer, and the longer people live the less they want to own a house. A lot of people will own houses and raise families there, but they will exit houses more and more frequently to live in places like central cities or small main street America so they can be near services and doctors and entertainment and [inaudible 49:41].   And I don't think that we're going to go back to the white picket fence for everybody's environment. Now, that doesn't mean people won't buy houses, but when people are not raising children, they will prefer generally to live in smaller environments, more like Europeans do, and I think that pertains, well, for multifamily. There are so many good trends that are feeding into the multifamily trough that I can't imagine right now that in general, multifamily would have a crash.   James: Got it, got it. And so we're coming almost to the end of the show. Can you give us one advice to people who are thinking of becoming like you owning thousands of units and they're just getting started?   Rich: Sure. So this is my main piece of advice is that if you want to be in this realm, then you must make it a full-time job. This is not an investment, multifamily is not a stock that you-- it's not putting money on Microsoft and watching it go up and down. It's an active business, and if we're going to try to be somebody who owns several apartment complexes, then you just really can't buy the complexes and hand away the keys to the management company and expect great results. You have to be very actively involved, visit your properties, know the rents in the market, walk vacant apartments, and make sure you hire good people. It really is a business, and if you're not prepared because of your lifestyle, your other job or something like that to devote most of your time to this business, then my recommendation is become a limited partner in a deal or two, try to make money that way. But don't think that you could become a principal and own five or 10,000 apartments that way, no, it's not going to happen.   James: Got it. I mean, this is one of the requests from our listeners. Is there anyone advice that you want to give to a passive investor who is investing in this deal? What they should look for [inaudible 52:14]?   Rich: Well, the big issue for passive investors is that they should really understand what they're investing in, like any other investment, and not take the offering that they get from the company or the operator at its face value because it could be too optimistic. You want to make sure you agree with the assumptions. So you would probably at the very least get on the computer and look at how much are units really renting for in that area. If they're going to renovate, well, what does a renovated unit look for? Is this an achievable rent that they're projecting and are their expenses realistic? Are they in line with what expenses really shouldn't be? So do a little homework; that's my main thing, and don't just trust that, just because somebody sent you something that said that there's a 30% return, that that's a real thing.   James: Yeah, I have many, many times some passive investors just look at the final return numbers and decide whether they want to invest or not, but they forgot that we are making thousands of assumptions in that spreadsheet. So you rather check the assumptions rather than just the final numbers.   Rich: Absolutely.   James: Right, so Rich we're really happy to have you here. How can the listeners and audience reach out to you?   Rich: Well, they could, we have a website, alcapgroup.com and they can send me an email through there. If they want to know about our upcoming deals, we'd be happy to put them on their list and work with them, talk to them, and see if we can do some business together.   James: Awesome, awesome. Thank you very much Rich for coming onto the show.   Rich: Thanks James, been a pleasure.   James: Pleasure to have you. Thank you.

https://www.billybobproducts.com/ The Billy Bob Teeth Company has manufactured over 22 million Billy Bob Teeth, selling to over 95% of the countries in the world! The history of Billy Bob Teeth: As the name Billy Bob Teeth Incorporated implies, our company's origin has a toothy beginning. Our very first product was the world famous Billy Bob Teeth. When a dental student named Rich Bailey met an entrepreneur in the making, Jonah White, in the fall of 1993, history was made and they changed the way the world forever puts on their smile. The location was a college football game at Jonah's alma mater, Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri. This story and many more are outlined further in Jonah's book, "The Billy Bob Secret To: Life." Jonah White recalls, "I was trying to watch the game with 15,000 other spectators and here comes this hillbilly across the stands with these bucked-out teeth talking and flirting with the crowd and cheerleaders. He was so confident insisting that he was better looking than Mel Gibson and not being shy, asking for multiple girls' phone numbers in the same sentence. Only out of complete luck did I meet Rich after the game and get let in on his secret of the 'Billy Bob Teeth.'" "Rich and I became friends and he taught me how to make the Billy Bob Teeth. Up to that point, he had only made 3 pair!" Our company "sunk its teeth" into the novelty market even deeper in 1998 with the invention of the "Billy Bob Pacifier". An actual baby pacifier adorned with oversized buck teeth on the face shield. "We had our first baby that August and I was so put out that all the pacifiers out there were so boring.", recalls Jonah. With this addition to our line of products, the Billy Bob Teeth Company opened up even more global markets. Within the span of just a few years our pacifier assortment grew from a handful of novelty pacifiers to over 70 designs. Most quite tasteful. This is one of our most successful product lines currently. All in all over 300 items are manufactured and sold worldwide by Billy Bob Incorporated. Our most recent addition to our product line came from Rich Bailey's expertise as a dentist. "I've been helping people improve their smile for 10 years now as a licensed dentist. Many people just do not have the money or time to seek the audience of a dentist. Let's face it - conventional dentistry is expensive. Some people need an inexpensive route to fix their smile," Rich said. So Rich unveiled "Dr. Bailey's The Secure Smile," a do-it-yourself smile makeover kit. Already selling in Europe, Australia, Japan and the Middle East, the Secure Smile adds yet another dimension to this already "outside the box" company. Bringing an invention to market? Let inventRight, the world's leading experts on product licensing, show you how. Co-founded by Stephen Key and Andrew Krauss in 1999, inventRight has since helped people from more than 60 countries license their ideas. Visit http://www.inventright.com for more information and to become their student. Call #1-800-701-7993 to set up an appointment with Andrew or another member of the inventRight team to discuss how we can help you license your ideas. New to licensing? Read inventRight cofounder Stephen Key's bestselling book “One Simple Idea: Turn Your Dreams Into a Licensing Goldmine While Letting Others Do the Work.” Find it here: http://amzn.to/1LGotjB. Want to learn how to license your product ideas without a patent? Stephen's book “Sell Your Ideas With or Without a Patent” explains exactly how. Find it here: http://amzn.to/1T1dOU2. inventRight, LLC. is not a law firm and does not provide legal, patent, trademark, or copyright advice. Please exercise caution when evaluating any information, including but not limited to business opportunities; links to news stories; links to services, products, or other websites. No endorsements are issued by inventRight, LLC., expressed or implied. Depiction of any trademarks/logos does not represent endorsement of inventRight, LLC, its services, or products by the trademark owner. All trademarks are registered trademarks of their respective companies.

Today we chat with Kate Galliett of Unbreakablebody.com and Kirsty Grosart of GarageGymGirl.com two, very impressive strong women, about how HAND BALANCING can really be for everyone if they have all the "building blocks" in place. In this episode, we discuss about Kate and Kirsty's upcoming course, Hand Stand Building Blocks, but Kirsty and Kate also share their stories around fitness and movement the major setbacks they faced and how they were able to train through them to continue doing what they LOVE! We also talk about the aging process, our relationships with exercise and movement and how we refused to take, "NO" as an answer when faced with physical challenges and injuries.  This episode is SO RICH because these women are brilliant thinkers and movers. I can't wait for you to check it out! Follow Kate on Instagram at @theunbreakablebody and Kirsty @garagegymgirl and to learn more about the Women's Movement Collaborative, head to www.womensmovementcollaborative.com    

Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play.   Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's podcast series where we explore policy and practice issues that can impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and those individuals we care for, people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I'm the CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. I serve as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. And today, I am really pleased to have as my guest Dr. Richard Schilsky. He is ASCO's senior vice president. And chief medical officer, and Rich is here to talk about our new clinical cancer advances report, which was just released. In clinical cancer advances, ASCO identifies the most important clinical research advances of the past year across the full range of cancers, and from prevention to screening to treatment and survivorship. The report also announces what ASCO has identified as our advance of the year. And for the first time in this year's report, we will debut what we believe are the research priorities with greatest potential to advance progress against cancer. Rich, welcome and thank you for joining me today. Thanks, Cliff. Great to be back. now let's start with what we always do. Every year, we announced the advance of the year, the one area of clinical cancer research that has demonstrated the most significant progress in a year's time. And we've seen tremendous progress in the treatment of rare cancers, earning it the 2019 advance of the year recognition. Rich, can you talk about why this area was chosen? Why is this particular line of research so important for individuals with cancer? Well, first, let me start with a definition of what we mean by rare cancers. And generally, what we're talking about are cancers that are diagnosed with a frequency of less than six cases per 100,000 cancer diagnoses each year. Collectively, though, because there are many kinds of rare cancers, overall rare cancers comprise about 20% of all new cancer diagnoses every year. But those numbers may not even tell the full story, because as we learn more and more about the molecular subtyping of cancer, what we're learning, of course, is that there are many very, very rare mutations and fusions and other genomic alterations that occur in a very small proportion of even common cancer diagnoses. So the patient with lung cancer, who has a RET fusion that occurs in about 1% of all lung cancer cases, that begins to become a very rare subset, even though it's overall a common disease. So we're going to be dealing more and more with this general area of rare cancers. But the reason that it's so important to single this area out, of course, is because historically, we haven't been able to learn very much about these rare cancers, simply because they are rare. There aren't very many of them that occur each year. Therefore, they're difficult to study. It's difficult to complete clinical trials. It's difficult to find patient samples to be able to understand the underlying biology of these diseases. And yet, many of them are refractory to standard treatments. Many of them have a very aggressive clinical course. And for patients who are affected by one of these rare cancers, they desperately need new treatments. And this year, we're seeing, for the first time, some real progress being made in a number of these rare cancers. I'll give you some specific examples that we called out in the report. So for example, although thyroid cancer is a very common form of cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer represents only about 2% of all thyroid cancers. And of those anaplastic thyroid cancers, about 16%-- so now we're talking 16% of 2% have a BRAF mutation. But it's clear now that treatment with BRAF directed therapy produces a very high response rate in this rare group of individuals who have BRAF mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer. Another example, take the drug we're all familiar with, trastuzumab. We know now, of course, that trastuzumab is effective not only in breast cancer, but also in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma that's HER2 amplified. And there's emerging data that HER2 directed therapy may be active in other tumor types, where the HER2 gene is amplified. And one of those is uterine serous carcinoma. So uterine serous carcinoma is a rare subtype of endometrial cancer. And about 20% or 30% of those patients have a HER2 amplified gene driving their tumor. And trastuzumab has been shown to be an effective therapy in those patients as well. Last example I'll give you right now. A tumor that most oncologists probably will never confront in their practice, tenosynovial giant cell tumor. This is a very rare soft tissue tumor that occurs in the joints, typically of young adults, typically is refractory to all standard known cancer treatments. And yet, this year, we saw very promising results reported for a new class of anticancer drug, a CSF 1 inhibitor, called pexidartinib, that produced a 40% objective response rate in patients with these advanced tumors, compared to a placebo treated control group. So we're starting to make real progress in treating these rare cancers, particularly when we can begin to understand their underlying biology, and develop a therapy that's directed at the key drivers. It sounds to me-- I mean, in listening to that wonderful list of successes, that we've rolled up a process and an approach to drug development and science into a category that is appropriately called rare cancers. Because when you think about the way you presented it, which I think is lovely, first, rare cancers, as a group, aren't rare is what you said. Two, rare cancers cross from the rare histologies to include some of the common histologies. But the underlying theme, if I think about the way we present this, is a deeper understanding of the driver mutations, allowing us to move a little bit off of histology towards genomics to define these diseases. And that's not to say that genomics is the only way we're going to make progress. But the unifying theme in these cancers is probably that shared trait of an alteration and a driver mutation and an available drug. And that's the advance that's helping us with rare cancers. Is that a fair roll up of that? I think that is very fair. And you can think about it in terms of a common histology, like lung adenocarcinoma, having a large number of rare genomic subtypes, each of which comprises a rare cancer, if you will. Alternatively, you could think about it as in the trastuzumab example, of saying, well, if you look at the universe of HER2 driven tumors, those HER2 driven tumors comprise a whole bunch of different histologies. But they all are responsive to HER2 directed therapy. And so you know, as we understand the underlying biology of cancer much more clearly, it's moving us away from the long held view that the way you diagnose cancer is looking under the microscope. And if you see something that you see only very rarely, you say it's a rare cancer, to we're not going to interrogate the cancer if we see a rare genomic alteration that occurs infrequently in the population of cancer patients. That's what we're going to call a rare cancer. Yeah, I just say think it's almost like an introduction or a preview of an interesting future where more and more of the cancers we treat may be selected on this basis, rather than their conventional light microscopy appearance, right? To be sure. I mean, we know still that context is important. Not all of these molecular drivers behave in the same way in every tumor type. We already have examples where not all the targeted therapies work equally well against the same alteration, again, in every tumor type. But slowly, but surely, I think the science is moving us toward a day where we will be identifying cancers, primarily, if not exclusively, by their genomic profile. It may not be a single driver. It may be a signature. But that is ultimately is what we use to direct therapy. So to some degree, this is a fulfillment of a multi-year view that we've had about where to invest in cancer research, and the fruits, I think, are obvious. But this wasn't the only advance that we reported on last year. It's the one we named as the advance of the year. But what were some of the other advances that we called out for recognition? So as in the last several years, where we named some aspect of immunotherapy as the advance of the year, this year we continue to see progress in immunotherapy of cancer, particularly with extending the range of indications for many of the immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs, as well as new indications for CAR T cell therapies. So that continues to be a rapidly emerging area where there's a lot of progress continuing to be made. We continue to make progress how with the introduction of second and third generation targeted therapies. We've come to understand, of course, that many targeted therapies although they work well for a period of time, cancers ultimately develop resistance, patients need additional treatment options after the first line of targeted therapy. And of course, the science has responded by giving us the insight as to the mechanisms of resistance, which has led to the development of second and third generation inhibitors that can effectively overcome the treatment resistance. We're seeing this particularly in lung cancer, particularly with drugs recently introduced like osimertinib, which is effective against the T790M mutation, the common resistance mutation in EGFR mutated non small cell lung cancer. And interestingly, some of these drugs are also now showing much greater effectiveness in treating or even preventing the onset of brain metastases in lung cancers that commonly spread to the brain. So this has opened up actually a whole new area of research on effectively treating and preventing brain metastases in those tumor types, where there's a high propensity for such metastases to occur. The last thing I'll mention as another area of continuing progress is the continuing development of new biomarker strategies to help us refine the way in which we select patients to receive treatment. And certainly, this last year, the big news were the results of the so-called TLRX trial in breast cancer, a test, a gene expression profiling test, that clearly indicates that there is a substantial proportion of women with hormone receptor positive early stage breast cancer who can safely forego treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy with no detrimental effect. And this type of test I think is now going to really move us even further down the road of precision medicine, because it's allowing us to identify those patients who are most likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. They should get treated, and they will certainly benefit. But it also is allowing us to identify those patients for whom adjuvant chemotherapy is unnecessary, and who can be spared both the physical toxicity and the financial toxicity of adjuvant treatment. The more of those tests that we can develop, going forward, the better we'll be able to refine prognosis, the better we'll be able to apply adjuvant therapy in the future. I think one of the subtleties here is this highlights something we almost touched on before, which is precision medicine doesn't have to be only about gene rearrangements. There are multiple paths towards some degree of precision in treatment selection for individual patients. And this is, I think, a good example of that. It also is a good example of the fact that precision medicine is not actually just about treatment selection. It's about risk assessment, risk stratification, assessment of prognosis, identifying early recurrence, as well as directing patients to the right therapy at the right time, based on the biological characteristics of their cancer. So one of the things that we've done this year, and it's a first for us, is to announce a set of research priorities. These represent areas that our leading volunteers and others have identified as needing urgent attention. They are areas where the progress is promising, but not fulfilled completely. Can you talk a little bit about the motivation for creating this kind of a research agenda, as well as a criteria for actually selecting the specific research priorities? So obviously, you know, our field is advancing very rapidly. But there are still very many unmet medical needs. There are many clinical conundrums that oncologists face every day in practice. And we felt that given all the potential directions that research could take, ASCO is in a strong position to be able to at least begin to describe those areas, where we thought the potential benefits in patient care would be greatest, and could be realized soonest. ASCO, because we are the physicians who treat patients with cancer, we have a pretty good sense as to what the unmet medical needs of our patients are, what the lack of evidence is that our doctors struggle with every day in making clinical decisions with patients, where the field needs to continue to grow and to develop new information, to help fill those evidence gaps. So we felt that we could take a stab at setting a research agenda, and putting out there where we thought the unmet needs, where we thought the opportunities were ripe for investment in research, and trying to articulate how, if we were successful in fulfilling those research needs and priorities, the field would ultimately be transformed. So that's what we've done with the nine research priorities that we are offering this year. So the nine priorities that's important for readers in a moment, if they go look at this or pick up our publication to recognize, they're not rank ordered. They just happen to be nine. Maybe next year, there'll be fewer or more. And the second thing is in no particular order, as I understand it, we've divided them into a couple or maybe three big buckets. One is essentially the issue of who really benefits from IO, the advance that you already talked about, as a multi-year call out from us. The second is really a little bit about health care disparities and precision medicine all rolled up in the concept of special populations. And related to that is access to research itself. And then the third is something which we always worry about, but have, I think struggled with as a field for decades, and that is reducing cancer risk, along with screening, which is surprisingly still controversial in many settings. We'll talk a little bit more about some of the specifics, but I would just remind everybody listening that you can find a list of these nine research priorities if you go to our website asco.org/cca. So Rich, as you think about the nine areas that are rolled up in those three broad areas, can you talk a little bit about how specific research would potentially transform patient care? And you've set a relatively short timeline for results in introducing this. And what kind of resources might these projects need? If you take the first area, for example, of essentially getting the right treatment to the right patient at the right time, you know, we've touched on some of these themes already. Look at the results so far with immune therapy for cancer. It's remarkable that a significant, although still small fraction of patients across multiple tumor types, who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor, will have prolonged disease control, 20% or so of patients apparently surviving, without disease progression, or even disease free for many, many years in melanoma and diseases that previously were death sentences for patients. The question is why is it only 20%, and who are they? Because these drugs are toxic. They're expensive. And what we'd like to be able to understand is, what are the characteristics of the tumor or of the host or of the treatment that makes the treatment so effective in a proportion of patients, so that we can then learn how to increase its effectiveness in those groups of individuals, where it has so far been less effective. The same is true, as we touched on a moment ago, regarding adjuvant post-operative therapy. If you think about solid tumors, broadly speaking, roughly 50% of patients with a newly diagnosed solid tumor are cured by surgery alone. They don't need and can't benefit from adjuvant therapy. Of the remaining group, who are at higher risk of recurrence. Many of them will not benefit from whatever adjuvant therapy they might receive. So what we observe in most clinical trials of adjuvant therapies are relatively small absolute improvements in say disease free and overall survival for the entire population of patients treated. But of course, what that likely represents is a substantial benefit for a small proportion of that population. So what we are suggesting in this research priority is additional research, similar to what we saw presented this year with the TAILORx study, that allows us to understand the biology, the biomarkers, the testing that can be done to identify the patients most likely in need of and those who will most likely benefit from adjuvant therapy. And then the third area within this general theme goes back to immunotherapy and the enormous promise of CAR T cells, which so far, has been realized almost exclusively in patients with hematological malignancies. So that's wonderful. And we want to extend that benefit as far as it will go. But the question is, can those treatments be effective in solid tumors, which generally have a much more complex biology than many human hematological malignancies, and how do we develop CAR T cell therapies that can be effective in the solid tumor setting, that can be delivered to a solid tumor patient population, and ideally, and this may still be a bit of a pipe dream, can we develop CAR T cell therapies then that can be developed and administered off the shelf, so that they don't have to be custom made for each individual patient, which drives up the complexity and the cost of treatment. So those are the key elements of this initial theme. And in a similar way, we would have similar, or we would have short term plans for the other areas that we haven't gone into detail here. And again, I would remind listeners that they can go through our whole list of ideas in terms of areas of focus at asco.org/cca. Right? Absolutely. And when they do that, what they'll find are that we are calling for increased research in precision medicine and pediatric cancer. We're calling for increased research that's necessary to optimize the care of older adults with cancer. We're calling for research on how to ensure more equitable access to cancer clinical trials, so that all patients can benefit from those studies, and we can make progress more quickly. And then finally, of course, we're very interested in learning more about how to reduce the long term consequences of cancer treatment. The pediatric oncologists have actually been quite successful at this, because first of all, they've been very successful at curing children. And now, they've been able to show that they can begin to pull back on certain components of therapy in a very thoughtful and well studied way, so as to not diminish the chance of cure, but to diminish the risk of long term side effects of treatment. We, of course, want to have more research done, addressing the challenge of obesity in this country and its link to cancer risk, cancer progression, and cancer treatment, and then finally, to identify strategies to better understand the biology of so-called pre-malignant lesions, so that we can understand which pre-malignant cancers are the ones that are destined, in fact, to become invasive cancer. That latter touches on a theme we could talk about another day which is the building, the emerging drive to rename some of those cancers, as something less than cancer, because of their lack of at least acute life threatening potential, right? We could talk about that another day, and we should. Yes. So one of the things that I think is always important to point out is we can do all of this work, but of course, we are part of society, and we're dependent upon various sources of funding and other resources in terms of public policy. We are dependent on government ultimately for support, as well as private support. And I think this clinical cancer advances report highlights that there are policies that would help us improve and accelerate clinical cancer research. Some of them are obvious. We talk about them in other podcasts, increasing access to clinical trials, covering the routine quest of care for trial participants, and indeed, increasing overall federal funding, not in an unpredictable way, but in a steady way, that allows us to make multi-year plans across our community. Given all of that, what steps do you think ASCO members, specifically, could take to support us? And I would take it a step further. What should they be telling their representatives in Congress in terms of these policies? What should they be telling them in terms of supporting these critical areas of cancer research and how can they make an impact? It's clear that essentially all progress that we make in developing new treatments for cancer ultimately gets linked back to federally funded support for basic science research. All of the insights that we've developed in terms of what causes cancer, how it progresses, which are the high risk populations, so much of that information comes from data sets and other basic laboratory studies, funded by the NIH or the National Cancer Institute. Of course, the NCI has in place a robust national clinical trials network publicly funded that supports clinical trials that would never be done by a commercial sponsor. In fact, three of the rare cancer studies that I mentioned earlier during this podcast were done with support from federal funding. Those studies, because they are rare cancer, small populations are not studying tumors that represent a large market for a new pharmaceutical product. They're not going to be done by a commercial sponsor. We need federal support. And we need our members to point out these kinds of examples when they go to talk to their representatives in Congress. And I would urge our members to not only go to talk to your representative, but to bring a patient with you. The patient tells a story far better than we can. And having the patient at your side and having the patient tell their own story about how they benefited from federally funded research is very powerful. In order to reach your member of Congress, ASCO's trying to make that as easy as possible, and you can do that by going to ASCO's Act network at asco.org/actnetwork. That's great. I mean, we've covered a lot of exciting progress, I think, this year. And readers who take the time can dive far more deeply into this discussion with our publication. But what would you say is the main takeaway, the thematic takeaway that you hope people will get from this year's clinical cancer advances report? To me, I think what we continue to see this year, and we have seen in recent years is that the more deeply we understand cancer biology, the more that will quickly lead us to new therapeutic approaches that will be far more effective, and hopefully, less toxic, and maybe most importantly, more enduring than the common therapies that we've had available to us in the past. Our field is clearly moving to a day when immunotherapy will be central to cancer care, when every patient will have their cancer genotype well understood, and where therapy decisions will be informed by that deeper understanding of each patient's biology. So you almost did this, but I'm going to push you a little more. In the same way that we're now calling for what should be done next in terms of research, if you could actually look into the future, what areas of progress against cancer would you expect or maybe hope to see, just 12 months from now, when we do this report again? I hope that one of the things we'll see is rapid progress in developing, not necessarily novel biomarkers as unique tests, but novel biomarkers signatures. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that in order to select patients optimally to receive immunotherapy, and even to select patients to receive certain precision medicines, that a single biomarker is not necessarily the optimal selection strategy. For immunotherapy, we may need to see a signature that represents some characteristics of the tumor, some characteristics of the patient, maybe even some characteristics of that patient's microbiome in order to figure out who is most likely to be susceptible to which immunotherapy approach, and the same is going to be true, I think, for even the now common precision medicine approaches with small molecules. We're trying to understand how molecular pathways and networks work inside the cell can suggest to us not which single targeted therapy to use, but which combination of targeted therapies to use for each individual person. This kind of work is on the horizon. It's complicated, involves lots of complex algorithms. But my hope is that this will move us to a future where we can take the results of a test on a patient's tumor and integrate information of various sorts and come out with a more precise estimate of what's likely to be the best treatment for that person. And you think that we could see some of those results even as soon as just 12 months from now, or is this a longer term hope? I think we will begin to see some of these types of approaches appearing at an ASCO meeting in 2020. Well, that's really exciting. I think it's really both uplifting, and I think challenging to hear where we are, because of course, as is always true in science, every answer begets many more questions. And in our world, every bit of progress identifies new challenges. And I think that's what's summed up in a lot of what's in this report now, right? Absolutely. But you know, I think for the first time, you know, ASCO is trying to articulate where we see the greatest opportunity. And we hope to be able to do this each year in the coming years. As you said earlier, it may not always be nine research priorities. Some of that might even be repeated year to year, because we won't solve every one of these in a year from now. But we will modify these. We will improve upon them, and they will change as the science advances, as the questions evolve, and as the opportunities continue to develop. Well, rich I want to thank you for joining me today for this ASCO in Action podcast. I'll remind everybody, we have a mission at ASCO to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality cancer care. And this clinical cancer advances report really does help us meet that mission, by increasing awareness of the progress we're making, but also, as you point out, identifying the critical importance of the entire community's engagement in research and high quality care. That is pointing out just how important all that is in terms of delivering on the promise of all of our progress. I encourage listeners, again, to read the full report by visiting asco.org/cca. And until next time, I thank everyone for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast.

"Justice and Subjective Transformation: GA Cohen Pt. 4" - Owls at Dawn, Episode 73Shitty Minute: “Privilege” as a simple disqualifier | Main Segment: GA Cohen’s If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?, Part 4 | Sticky Leaves: UndertaleMusic by Blue Ducks - "Four Inches of Water"

"Opium and Equality: GA Cohen Pt. 3" - Owls at Dawn, Episode 71Shitty Minute: Jack from Twitter and faux spirituality | Main Segment: GA Cohen’s If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?, Part 3 | Sticky Leaves: RomaMusic by Blue Ducks - "Four Inches of Water"___________To gain access to bonus episodes, the monthly newsletter, and more, visit our Patreon account. All funds will go toward producing further content, increasing our ability to engage with you, and improving our technical production.@owls_at_dawn | owlsatdawnpodcast@gmail.com | patreon.com/owlsatdawn

Sexy Spirituality podcast Episode 5: Music Changes Everything   Today's Hosts: Lezli Goodwin Kimjera Whittington Sonia Byrne and special guest host Amy Steinberg   Check In Halloween costumes are on our minds...    Lezli Goodwin: "Music Changes Everything" On the spiritual path, seemingly small choices add up to a huge difference in how you feel about your life and yourself. We all know that music sets a tone – think about the music you choose for a romantic evening vs the music you choose for an intense workout. Negative, heavy, dark music can contribute to similar feelings. Positive, joyful, spiritual music can support that kind of lifestyle. We’ve all had the experience of the song that touched us so deeply it literally changed our lives. What if we curated the music we listen to intentionally to affect us in positive ways? That doesn’t mean you can’t have your guilty pleasures, but in moderation.   Roundtable with Kimjera Whittington, Sonia Byrne & Amy Steinberg Reclaiming words like holy, spirit and God can really be a big part of opening to new music. High vibration choices can shift the energy of your day, even when the coffee maker is broken. We can speak to anything through music.  It's important to be honest and authentic.  What we focus on grows, yes, but we have to process our feelings before we can turn back to the positive.  Anything else is spiritual bypass. Looking at the shadow is legitimate, and a real part of wholeness. Sometimes the "crying songs" are the highest vibration songs, because they are about owning the whole soul.  When we deny what's happening right now (not from the cosmic truth, but from what we are in), that can be a very low vibration. Depression, terminal illness and pain are real things. What am I willing to let go and trust? What am I willing to let Spirit do? (Looking at the journey from "It's happening TO me, BY me, THROUGH me, AS me.") Amy is working on New Thought praise music, which is so deeply needed in the spiritual world. It touches our hearts so deeply. Links to all of the inspiring songs we mentioned, plus a couple more because we love you: Karen Drucker, You Are Healed https://youtu.be/LSNto4cGigM Rickie Byers, Wholly Holy Way: https://youtu.be/jRPcZb447r4  Daniel Nahmod, Get Ready My Soul: https://youtu.be/vUrRtf3rVmg  Eddie Watkins Jr., I Walk Away: https://youtu.be/SAmbbx1KLYU Lenny Kravitz, Let Love Rule: https://youtu.be/Bbiqy2TOwBw Michael Buble, Feeling Good: https://youtu.be/Edwsf-8F3sI  U2, Beautiful Day: https://youtu.be/co6WMzDOh1o  A fun song from Lezli (co-written and produced by the amazing Jack Howell, WilloDisc), Deepak on a Yacht: https://youtu.be/g7WadVm5Yk8  Lezli's favorite song from Amy Steinberg, Grace: https://youtu.be/vQjauXyJWxk  The Universe's favorite song from Amy (so far), Burning into the High:  https://youtu.be/dyXjfwnfhyU      Tell Us Something Good! Amy "Shine, Be Glorious" (my new CD) is coming out really soon! You'll find it on iTunes, my web site www.AmySteinberg.net. Check the web site for retreats, concerts and all kinds of good things coming up. (Plus, don't forget to check out the bonus download from Amy -- the song "So Rich" from her not yet released new album!!)   Kimjera I've just signed with Luminary Speakers, a speaking agent, and will be working with businesses and organizations who are ready to expand and thrive. You can find all the details to book me as a keynote speaker at www.LuminarySpeakers.com and  www.kimjerawhittington.com    Sonia I have a book study coming up on "A Woman's Worth" by Marianne Williamson. She actually wrote it 25 years ago, and it's having a resurgence and a re-relevance.  October 22 begins a 5 week interactive community group around this book. $70.00, meeting via Zoom technology. You can learn more and register at www.soniabyrne.com.     Lezli I have launched a 10 session spiritual mentoring package at a steep 20% discount off my normal rates. So, if you're ready to dig in and look at life differently and let go of the limiting beliefs that have held you back, this offer might be perfect for you.  I love helping people learn real, practical and mystical ways to put Spirit first and experience real change.  Learn more at www.LezliGoodwin.com.    Show Info Thank you for tuning in to Sexy Spirituality! Share your thoughts at SexySpirituality@gmail.com Be sure to subscribe at www.SexySpiritualityPodcast.com 

Spider-Man! Spider-Man! Does whatever a spider can! Chris and Mackenzie web up a Spider-Panel to discuss the webhead himself. Join guests Adam Caudill (writer/director) and Megan Patrick (writer/artist) as they look at what makes the webslinger so special. What’s different about Peter Parker? Is Venom a good villain? Do NYC subways normally go by military bases? Who is the ultimate Spider-Man villain? Links About Adam Caudill http://imdb.to/2tNUPKE Spectacular Spider-Man http://bit.ly/2svsyEE Watch Spectacular Spider-Man on Crackle http://bit.ly/2svAhCJ Spider-Man: The Animated Series http://bit.ly/2tNQuaa About Venom http://bit.ly/2tOnUFP About the Symbiote http://bit.ly/2sv5je1 About Bathos http://bit.ly/2svgMdx What Writers Should Learn from Wonder Woman (Bathos) http://bit.ly/2svaDhd 'Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark' Performances to Go On Despite Thursday's Accident http://bit.ly/2suTR1P Listen to Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark on Apple Music http://bit.ly/2tO6ZDa Spider-Man Animated Movie Is the Miles Morales Story http://bit.ly/2tO71uM Superior Spider-Man http://bit.ly/2tOaTvP About Spider-Ham http://bit.ly/2svpPLt Bruce the Gargoyle http://bit.ly/2tS3TxG The Infinity War http://bit.ly/2tOdkyv About Spider-Woman http://bit.ly/2uwaUlo Off topic: We Finally Know Why Harry Potter’s Family is So Rich http://read.bi/2tvUppu

Demonstration of the signs mentioned in the sermon here. The video played during the sermon here.   Receiving and Believing John 20:19-31                                                      Narrowing Our Focus Ø       So Rich in Possibilities! Remember your first time at a buffet? (For me it was Duffy's.What to eat first!?!) There is a wealth of possible topics in today's post-Easter lectionary reading: The disciples were hiding and fearful; quite the opposite of Pentecost! Jesus appears! Is He a spirit?No, He shows them His wounds... Why does Jesus retain His wounds? Isn't it neat that He says "Peace be with you," which was their everyday polite greeting, like "how's your mom & them, but His mission was to bring Peace? That part about forgiving and retaining sins: is that license for the Roman Catholic practices of penance and excommunication, or is that about our ministry of declaring forgiveness through faith in Christ (as the Greek suggests)? Was Thomas stubborn, hurt, the first scientist, or what? Thomas' confession was light years beyond Peter's finally unmasking for us Jesus as God. Ø       Let's narrow it down to these: v22 Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." v29 Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.” AND v31 But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name. What is this link between believing in Jesus and receiving new life through the Spirit? Do We "Believe?" Ø       I have a problem with Indiana Jones... #1 - After you see the Ark of the Covenant destroy a group of Nazi's, how do you still interpret it without bringing in God? #2 - That scene in The Last Crusade about the "leap of faith..." Ø       The problem with the Leap of Faith We tend to define what is "leaped over" as a lack of evidence Look at what Thomas says... But in my experience, what we "leap over" is more about the struggle in our hearts (insecurities, fear of being hurt, etc.) than the struggle in our heads Imagine yourself as Thomas, and look at what he did... Ø       The problem with "belief" Like "love," we can say a lot or a little when we say, "I believe" ex 1: "I believe it's going to rain." ex 2: "I believe this airplane is safe." ex 3: "I believe in my wife." As in, "No, that wasn't my wife tossing dollar bills at the Chip & Dale performers!" Or better yet, "Honey, I need you to leave the house for the next 30 minutes.No questions. Trust me.  This is important." (I will, of course, ask if she's in any danger...) "Belief in Christ" is that kind of belief that starts with a realization and moves quickly to trust, then over time permeates the center of your being and fills every corner of your life... Thomas: "My Lord and my God!" Part of the New Creation Ø       John's hidden implication: Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. John 1:1a In the beginning was the Word... v3 God created everything through him, & nothing was created except through him. Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person. John 20:22 Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." Ø       As a disciple, you are called not just to a set of rules or a certain standard of behavior, but to willingly participate in your own re-creation... Ø       The impact that people of the New Creation have is amazing... "Christians are made of Steel!" - a clip from an Egyptian news broadcast in which a Muslim journalist reacts to an interview with the widow of the gatekeeper who prevented a suicide bomber from entering an Alexandria church yard on Palm Sunday, thereby saving countless lives.... That is the kind of impact we are called to have as a part of the New Creation, a post-Easter people!

So Rich has some big big things to announce on this edition of the show... This might be the FINAL "Rich Giordano Show" as we know it. Now for the answer as to why, and what does that mean you're going to have to listen to the podcast in case you missed it live.

This episode is sponsored by Soundstripe.com.  So Rich and I meet up for the first time in about a year - time flies. We discuss what our talk will involve at the Shadows and Light Event at the end of March. We quickly skim over music licensing and how it affect us in the UK. We also talk about regualr corporate clients, when they change a regular job into something else, how do we charge for that? Rich has also been asked to film a wedding venue for promotional reasons and is struggling with the logistics of it.    Here is the link to our course and whilst you still can use the discount code ‘OWIV’ to get £50 off.  Shadows and Light: Wedding Cinematics http://shadowsandlightweddingcinematicshome.pages.ontraport.net    Cant make it? For only £15 why not purchase a virtual ticket, for streaming and on-demand viewing, follow this link and use the code: VIRTUALEBD  http://shadowsandlightweddingcinematicsvirtualticketpurchase.pages.ontraport.net     Don’t forget to follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ourweekinvideo/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ourweekinvideo and now Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ourweekinvideo/   We are proudly sponsored by Soundstripe save 10% off their subscription by using the code ‘OWIV’ at checkout.   Thank you for listening. SUBSCRIBE on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/our-week-in-video-video-production/id955970525?mt=2   To see our work, follow these links:   Ben’s http://www.brutoncoxvisuals.com http://www.theweddingcut.com https://twitter.com/brutoncox   Rich’s http://www.auroravideo.co.uk https://twitter.com/auroravideo

So Rich is back, this time as a rotating co-host. He and Nicky will rotate as co-hosts and at times will be together, so Rich and I discuss Mystery Science Theater, along w/ some news and a story on Rich buying Wario Land 3 as a kid. (Recorded October 23rd, 2016) Donate: www.patreon.com/shellshocknetwork Give us a Follow: @shellshock-network Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ShellshockNetwork Subscribe us on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/TheShellpod Follow us on Twitter: Greg: twitter.com/GoodnightLove35 Rich: twitter.com/rstrahs Any audio, images, or music clips used in this episode belong to their proper owners, this is a non-profit podcast where the only way we're to make money is donations, t-shirt sales, and sponsors not off the audio itself.

EXAMPLES OF MANHOOD… Today’s podcast is another listener inspired episode.  A listener named Rich went through the trouble of going to the website at beingabettermanpodcast.com, and he wrote to me. Now I’m going to talk about what he asked me about.  Don’t forget, that you too can be like Rich and send me your questions and ideas also. So…Rich said this:  “I had a thought the other day about how, while the listeners of your podcast are obviously interested and motivated in becoming better men, how would you go about reaching the guys that aren’t similarly motivated? Can they be motivated if they don’t already have that drive? And if not, how do we instill that drive into them, if that is even possible?” In my opinion, THAT is an excellent question.  Thank you Rich for sending it in. He’s exactly right, I would agree that the majority of listeners to this show are guys who are already motivated to be better men.  They probably did a search and wound up at my website, they were seeking help in some fashion, or…there might be some who stumbled up on it and it resonated with them, and they just kept listening.  But most of the guys listening are probably interested or motivated in some way, to become better men.  Hey, while I was talking about this I became very curious…I’m wondering where most of you came from?  I’m going to put a survey or questionnaire or something like that on the Facebook page and I would really appreciate it if you would take a second and let me know how you found out about this show.  But now back to rich’s question. So…what about the other guys?  How would we go about reaching the men who are not similarly motivated?  That’s a good question, and I think I have the answer. Here is what I think;  My job, as the podcast host is to bring you content that makes you think, or that reenforces what you already know.  My job is to keep the mission of being a better man in the upper levels of your consciousness, so you remember to act on it. If I’m doing my job correctly, then you guys are walking around thinking about being better men everyday, better than you were the day before.  All of you, including myself spend a portion of time out in the public, away from our homes and families.  Out there in the world, where these other men...

So Rich is away around Europe (lets hope they let him back in) so i thought it a good idea to have a chat about making a music video for the first time. Not just a new genre of filmmaking for Sam, but EVERYTHING was new to Sam - brave man! We talk about his experiences were, and what he could have done better for the next one. Music today is by Nancy Black, called Dirty Little Bass. SUBSCRIBE on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/our-week-in-video-video-production/id955970525?mt=2   To see out work follow these links:   Ben’s http://www.brutoncoxvisuals.com http://www.theweddingcut.com https://twitter.com/brutoncox   Rich’s http://www.auroravideo.co.uk https://twitter.com/auroravideo

In this episode we are still without Rico, but he will be back for episode 42.  So Rich and Jon invited another podcaster, Kevin McKinney from the Throttled Podcast. Reminder of our long ride contest.  Send us your planned destinations of what you consider a long ride to feedback@rdubstudios.com or use our feedback page.  We'll also draw two names from the responses and send you a Loud Pipes t-shirt.  Submission deadline is May 1, 2016.A big thanks to our second Patreon supporter who recently joined us for the monthly Patreon production meeting and we had a blast!  Don't miss out on the next one, check out our Patreon page for details.  There are also three more "first five" t-shirts remaining at a special $5/month level as of this episode.U-TURN: Indian Project Scout - Indian has announced the winnersWinner: BOARDTRACKER Motos Illimitees (translates to Bikes Unlimited)Fan Favorite: Fusion!  - also LoudPipes! pick from our friends at Indian Motorcycle of CharlotteBuilders Choice: OL' 71 - Heritage Indian Motorcycles of Northwest ArkansasNEW TOPICS:Rich attended a Harley-Davidson demo day and gave us a quick review of the following bikes:CVO Street GlideRoad Glide SpecialCVO Pro Street BreakoutRich took video and plans to give more details on the bikes, so keep an eye out on RDub Studios YouTube channelKevin rented an Indian Chieftain while in Las Vegas.  Overall bike was good, but was a little uncomfortable due to his height, placement of the floor broads, and handlebarsRich has completed and released the video from EasyRiders 2016 Bike Show Tour in Charlotte, NC.  If you are a Patreon supporter, then you've had access to this video for the past two weeks. :)New Technology - the guys talk about helmets that offer riders either communications, cameras, and even HUDSkully helmet offers 180 degrees, turn by turn for navigation, music, etc.  Cost for this helmet is $1500BMW has HUD and it will integrate with a BMW motorcycleSamsung has came up with a smart windshield.  Our guest Kevin from the throttled podcast recently covered this topic, check it out for more detailCranium Helmets currently only a prototype and similar to the Skully helmet.  Differs in that is had dual projectors and 210 degree camera coverageBell has developed a helmet with a 360 degree cameraSena - Smart Helmet Rich finally install Sena 20s on his helmet and tested it out.  Over all Rich says its working ok, but still needs adjustmentsRich would like to get the Sena Bluetooth pack for the GoPro. Events:Upcoming events that one or more Loud Pipes! members plan on attending: Charlotte AutoFair (April 7th-10th, 2016) Moto Vlogging Meetup - May 20th-22nd.12th Annual Barber Vintage Festival (October 7th-9th, 2016)   Visit RDubStudios.com/donate if you would like to support and help us improve the show or better yet visit our Patreon page where your contribution will help us achieve our goals and there are rewards for you at different pledge levels.Running time: 1 hour 31 minutesQuestions or comments: feedback@rdubstudios.com or the Feedback page

Speaker: Rev. Mike Zenker Date: Sunday, January 17, 2016 Do You Understand? I mean REALLY understand? How wide, how long, how high, and how deep his love is. Enjoy today's message diving into the profound depth of Ephesians 3:14-21. This small text is SO RICH with deep truth....you will be encouraged!! Message: jan_17_2016_do_you_understand.mp3 Video: read more

--{ Cultural Mutations by Foundations: "There's a Hidden Hand, Guiding all Direction, It's Powerful, Wealthy, Yet Evades Detection, To Tie it Together, Lift the Veil, Follow Associations of the Money Trail, Foundations Each Year Give Out Billions To Their Armies of NGO Minions, Their Think-Tanks Advise All V.I.P.s On Foreign Policy and They also Grease Palms of Politicos by Incessant Lobbying To Ensure the Agenda is Pushed, Following Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, So Rich get Richer, Poor get Dishevelment, They Drag Up Policies from their Deep Cellar, Dig in to the History of Rockefeller" © Alan Watt }-- Final Court Decision on Katerina Jeleva's Battle for Her Son. Merck, Falsified Mumps Vaccine Test Data and False Claims - Mandated Vaccinations and Disease. Biometric ID in China - American Senators Push Biometric ID - Iris Recognition - Canada, Biometrics for Foreign Nationals - Microchip Your Dog or 500 Pounds Fine - Bird Culls - Elimination of Meat - EU Rules on Fishing and Quotas - Facebook Mobile Tracking of Users - Genetic Roulette - Elimination of Private Property - Privatization of Postal Service - Rockefeller Brothers Fund - World Council of Churches - 7yr.-old Boy Suspended for Throwing an Imaginary Hand-Grenade. (See http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com for article links.) *Title/Poem and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Feb. 8, 2013 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)

Maurice Isserman joined Peter Edelman, author of So Rich, So Poor, and Harvard professor Jennifer Hochschild to discuss the politics and persistence of poverty in the US.

--{ The Brain-Drain: "A Mysterious Thing Progress, Presented as Our Saviour, Yet Each Little Invention Seems to Modify Behaviour, Skinner Advised Masters On the Use of This Technique, So Rich and Powerful Could Gain Control They Always Seek, I'm Reminded of the Sleep Room, MK-Ultra, Psychic Driving, With Information Overload and Deep-Sea Data Diving, Algorithmic Programmes with Nudges, Prompts and Trends, Mesmer You to Where Imagination, Truth and Fiction Blends, Rationality Takes a Holiday as Others Fill Your Head, Your Mind Professionally Hijacked, Occupied Until Your Dead" © Alan Watt }-- New World Order, Globalism, Interdependence, Only One Agenda - RIIA/CFR and their Techniques of War - Bankers Prefer Big Government, Communism/Socialism - Public given Plentiful Cheap Entertainment - Mass Behaviour Manipulation, Nudges and Trends - Fact Blended with Fiction into a Mush, Psychological Warfare - Minds Molded in Advance for Coming Changes - Every Mammal Looks to Parents for Warnings - Wars of Plunder, Mercenary Soldiers - Perception Management - "Global Warming" Dreamed up by Club of Rome, Must-Be Agenda regardless of Facts - Socialized Public - Redistribution of Wealth to "Fight Climate Change" - Abandoned Wind Turbines - A Society Without Morals Cannot Stand - Moral Relativism, Perversion Normalized - Hedonism, "It's All About Me" Society - AIDS and HIV. (See http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com for article links.) *Title/Poem and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Nov. 30, 2011 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)