Podcast appearances and mentions of Stan Shaw

It's Die Hard in a tunnel! This week, Phil and Liam dig in, around, and underneath DAYLIGHT, Rob Cohen's 1996 disaster movie starring Sylvester Stallone, Amy Brenneman, Jay O. Sanders, Dan Hedaya, Stan Shaw and Viggo Mortensen!When a freak accident causes both ends of an underground tunnel in New York to collapse, a group of random strangers find themselves trapped below the Hudson River. The only person seemingly capable of helping them is Kit Latura (Sylvester Stallone), a disgraced former EMS Chief seeking redemption for his role in a past tragedy. The guys start by discussing the disaster movie genre in general, placing this throwback film in a wider context, as part of a grand tradition of similar motion pictures that date back to their 1970s heyday. The original DIE HARD has its roots in the disaster movie genre, having been directly inspired by THE TOWERING INFERNO, one of several such films discussed (unflinchingly) in the ‘Die Hard DNA' section, along with the AIRPORT franchise that influenced DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER.After analyzing the film's premise, hero, and quirky cast of supporting characters (that includes a billionaire rock-climber, an Al Powell-esque uniform cop and a playwright with terrible taste in musicals), Liam presents his Earth-shattering theory that this entire film is in fact a Jesus allegory! The boys bust into ‘Die Hard Oscars' to hand out some action movie awards and cap things off with a mind-boggling edition of the ‘Double Jeopardy' trivia quiz!DAYLIGHT trailer:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRWIfCpxNK4 At the time of release, DAYLIGHT is streaming on Starz in the US, and is available to rent or buy on Prime Video, YouTube, Apple/iTunes, Fandango, and all the usual platforms! Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/die-hard-on-a-blank/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This week Matt & Todd discuss Daylight. A disaster film for the EXTREME 90s. It's parts of The Poseidon Asventure, parts of Towering Inferno mixed with a dash of Cliffhanger. Starring Sylvester Stallone, Amy Brenneman (who Matt refers to as Brennen the entire podcast) Viggo Mortensen, Stan Shaw, Danielle Harris and Trina McGee

As per usual another movie this week! And this week its The Monster Squad from 1987! Join us while we talk about this movie and whether its a kids movie or not and whether its a B movie or not! Dont forget to check out our social media and our YouTube. This weeks Creator Profile is the hot topic of Danny Masterson given his conviction and all! Again as always thank you all so much for the support and love! It means the most to us!

Steve & Izzy continue Nic-August Cage, a month-long celebration of the greatest living actor Nicolas Cage, as they are joined by Diana & Ryan of the Happily Ever Aftermath Podcast crew to discuss 1998's "Snake Eyes" starring Nicolas Cage, Gary Sinise, Carla Gugino, Kevin Dunn, Stan Shaw & more!!! How confusing can the names in this movie be? Is this a subdued Nic Cage performance? Would they really have a prize fight during a hurricane? How old are you?!? Let's find out!!! So kick back, grab a few brews, don't shoot the spaghetti, and enjoy!!! This episode is proudly sponsored by Untidy Venus, your one-stop shop for incredible art & gift ideas at UntidyVenus.Etsy.com and be sure to follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram & Patreon at @UntidyVenus for all of her awesomeness!!! Try it today!!! Twitter - www.twitter.com/eilfmovies Facebook - www.facebook.com/eilfmovies Etsy - www.untidyvenus.etsy.com TeePublic - www.teepublic.com/user/untidyvenus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get access to this entire episode as well as all of our premium episodes and bonus content by becoming a Hit Factory Patron for just $5/month.Returning Hit Factory favorites and fellow Neptune High Class on 1980 Sea Dogs Taylor Grimes and Hard Mike join for a testosterone-heavy conversation about Brian De Palma's 'Snake Eyes'. It's a throwback thriller that satisfies as both sleazy genre exercise and one of the director's most stylish metacommentaries on the craft of filmmaking itself.We discuss Brian De Palma as auteur, and how this film continues his career-long devotion to past masters like Hitchcock and their shared fascination with perversion, voyeurism, and corruption. Then we discuss the film's brilliant grasp on both form and function, as it employs its technical acuity to externalize the interiority of it's lead character (portrayed with considerable aplomb by a never-better Nicolas Cage). Finally, we discuss the film's many brilliant collborators, including the late Ryuichi Sakamoto of the influential Japanese electronic outfit Yellow Magic Orchestra who provides this movie's haunting and lyrical score.Follow Hard Mike on Twitter. Find Taylor online (if you can). ....Our theme song is "Mirror" by Chris Fish.

Pooch Hall from The Game and the Ray Donovan series is coming in with a punch! He talks about how he approached his role on “A Nashville Legacy” where he played Damian, the son of powerful Franklin Barryhall (played by the legendary Stan Shaw). He also told us about the feeling he experienced as the untold story of wrongdoing was exposed. He imagined how “A Nashville Legacy” can continue (already talking about a sequel) and how he would have liked to see more of the Daddy vs the legend. You have to watch this Mahogany film here on Hallmark's Movies and Mysteries and tell us what you think! Pooch talks about how he has grown as an actor, how he was 23-0 as an amateur boxer and the importance of self-care. He is also dropping some tips on how to get in more time with yourself. Follow him on social media at @iampoochhall to see what else he is whipping up.

On the latest episode, without Seand and Debbiie, we go full Nic Cage with 1999's Snake Eyes. Directed by Brian De Palma and written by him and David Koepp. Starring Cage and a full 90's cast, Gary Sinise, John Heard, Stan Shaw, Carla Cugino and Kevin Dunn. Does it have the De Palma touch? Does Cage do the whole "manic Cage" thing? Is the twist effective? Does it hold up? If you wanna know....watch.

On this episode of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO VIC DIAZ? we're heading into the jungle with Filipino thespian Vic Diaz in the 1978 Vietnam war drama THE BOYS IN COMPANY C, starring Stan Shaw, Andrew Stevens, and Craig Wasson. Similar in structure to Full Metal Jacker (and featuring R. Lee Ermey in a very similar role), it's a sometimes odd, sometimes hard-hitting look at a controversial war that also includes a whole lot of soccer for some reason. It's pretty good, and very different than the usual fair we cover on this podcast. CHECK IT OUT! 

On today's episode of The BS, we discuss the loss of our former radio station and home, Rock 100.5 Atlanta. We reflect on some fond memories, what makes a good radio show, and what could have been done differently! Next, we talk to actor, Chad Coleman! He tells us why he took on this new project, why Bailey doesn't like how he died on Walking Dead, working with Stan Shaw on Harlem Nights, and then Chad & Hailey get into a rap battle! Check out his first-holiday film, A CHRISTMAS PRAYER premiering this Sunday, December 11th at 7pm est on TV One! Later we talk about why Bailey's on a black bean burger kick, Matt Wright who we interviewed in episode 109 is arrested, should co-workers date, and we get another round of Everything's Better with Fuck! All that and more on today's episode of The BS! #BetterThanRadio For daily ad-free content, become a subscriber of The BS today: WWW.PODCASTTHEBS.COM --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/the-bailey-show/message

The gents are back for another show. Jason is getting a "new" pantograph and we take a dive into the history of shields and inlaying them into knife handles.Knives and shields reviewed on the show are here.As reviewed in the show - if you want to see Stan Shaw use a two-legged parser to inlay a shield - there's a nice little video on YouTube!Link to Chris Sharp's Instagram.If you enjoyed the episode, be sure to give us some of those stars in your podcast app! Jason Ritchie: @ritchie_handmade_knivesMike Moran: @mikemoranknives and on the web: mikemoranknives.comCheck out Neal's latest latest book on J.A. Henckels Knives

Title: The Monster Squad [Wikipedia] [IMDb] Director: Fred Dekker Producer: Jonathan A. Zimbert Writers: Shane Black, Fred Dekker Stars: Andre Gower, Robby Kiger, Stephen Macht, Duncan Regehr, Stan Shaw, Tom Noonan Release date: August 14, 1987 PROMO: Too Many Captains (@ItsaFilmPodcast) SHOWNOTES: We hope all you movie fans and horror geeks are enjoying a spooky October! Robert, Beau, and Ash are excited this time to dive straight into the 80s and monster cinema with a look at The Monster Squad! This classic Goonies-esque feature is a fun romp that is unabashedly a product of 1987, and we had a blast watching and discussing its story, characters, and presentation. Let us know what you think of this episode with a review on Apple Podcasts (or feedback on your platform of choice), and stay tuned for our At the Movies Edition Halloween Special on Halloween Ends! Collateral Cinema is on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and is on Podbean, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, YouTube, iHeartRadio, Chill Lover Radio, and wherever else you get your podcasts! (Collateral Cinema is a Collateral Media Podcast. Intro song is a license-free beat. All music and movie clips are owned by their respective creators and are used for educational purposes only. Please don't sue us; we're poor!)

Zo, with special guest host Morgan Cobbs of the Cobbs Corner Podcast, venture to the mid 1970s to the American Bicentennial to witness one of the strangest boxing matches of all time. The Boxing Heavyweight Champion of the World Apollo Creed grants a title shot to an unknown, unranked and untested local boxer as a chance to grant that man the opportunity of a lifetime in the Land of Opportunity.  Win or lose the lucky challenger's life will change forever. With the weight of Philadelphia on his shoulders this boxer engages in training for the fight of his life. This boxer is known to his fans as The Italian Stallion, but to his friends he is known simply as . . . Rocky. Episode Timestamps Opening Credits . . . . . . 00:22:35Favorite Parts . . . . . . . . 00:35:34Trivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  01:04:02Critics' Thoughts . . . . . 01:42:35 Morgan Cobbs and  Cobbs CornerPodcast: https://link.chtbl.com/CGB1aTiIInstagram: (Podcast): @cobbs_corner_podcast:  https://www.instagram.com/cobbs_corner_podcast/  Instagram:(Personal):  @future_mechanical_engineer:  https://www.instagram.com/future_mechanical_engineer/?hl=enTik Tok: @cobbscornerpodcast:https://www.tiktok.com/@cobbscornerpodcast  email: cobbscornerpodcast@gmail.comSubmit a voice message:  https://anchor.fm/cobbscornerpodcast/message Back Look Cinema: The Podcast Links:www.backlookcinema.comEmail: fanmail@backlookcinema.comTwitter: @BackLookCinema https://twitter.com/backlookcinemaFacebook: @BackLookCinemaPodcast https://www.facebook.com/backlookcinemapodcastInstagram: @backlookcinemapodcast https://instagram.com/backlookcinemapodcastTicTok: @backlookcinema https://www.tiktok.com/@backlookcinemaBack Look Cinema Merch at Teespring.com (https://back-look-cinema-merch.creator-spring.com/)Back Look Cinema Merch at Teepublic.com (https://www.teepublic.com/user/back-look-cinema-podcast-merch?utm_source=designer&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=G1VQNMthhSg) Made-For-TV Movie Podcasthttps://pod.link/1547103380#mftvmcpodcast on Google  

Hollywood Vice Squad (1986). Directed by Penelop Spheeris. Starring Ronny Cox, Carrie Fisher, Frank Gorshin, Julius Harris, Evan C. Kim, Joey Travolta, Robin Wright and Trish Van Devere. The Monster Squad (1987). Directed by Fred Dekker. Starring Andre Gower, Robby Kiger, Stephen Macht, Mary Ellen Trainor, Jonathan Gries, Leonardo Cimino, Stan Shaw, and Tom Noonan. Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988). Directed by David Zucker. Starring Leslie Neilsen, Priscilla Presely, Ricardo Montalban, George Kennedy and Jeanette Charles. Please review us over on Apple Podcasts. Got comments or suggestions for new episodes? Email: sddpod@gmail.com. Seek us out via Twitter and Instagram @ sddfilmpodcast Support our Patreon for $3 a month and get access to our exclusive show, Sudden Double Deep Cuts where we talk about our favourite movie soundtracks, scores and theme songs. We also have t-shirts available via our TeePublic store!

Follow us on Patreon at patreon.com/andalmoststarring June-a Davis month continues with the supremely silly swashbuckler Cutthroat Island aka: Slash ‘n Dash! Which Oscar-winning legend was considered for Morgan Adams? Who was cast as the male lead but dropped out last-minute after Geena Davis' role was expanded? And NOBODY could think of a better alternative to the “blow out his bottom” line?? Also – we workshop a better villain outfit for Langella's Uncle Dawg and try to get to the bottom of the great V-8 mystery!   Cutthroat Island stars Geena Davis, Matthew Modine, Frank Langella, Maury Chaykin, Stan Shaw, Rex Linn, Patrick Malahide, George Murcell, Christopher Masterson, and Harris Yulin Follow the Podcast: On Instagram: @andalmoststarring  Have a film you'd love for us to cover? E-mail us at andalmoststarring@gmail.com   www.andalmoststarring.com

This week Zi and Vindesh explore the dark side of technology.  Zi invited Stan Shaw to the podcast to the conversation. Smart phones are great tools, but they are also robbing humans of certain experiences.  We now have an entire generation that never knew life without internet. In some ways, they no longer have to work hard to overcome obstacles since the answers are on "Google." We talk about this paradigm shift and why humans aren't happier with the newest technology.

Zack & Zo venture into Prohibition Era Harlem where a gang war is a brewin'. Sugar Ray, the proprietor of a popular speakeasy, is  outgunned, but he he won't be outsmarted. Joined by Quick, his hot headed protégé, Sugar goes up against one of Harlem's toughest gangsters and we go along for the ride in Harlem Nights. Episode Segment Time StampsOpening Credits . . . . . . 00:01:37Stuff I Heard . . . . . . . . .  00:13:45Favorite Parts . . . . . . . .  00:19:55Trivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00:46:21Critics' Thoughts . . . . .  00:57:29Back Look Cinema: The Podcast Links:www.backlookcinema.comEmail: fanmail@backlookcinema.comTwitter: @backlookcinemaFacebook: The Back Look Cinema Podcast Instagram: backlookcinemapodcastTicTok: @backlookcinemaBack Look Cinema Merch at Teespring.comBack Look Cinema Merch at Teepublic.comSound Effects: Zapsplat.com

Galen is back (this time as a guest) and joins the guys to discuss the Renny Harlin box-office bomb: Cutthroat Island. This episode answers the question: how many pirate voices is too many? They also discuss Frank Langella's amazing performance, the filthy innuendo throughout, less-than-zero chemistry from the leads, holding people at gunpoint with eels, the existence of quicksand and much more. Plus: Galen does an incredible Geena Davis impression. Check our social media on Sunday for the Sunday Screencrap and take a guess at our next movie! What We've Been Watching: Moon Manor Pharma Bro "Outer Range" Questions? Comments? Suggestions? You can always shoot us an e-mail at wwttpodcast@gmail.com  Patreon: www.patreon.com/wwttpodcast Facebook: www.facebook.com/wwttpodcast Twitter: www.twitter.com/wwttpodcast Instagram: www.instagram.com/wwttpodcast Theme Song recorded by Taylor Sheasgreen: www.facebook.com/themotorleague Logo designed by Mariah Lirette: www.instagram.com/its.mariah.xo Montrose Monkington III: www.twitter.com/montrosethe3rd Cutthroat Island stars Geena Davis, Matthew Modine, Frank Langella, Maury Chaykin, Stan Shaw, Chris Masterson and Harris Yulin; directed by Renny Harlin Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stan Shaw chats with Nicholas Vince (HELLRAISER, NIGHTBREED) about acting on Broadway then starving in Hollywood, working with Sylvester Stallone on ROCKY, turning down a better paid job to star in JEEPERS CREEPERS 3, the joy of THE MONSTER SQUAD, THE GREAT SANTINI with Robert Duvall, why everyone hated him at the casting for THE BOYS IN COMPANY C, what he looks for in a director, becoming friends with Henry Fonda on ROOTS: THE NEXT GENERATION and much, much more in this extended edition. Stan Shaw on instagram https://www.instagram.com/thestanshaw/

This week, David focused on an actor that you've seen in movies and television shows since 1974, and still see today. David focuses on Stan Shaw. David talks Stan's martial arts background, why he's a boxer in a lot of movies, and the many characters he's played in movies and television. Live on Mixlr: https://mixlr.com/dirtsheetdudes/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxiRlUVw6gISmrCLvG9E_Kw Spreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/hollywood-hangout Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/hollywood-hangout/id1132940251 Google Podcasts: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc3ByZWFrZXIuY29tL3Nob3cvMzYwMzk2My9lcGlzb2Rlcy9mZWVk PlayerFM: https://player.fm/series/hollywood-hangout Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HollywoodHangout/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/HwoodHangout

The brothers have a cage fight in this episode! Nicolas Cage, that is. Take him, a murder conspiracy, boxing, and Atlantic City, throw Brian De Palma into the mix with a script by David Koepp (Carlito's Way, Spiderman) and you've got the makings of a good time. Also starring Carla Gugino, Stan Shaw, Gary Sinise, John Heard, and Kevin Dunn.

**TW/CW - Domestic Abuse/Racism**0:00-Intro and Movie Summary2:00-Movie Discussion1:02:41- Cast & Crew; Awards1:10:57- Pop Culture1:15:17-Music & TV1:18:13-Rankings & Ratings To see a full list of movies we will be watching and shows notes, please follow our website: https://www.1991movierewind.com/Follow us!https://linktr.ee/1991movierewind Theme: "sunrise-cardio," Jeremy Dinegan (via Storyblocks)Don't forget to rate/review/subscribe/tell your friends to listen to us!

The scary movie for scaredy-cat kids who don't like scary movies, it's The Monster Squad, directed by Fred Dekker and starring notable names André Gower, Robby Kiger, Stephen Macht, Duncan Regehr, Stan Shaw, and Tom Noonan (Noonan rules btw)

Movie: TNT Jackson by Cirio SantiagoUsage Clips from movie: Public Domainhttps://archive.org/details/TNTJacksonPhotos of Jeanne Belle from moviePhoto of Whitney: kindpng.comUsage: free imagehttps://www.kindpng.com/imgv/hxxoxho_whitney-houston-90s-fashion-hd-png-download/Song: I Learned From the BestSong by: Whitney HoustonPodcast vocals: Gail NoblesToday's topic: Whitney Houston and the character TNT Jackson. Whitney could have played many female characters. She had personality. Whitney Houston was heading more for movies in her singing career. Her first movie was the Bodyguard in 1992. It was a box office hit. Whitney always looked like an action film kind of woman to me. I think it would have been exciting to see Whitney in a Kung Fu kind of film. She probably would have had to take some Kung Fu lessons which I believe would have been good to learn because Kung Fu isn't just about fighting. It teaches self discipline. And maybe Whitney could have done a remake of the TNT Jackson movie starring Jeanne Bell.The film is about Diana Jackson (aka TNT) who learns her brother is missing. She suspects a powerful gangster and his friends are behind the disappearance. Determined to get at the truth, she goes to Hong Kong, and along with a friend named Joe, wages was on the criminal gang she's out to nail.In real life, it is said that Whitney Houston knew how to fight. If she had played the role of TNT Jackson, she would have known what it was like to have a brother because she had two. And she would have known something about fighting.In real life, Whitney Houston knew about business, and she knew how dirty it could be. In the film TNT Jackson, she probably wouldn't have had any problems acting out some of the parts. Like TNT, Whitney would let you know what she was about. And sometimes very frank. The character TNT Jackson was angry and went after the smooth talking bad guy that you just heard in the clip.Whitney Houston knew all about men too. The bad guy in film is actor Stan Shaw playing as Charlie. Whitney would have gotten a lot of exercise if she had played in a Kung Fu film. T and Charlie fought up and down a staircase. There was blood and lots of kicking and rolling on the floor. TNT Jackson is a1974 Blaxploitation.Well, T fought Charlie and killed him. He fell to the floor and laid still and his vision became blurred. TNT Jackson stood over him starring and that was the end of the movie. (Singing I Learned From the Best)“ Baby I learned the way to break a heart .I learned from the best.I learned …I learned from you.”If Whitney Houston would have done the remake of TNT Jackson, I'm sure there would have been a more up to date version. Who knows, it might would have been a bigger hit if Whitney had remade the film. On top of that, Whitney was already a star. She was every woman with the big hair do's and the small ones. I loved her big Afro in her video “I Learned From the Best”. I Learned From the Best is a song that might would have played at the end of a film like TNT Jackson. I'm Gail Nobles, and you're listening to the Whitney Soul Podcast. Today's topic: WH and the Character TNT Jackson

The Monster Squad, released August 14th in 1987, promised an all-star team-up of various classic monsters... And wow! Did it deliver! You've got Dracula, Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Monster, The Mummy and Gill-Man! We're joined by streamer Valarrys to check out this super fun family monster movie. Andre Gower GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/andre-gower-near-fatal-heart-attack-intensive-care  Join the Bad Porridge Club on Patreon for TWO bonus episodes each month! https://www.patreon.com/oldiebutagoodiepod Follow Valarrys! Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/valarrys/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/valarrys/  Twitter: https://twitter.com/valarrysTTV/ Follow the show! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oldiebutagoodiepod/  Facebook: https://fb.me/oldiebutagoodiepod Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjfdXHxK_rIUsOEoFSx-hGA  Podcast Platforms: https://linktr.ee/oldiebutagoodiepod  Got feedback? Send us an email at oldiebutagoodiepod@gmail.com Follow the hosts! Sandro Falce - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sandrofalce/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrofalce - Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/SandroFalce/ - Nerd-Out Podcast: https://anchor.fm/nerd-out-podcast  Zach Adams - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zach4dams/ Donations: https://paypal.me/oldiebutagoodiepod Please do not feel like you have to contribute anything but any donations are greatly appreciated! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's Throwback Thursday episode we review Runaway! Starring Tom Selleck, Cynthia Rhodes, Kirstie Alley, Stan Shaw, G.W. Bailey, and Gene Simmons.

Ahoy matey, and welcome back to another exciting episode of Not A Bomb Podcast. For this week’s show, Troy and Brad are joined by Eric from The VHS Files, to discuss 1995’s swashbuckling adventure film - Cutthroat Island. This pirate movie once held the infamous distinction as being the biggest box office flop of all time and put the final nail in the coffin of Carolco Pictures. Cutthroat Island had a notoriously troubled production. Numerous crew members were fired. The script was continually rewritten, and a broken pipe caused massive amounts of sewage to pour into the water tank inhabited by actors. All of these issues created a budget out of control and bad press for the filmmakers.The guys breakdown the history of Carolco and examine the downfall of one of the most successful independent motion picture production companies of all time. Plus, Troy finally becomes a man. And we actually find out if we should worry about dying from quicksand? Cutthroat Island is directed by Renny Harlin and stars Geena Davis, Matthew Modine, Frank Langella, Maury Chaykin, Patrick Malahide, and Stan Shaw.If you want to leave feedback or suggest a movie bomb, please drop us a line at NotABombPod@gmail.com. Also, if you like what you hear, leave a review on Apple Podcast.Be sure to check out of friends over at The VHS Files. Cast: Brad, Troy, Eric

Matthew Bannister on Nicola Pagett, the acclaimed actor who made her name on TV in Upstairs Downstairs and as Anna Karenina but also excelled in classical stage roles. Later in life she suffered severe mental illness. Stan Shaw, one of the last Sheffield craftsmen known as “little mesters”. He spent eighty years forging, grinding and finishing blades in the city’s cutlery industry. Professor John Mallard, who led the team at Aberdeen University which developed the first full body MRI scanner. Rupert Neve, the recording engineer who designed mixing desks revered by rock stars and music producers. Producer: Neil George Interviewed guest: Simon Williams Interviewed guest: Michael Coveney Interviewed guest: Prof David Lurie Interviewed guest: Dave Harries Interviewed guest: Phil Ward Archive clips used: Woman’s Hour: Radio 4, TX 23.9.1997; Shelford Interviews: Rupert Neve discusses how technologies in the 60's changed sound engineering

Writer/Director/Producer Aaron B. Koontz joins us to discuss his latest film- a Witchy Western- The Pale Door. Now streaming on Shudder! With an ensemble cast including: Devin Druid, Zachary Knighton, Stan Shaw, Melora Walters, Bill Sage, Noah Segan, Pat Healy, Natasha Bassett Screenplay by Aaron B. Koontz, Cameron Burns, Keith Lansdale Twitter: @AaronBKoontz @HorrorGirlProbs HorrorGirlProblems.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/horrorgirlproblems/message

Mark Hilinski discusses the life & legacy of his son Tyler, a former Washington St. QB who died by suicide in 2018 and the work of the Hilinski's Hope Foundation. Plus, Screen Stars, Heat Check and the Hall of Fame is not to be missed.Our GuestMark and Kym Hilinski have three sons, their middle-child's name was Tyler. He wore #3 as a  starter at Washington State where he engineered one of the greatest comebacks in the history in program history against Boise State in 2017. Just 4 months after that memorable win, Tyler took his own life  - though he never showed signs of depression or struggle. That same year Mark & Kym founded The Hilinski's Hope Foundation, a non-profit organization formed to promote mental health awareness and education for student-athletes. Last week, was Hilinski's Hope's inaugural College Football Mental Health Week, which culminated in the first 3DAY, where players raised three fingers in the third quarter in tribute to Tyler and to bring awareness to The Foundation's mission to educate, advocate, and eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness. 4:05 – “Thanks for having me, you guys.”Mark Hilinski shares his thoughts on the life and legacy of his son Tyler, the work of the Hilinski's Hope Foundation and what more can be done to eliminate the stigma surrounding mental health. 14:39 – “Rudy, we've got a packed number 3 show.”Football Honorable Mentions go to Joe Montana, Carson Palmer and Daryle Lamonica. The Contenders are Jan Stenerud, Bronko Nagurski, Mark Moseley and Tony Canadeo.20:10 – “Basketball's loaded with really, really good #3's.”Basketball Sentimental Favorites include John Starks, Damon Stoudamire, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Steve Francis and Tracy McGrady. Honorable Mentions are Ben Wallace, Stephon Marbury, Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Rex Chapman and Contenders are Dennis Johnson, Dwyane Wade and Allen Iverson.28:16 – “It is a Who's Who.”Baseball jumps next with Sentimental Favorite Ken Griffey, Jr. Honorable Mentions go to Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, Harold Baines, Bill Terry, Earl Averill and Alex Rodriguez. Contenders are Harmon Killebrew, Jimmie Foxx and Babe Ruth.36:43 – “Let's dive into hockey just real quick .”Hockey players of note are Pierre Pilote, Butch Bouchard, Marcel Pronovost & Harry Howell. Also, a NASCAR shout out to Dale Earnhardt “All I wanna do is race, Daddy.”38:27 – “We got 15 dudes . . .”Screen Stars wearing #3 on the silver screen:Jackie Earle Haley as Kelly Leak in Bad News Bears (1976)Michael Caine as Capt. John Colby in Victory (1981)Stan Shaw as Esquire Joe Callaway in Bingo Long (1976) Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life (1946)Mike Vitar as Benny “The Jet” Rodriguez in The Sandlot (1993)Rhys Ifans as Nigel Gruff in The Replacements (2000)John Goodman as Babe Ruth in The Babe (1992)Liev Schreiber as Ross Rhea in Goon (2011)Paul Newman (car) as Frank Capua in Winning (1969)Barry Pepper (car) as Dale Earnhardt in 3 (2004) John Candy as Spike Nolan in Brewster's Millions (1985)Joe Massingill as Bo Gentry in Trouble with the Curve (2012) – Scott Baio as Buff Saunders in The Boy Who Drank Too Much (1980)Shad Moss as Calvin Cambridge in Like Mike (2002)Robert Downey, Jr as Leo Wiggins in Johnny Be Good (1988)44:48 – “From the sublime to the ridiculous.”Derrick Rose AwardDale EarnhardtDrazen PetrovicBob GassoffHall of ShameSebastian Telfair35:33 – “Number ten is home cookin'.”Awesome Heat Check list for #3:Russell WilsonChris PaulBryce HarperAnthony DavisStephen Gostows

On this installment of The PAPER STREET Podcast, Becky and Shawn are joined by acting legend Stan Shaw! Starring in a number of well-known films (DAYLIGHT, FRIED GREEN TOMATOES, and THE MONSTER SQUAD) and television series (Roots: The Next Generations, Hill Street Blues, and Murder, She Wrote), Stan talks about his storied career, background in singing, his martial arts training and instructing, approach to acting, and breathing life into characters. Stan also discusses his scene-stealing turn in Paper Street Pictures' new horror-western THE PALE DOOR, working with directors and fellow actors, playing a lot of fighters on screen, and his pal Sylvester Stallone (who Stan does a pretty solid impression of almost every time Sly's name comes up). Plus, some thoughts on physical media and bonus features, the upcoming Blu-ray release of THE PALE DOOR, a round of Rapid Fire with the guest, Becky's Deep Cut Slasher of the Week, and more! For show notes and more on this and past episodes, please visit paperstreetpodcast.com.

Doc Rotten from Horror News Radio. Jeff Mohr from Decades of Horror: The Classic Era. And Crystal Cleveland, the Livin6Dead6irl from Decades of Horror: 1980s share their thoughts about this week's awesome collection of streaming horror films. Joining the crew is Horror News Radio co-host, Dave Dreher! Tonight, we review THE PALE DOOR (2020, RLJE/SHUDDER). Join the Crew on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel! Subscribe today! And click the alert to get notified of new content! THE PALE DOOR (2020, RLJE/SHUDDER) After a train robbery goes bad, two brothers leading a gang of cowboys must survive the night in a ghost town inhabited by a coven of witches. IMDb Director: Aaron B. Koontz Writer: Cameron Burns, Aaron B. Koontz, Keith Lansdale Cast: Melora Walters, Zachary Knighton, Noah Segan, Natasha Bassett, Stan Shaw, Devin Druid, Bill Sage, Pat Healy Release: Available August 21, 2020 from RJLE / SHUDDER FEEDBACK: feedback@grueosmemagazine.com FOLLOW: Instagram https://www.instagram.com/gruesomemagazine/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/HorrorNewsRadioOfficial/ Events: https://gruesomemagazine.com/events/list/ Doc, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DocRottenHNR Crystal, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/living6dead6irl Crystal, Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/livin6dead6irl/ Jeff, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jeffmohr9 Dave, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drehershouseofhorrors Rocky Gray, HNR Theme Song: https://www.facebook.com/OfficialRockyGray

After a train robbery goes bad, a producer leading a gang of podcasters must survive the night in a ghost town inhabited by a coven of witches. On Episode 422 of Trick or Treat Radio we discuss The Pale Door, a horror western from director Aaron B. Koontz and produced by Joe R. Lansdale! We also pay tribute to Joe Ruby, we discuss some of the frothing fanboy action from DC Fandome, and we talk a whole lot about supernatural westerns. So grab your cowboy hat and spurs, hum your favorite western theme and strap on for the world's most dangerous podcast!Stuff we talk about: Scooby Doo, Child’s Play, Horror Westerns, Discord, spoiler discussions, “Giants Don’t Die”, Tales From the Podcast, EyePhone, Ravenshadow Tech Support, Joe Ruby, Sandy Duncan, jumping the shark, DC Fandome, Suicide Squad, Shazam, James Gunn, Idris Elba, The Batman, Robert Pattinson, Darkseid, crap CGI, Superman II, studios meddling with final cut, Young Guns II, Bon Jovi, Boom Tubing Home, supernatural westerns, Joe. R. Lansdale, zombies overtook westerns, Rawhide, Bonanza, Stan Shaw, The Monster Squad, consigliere, Captain Lou, direct-to-video Keith Urban, stereotypical portrayal of witches, Shudder, Random Acts of Violence, Jay Baruchel, Fangoria Resurrected one more time, Kate “Acid Burn” Libby, Angelina Jolie, Timothy Hutton, David Duchovny, Fisher Stevens, Short Circuit, and Tubestone.Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/trickortreatradioJoin our Discord Community: https://discord.gg/ETE79ZkSend Email/Voicemail: mailto:podcast@trickortreatradio.comVisit our website: http://trickortreatradio.comStart your own podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=386Use our Amazon link: http://amzn.to/2CTdZzKFB Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/trickortreatradioTwitter: http://twitter.com/TrickTreatRadioFacebook: http://facebook.com/TrickOrTreatRadioYouTube: http://youtube.com/TheDeaditesTVInstagram: http://instagram.com/TrickorTreatRadioSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/trickortreatradio)

#003- Welcome to the BuildFromHere Podcast. A podcast for the hunter and sporting dog enthusiast alike. Join your host, Joshua Parvin, as he interviews retriever owners and discusses the trials and triumphs that lead to a great gundog. BuildFromHere is presented by Cornerstone Gundog Academy- Online resources to help you train your retriever.Learn more at https://www.cornerstonegundogacademy.com/podcastIn this episode, Joshua interviews CGA member Stan Shaw. They discuss how Stan was able to take his dog from dopping the bumper at his feet consistently to delivering the bumper right in his hand without dropping it.

We are back this week with part 2 of thee chronological trip through Matt Wagners Grendel Anthology. This week we look into the rise of Grendel,  Hunter Rose's publishing career, and his rise as a lord of crime. Featuring art by Troy Nixey, Stan Shaw, The Pander Brothers and Tim Bradstreet. Another amazing week. VIVAT GRENDEL!!

EPISODE 12: Managing Self-Talk When You Make a MistakeAbout our Guest Dr. Zoe Shaw DR ZOE SHAWDr. Zoe Shaw is a passionate practitioner in the field of clinical psychology. She is licensed as a psychotherapist and divides her time between her family life, clinical practice, virtual life and relationship coaching, speaking, writing and hosting her podcast (The Dr. Zoe Show).  Dr. Zoe holds a doctorate in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University, a Master’s Degree in Marriage and Family Therapy and a Bachelor’s degree in psychology from UCLA, where she also competed as a sprinter and hurdler.  Her initial areas of research were in forming a racial identity for African Americans raised in non ethnic congruent environments. Her work has branched out over the years, with her current main areas of study and treatment surrounding women’s issues, specifically superwoman syndrome, the development of self in a post feminist era and women in difficult relationships. These issues are very close to her heart as she is a busy wife to actor Stan Shaw and mother of five (one with special needs and two launched), homeschooling her youngest in addition to her work life.  Believing as she does in a holistic approach to life, Dr. Zoe also balances her life with athleticism, competing on the USAA Master’s track and field team as a Sprinter.  Dr. Zoe has been sought out as an expert and published in Oprahmag.com, Prevention Magazine, Voyage LA Magazine and the Los Angeles APA magazine discussing issues relevant to women and psychology.  Dr. Zoe has presented at the National APA Convention regarding racial identity development and has been a keynote speaker for various engagements, including the NAACP and U.S. Navy.  She is currently writing her memoir.  Show title: “Managing Self-Talk when you make a mistake”INTRO OF GUEST INTRO OF TOPIC: Managing our self-talk when you make a mistakeDiscussed the concept of the vulnerability experienced when we stretch our self . Taking Risks-vulnerable, triggers, how manage the negative self-talk and thoughts TRIGGERS:Common triggersEX: Fear of being vulnerable (emotional hangovers)CHANGING NEGATIVE SELF-TALK Affirmations and encouragementHow to make your own affirmations QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD NEVER ASK YOUR SELF List of QuestionsEx: Do I feel like it?Do I have what it takes (don’t ask this once you have already determined you going to do it.)?Clients often say, “but I don’t feel that way. It feels like I’m lying to myself…”CONCLUSIONYou can find Dr. Zoe Shaw’s work at www.drzoeshaw.comFind her Podcast at The Dr. Zoe Show on iTunes

Guests, actor Stan Shaw, comedian Gina G, director Bently Kyle Evans, DJ Spivey, and poet Estelle Monroe Gnatt

On this week's episode, the 2019 Halloween Spooktacular comes to a close as the gang chats about the good-if-you-saw-it-as-a-kid horror comedy, The Monster Squad! Why does the Fish Man have so little to do? Is this guy the worst Dracula in film culture? And is that true about Wolf Man anatomy? PLUS: So how many cast members from Everybody Loves Raymond have a sex tape? The Monster Squad stars Tom Noonan, Andre Gower, Robby Kiger, Stephen Macht, Duncan Regehr, Brent Chalem, Ryan Lambert, Ashley Bank, Michael Faustino, Mary Ellen Trainor, Jon Gries, and Stan Shaw; directed by Fred Dekker.

Salut à tous ! Et bienvenu dans la virgule, le Sav de Retour vers le Turfu, on y parle des émissions à venir, des productions de RVLT et plein de petites choses.DAYLIGHT Titre du Film : DaylightTitre international : DaylightRéal : Rob CohenProduction : Universal Pictures Studio Casting : Silvester stalonne, Amy Brenneman, Stan Shaw, Jay O Sanders et Viggo Mortenssen Blu Ray : https://www.amazon.fr/Daylight-Blu-ray-Sylvester-Stallone/dp/B004FK2MWU/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_fr_FR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=1IANN93Q44AP0&keywords=daylight&qid=1571754764&s=dvd&sprefix=dayl%2Cdvd%2C336&sr=1-2 Dispo en VOD chez Orange, Canal VOD et TF1 VidéoComme d'habitude, chers auditeurs et auditrices, vous avez votre moment de réaction sur le film dans le courrier des Durendos, Vous avez jusqu'au Mercredi 6 Novembre pour écrire votre critique et l'envoyez soit sur rvturfu@gmail.com ou à notre compte twitter par Mp @retourturfu.Si vous ne souhaitez pas écrire mais en parler.Vous avez également la possibilité de nous envoyer un enregistrement,Le Début de la finSpotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/2NKjGD3y8MhZVbgw46vLSLApple Podcast : https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/le-d%C3%A9but-de-la-fin/id1476963723Présenté par Luc Le Gonidec (@CaptainKoreana )Montage : Luc Le GonidecProduction : Retour Vers le TurfuLogo : Jean Baptiste Blais (@JBduSon)Mixage son et Ingénieur Sonore : Luc Le Gonidec (@CaptainKoreana )Contact : rvturfu@gmail.comhttps://retourversleturfu.com/ Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

We were discussing the merits of Michael Crichton movies when ManWithPez found out I had missed Runaway (1984). We made it episode three of season five because we were both... Read more »

Speaker 1:                        Hi everyone. As a quick introduction, this is the full length recording of Anwar Chahal's interview with Calum MacRae from August 2017. A portion of this interview was included in episode seven of the Circulation Cardiovascular Genetics podcast "Getting Personal: Omics of the Heart". As we couldn't fit everything into that regular podcast episode, we've released the unedited version as a special, feature-length podcast. Enjoy. Dr Anwar Chahal:            My name is Dr. Anwar Chahal. I'm a Cardiology Fellow in Training from London, U.K., and I'm doing my research fellowship here at the Mayo Clinic, and I'm very honored and delighted to have our guest, Dr. Calum MacRae. I searched for Dr. Calum MacRae's biography online and it came up with a Wikipedia page talking about somebody who's a rugby coach. So, Dr. MacRae, I hope that's not another one of strings to your bow, that's something else that you manage to squeeze in amongst everything else that you do in your busy and punishing schedule. Dr Calum MacRae:          I did play a little rugby in my day, but I haven't coached any, I can assure you. Dr Anwar Chahal:            So, you are the Chief of Cardiovascular Medicine, you are an MD, PhD by training, and you are Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School, and your expertise, amongst many other things, internal medicine, cardiovascular diseases, but in particular, inherited cardiovascular conditions. Is there anything else that you would add to that? Dr Calum MacRae:          No, I'm a big fan of generalism, and I am quite interested in cardiovascular involvement in systemic disease as well, but largely as a means of keeping myself abreast with the biological mechanisms in every system that seems to be relevant to cardiovascular disease. Dr Anwar Chahal:            So, that reminds me. Once I heard you talk, and you mentioned to all those people that were considering cardiovascular genetics the importance of phenotype and actually how people have become increasingly super-super-specialized, becoming the bundle branch block experts or the world's authority on the right coronary cusp of the aortic valve, and how things were now going full-circle as people actually need better and better, more general understanding so that we can accurately phenotype. And you once joked that you'd actually done residency three times, so you know the importance of having a good generalist base, so could you expand a little bit on that? Dr Calum MacRae:          Well, I have to tell you, it wasn't a joke. I did actually do residency three times. But, I think the most important element of that theme is that biological processes do not, unfortunately, obey the silos in which medical subspecialists operate. So it is increasingly important to have a broad-based vision of how phenotypes might actually impact the whole organism. That's particularly true because it helps us ratify disease, so that there are mechanistic insights that come from the different cell types and tissues and biological processes that are affected.                                            I think, in general, that is something that we've all appreciated, but as time goes by and people become more and more specialized, it's less regularly implemented in day to day clinical practice. And so, particularly as molecular medicine becomes more and more penetrant in clinical disease management, I think you're going to see a return toward some generalism. Obviously, procedural specialties are the exception in many ways in this setting, because you need concentrated procedural skill. But in general, particularly for translational scientists or scientists who are interested in the underlying mechanisms of disease I think, I see a general movement towards a degree of generalism. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Indeed, and in terms of, as you say, trying to understand those disease processes and trying to, let's say for example, make sense of the incredible amounts of information that can now be gathered with genomics and high throughput omics, you believe that it is actually more of a requirement to be able to understand that now that we can gather this high resolution and broad depth of data? Dr Calum MacRae:          Yes, I agree. I think one of the core elements of modern clinical medicine is that the phenotypes have, in the last 50 to 100 years, we've really focused more on improving the resolution of existing phenotypes than expanding the phenotypic space. To be completely frank, I think we've extracted a lot of the information content that we can from the phenotypic space that we've explored, and what we need to begin to do is to find ways to systematically expand that phenotypic space.                                            I think there are a lot of reasonable ways of doing it just by thinking about other subspecialties. So, for example, in cardiovascular disease, we've focused very heavily on anatomy and physiology, but we haven't really done much in the way of cell biology. Whereas, in immunology, partly because there's access to those cell types, it's possible to do much more detailed cellular phenotyping. In neuroscience, we're now doing functional MRI, and looking at individual subsets of cells in the brain, and their function in the context of particular challenges.                                            My general thesis would be that the type of strategy would serve us well and that there's also, I think, an important mismatch between the dimensionality of phenotyping that we currently undertake and the scale of the genome and epigenome, transcriptome, et cetera. So, it's not surprising that we can't be convoluted genome of 10 to the nine variants with a phenome that are present only really has about a 10 to the four phenotypes. And so, I think some systematic right-sizing of that balance will be necessary.                                            There are lots of things that we record that we don't even think of as phenotypes, and there are phenotypes that we record that we don't really think about how to optimize the information of content. And so that's one of the things that we have begun to invest time and energy in. And thanks to the support of the American Heart Association, Verily, and AstraZeneca, as part of the One Brave Idea, we have elected to fully focus on that area in particular in coronary disease. But I think it's a generalizable problem with much of modern medicine that we tend to have focus on phenotypes that, in many instances, date back to the turn of the last century rather than to modern molecular and cellular biology. Dr Anwar Chahal:            So, you beautifully brought us to the first question, which was to ask you about One Brave Idea. Could you just, for our listeners who aren't familiar with that, just give a little bit of a background on One Brave Idea, and you've already thanked the people who have funded that, but how did you actually reach the point where you thought that this is something that really, really needs to be done? What's the process of reaching that point of bringing this idea to fruition? Dr Calum MacRae:          I think we had recognized in many instances that the families that we were seeing in cardiovascular genetics clinics were much smaller, the diseases appeared to be less penetrant than the original families that we studied when we cloned many of the disease genes. This was work that I did as a post-doctoral fellow in John and Christine Simons lab many years ago.                                            One of the things that was pretty obvious was that there were subtle pre-clinically or sub-clinically affected individuals in almost every family. And that made me ... That implies that the average family is so different from the extreme family. Is it something to do with either the resolution with which we were assessing disease or are we actually just measuring the wrong elements of the underlying genetic trait? So that, for example, is a dilated cardiomyopathy family actually a family that is susceptible to dilated cardiomyopathy in the context of some unmeasured conditioning variable, maybe a viral infection or an exposure. And because we're not measuring the exposure, or we're not measuring the underlying diaphysis, we're only measuring the final state, so we only classify people as being affected if they actually have an extreme phenotype. Are we, therefore, missing the core elements of the biology?                                            As part of doing that, we began to look outside the heart for other phenotypes, and one of the things we recognized ... This was in cardiomyopathy ... Was that different cardiac phenotypes were really aggregates of much more granular, multi-system phenotypes. So there would be families who would have dilated cardiomyopathy, but they would also actually have abnormalities, for example, of the distal interruptus muscles, and no other muscle group in their entire body. And in fact, the distal interruptus muscle phenotype was much more obvious than any cardiomyopathic phenotype.                                            So you start to understand that either other extra cardiac or electrical phenotypes, or maybe even sometimes neurofunction phenotypes are more penitent features of some of these disorders, albeit rare disorders. And so that immediately leads you to think are most of the common traits that we look after really aggregates of things that really only share the relative frequency of the core phenotype, which often dates back to decades earlier when phenotyping was at a much more superficial level.                                            So that vicious cycle perpetuates itself if we never look more deeply or look outside the constraints of a particular subspecialty. And so we have begun many, probably almost four years ago, to build a sort of next generation phenotyping clinic where we tried to bring either cell biology or molecular biology from outside the heart into phenotyping patients in a cardiovascular clinic. That idea was in our DNA, that's probably not the right way to say it, but it's something that we had worked on in a cardiomyopathy setting. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Right. Dr Calum MacRae:          And so then when the RFP for One Brave Idea came out, it seemed like a natural expansion of that to try and think about how you could apply new phenotyping in current disease. One of the inferences from that line of thought is to move, essentially, beyond ideally much upstream of the shared final common pathway so that you can begin to identify discreet underlying mechanisms.                                            And then, given the success of cardiologists, and cardiology in general, in prevention, it became obvious that really what we wanted to do was to try and understand not just disease, but also wellness. And to do that in a way where we could potentially detect the transition from wellness to the very first stages of the disease or the diseases that we have labeled as atherosclerosis or coronary artery disease.                                            That was the genesis of the central idea of the application and something that, obviously, we were excited to get the chance to pursue as a result of the generosity of the funders, and the vision of Nancy Brown at AHA and Andy Conrad at Verily, to not only award funding in a different way, but to also really try and drive us to think differently about how we executed on a research product. How we move forward, not with a five-year plan, but with a rapid cycle early hypothesis testing, fail fast and fail early, if you are going to fail, strategy. Rethink not just the focus of the research project, but the mechanisms by which you execute on it.                                            I think one of the core elements of this is, obviously, we want to make sure in doing this that we build on all of the incredible work that's been done in the last 25 or 30 years in coronary disease, whether it's the pharmacologic work, or the genetics work that has emerged in the last few years. Those are all important building blocks, and what can you do that leverages all of that existing data and adds to it? Phenotype is obviously one of the most important areas where you can bring something to the table that add to existing genotypes and also layers in on top of existing pathophysiologic models.                                            From my standpoint, it was an efficient strategy, and one that we hoped would also help us engage the people throughout the community in different ways of using data that might already have been collected or we were going to be able to collect for the first time. Dr Anwar Chahal:            In terms of One Brave Idea, where is that right now in terms of execution, as you mentioned? What's the progress so far, and is anything that's come out already that you can share with us? Dr Calum MacRae:          Yeah, of course. So we have begun a variety of different approaches to thinking through the best way of exploring this phenotypic space. One of the obvious things is you can take a couple of strategies to move into this unknown unknown. One of them is to take an incremental approach to move slowly from the areas where we have already established knowledge, and to move into new areas from that home base. And the other is to take a more agnostic strategy, which is to say are there orthogonal ways of thinking where you could look at a particular type of biology in a very focused way in coronary disease. You can define that in lots of different ways. You can say maybe we do it at an organelle level, or maybe we do it at some orthogonal component. The microbiome might be an obvious one. Another one that has been considered would be nutritional or other common environmental exposures.                                            The nice thing about the flexibility of the funding is that we can afford to test multiple different hypotheses early on, see which of them has the best signal, and then invest more deeply in those that have shown early signal. At the moment, we have multiple active projects that are really testing those initial hypotheses. Is there a way of moving from the known genes that cause coronary artery disease and trying to understand are there novel phenotypes that are associated with those. And then another approach would be to take people with very early or pre-clinical disease and test areas of biology that have never been tested in atherosclerosis or in coronary disease in a systematic way.                                            We could imagine lots of ways of doing it, but you might think about, lets say, looking at endocytosis, a process that we know already is affected by the core genes in familial hypoglycemia, but we've never really found ways to measure that in a rigorous fashion. In large populations of individuals, are there different ... Well, we know already there are different forms endocytosis, but are there discreet port ablations that might affect those.                                            Another way of looking this might be to pick an organelle. Pick the peroxisome, or pick the nucleolus, pick some other element and ask how does the function of this organelle change in individuals who have early coronary disease. Where its boring each of these types of things systematically, and trying to learn not just which are the most important areas to focus on, but also trying to learn are there strategies that are useful that you could use in another disease. In other words, are there generalizable approaches to expanding phenotypic space that makes sense.                                            I think one of the things that perhaps we underestimate about a genome is that it is the only bounded dataset in all of biology at the moment. There are no other bounded datasets. There is an infinite number of potential exposures. There's an infinite number of potential phenotypes that we could record, or at least as far as we know, are there ways of beginning to establish the boundaries of the phenome, the boundaries of the exposure or the exposal and how do we begin to do that in a way that efficiently yields new information. That's where we, as a consortium, have focused in the last few months.                                            We're also, obviously, investing time and energy in thinking how do we begin to remodel the way in which research is evaluated and funded. The strategy that we've taken there is almost like a not-for-profit venture fund where we try and bring in ideas that we think might be able to leverage what's known already and move the field faster towards new pathways or new approaches to prevention, which are the core deliverables of the One Brave Idea award. As part of doing that, we obviously get the chance to interact with lots of exciting and creative scientists and that's something we're looking forward to doing in lots of different venues. We're reaching out to lots of people and lots of people are reaching out to us. We're trying to find ways to evaluate and prioritize science and then bring that science to fruition through novel approaches to funding it, either directly or as a joint venture with a foundation or some other funding source, or even as a joint venture with a commercial partner to try and move the field forward as efficiently as possible. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you very much for that, and I'm sure we all eagerly look forward to the results that are going to be coming out from One Brave Idea over the next few years. I'd like to now move on to genomic medicine training and you were involved in a statement that was put out regarding this. I think training across the world has increasingly recognized the importance of genetics and genomics, but I just want to share one little anecdote.                                            My wife is a primary care physician, and I was visiting the GP practice where she works, and she'd mentioned that I had an interest in genetics and genomics. One of the partners came out with one of these reports that a patient had sent their sample to a private company, got this analyzed, brought it in to the clinic appointment and asked for an interpretation. The GP partner said to me, "I've absolutely no idea what any of these numbers, values, et cetera, mean, and I actually am looking forward to my retirement, because I really don't want to have to cover all this. Can you help me with it?"                                            I sort of remember hearing Dr. Weinshilboum talk here at Mayo Clinic, who's really pushed forward pharmacogenomics, and he's been arguing for quite some time, as I've heard you say as well, that genomics and genetics is just going to be a part of the medical record in the same way that hemoglobin or a chest x-ray is. People better catch on because it's here, it's available commercially. People can send their samples directly, without the doctor's involvement, and then it's trying to make sense of all of that.                                            I think, as a community, research and clinical, we have to take this very seriously. I'd be grateful for your insights on that, and then if you could then tell us what would be the best way for the up and coming generation and for programs to incorporate that into their training? Dr Calum MacRae:          So, I think you're right. There is a general tendency in the public domain to test a variety of different genotypes. And in many instances, I think, the key elements are how do we as a profession, conceive of these tests? I think one of the things that we forget, perhaps at our peril, is that many of these things are problems that we've encountered before. There's a natural cycle of different tests in medicine where they start off in the academic medical centers, they propagate into the periphery, and then eventually they're assimilated as part of internal medicine.                                            I think the scale of genomics is obviously somewhat broader than many individuals have seen in the types of data that they deal with on a day to day basis. But I think that's something that's happening in everybody's life. In every aspect of your life, you have many more channels to deal with. You have many more choices in the supermarket to deal with.                                            So, I don't see this as a sort of existential challenge to medicine. Quite the opposite. In my experience, the core things that we need to remember is that DNA is no different from any other assay except for the fact that it's relatively straightforward to do DNA diagnostics. It's technically not as sensitive a set of biochemical issues, as are many other assays that we use in day to day clinical practice.                                            The other thing that I think is perhaps a key element is it, as I said a few minutes ago, it's a bounded dataset, and it's stable for your whole life. You only need to have it tested once. So, to sort of invert the typical diagnostic paradigms, instead of a primary test being interpreted in the context of an ongoing clinical event, the test may have been present for decades, and the result will evolve over time, in light of the changing phenotype or some new information with respect to that genotype.                                            What I've actually looked on genomics as is almost an organizing principle for the way that you build care. In fact, I see quite frequently, we now probably have an average one or two new patients a month in my clinic who bring their entire whole genome with them, either an axiom or a whole genome. And so, we've begun to really get to know quite well how to manage patients. Obviously, there are a selective of patients. But one of the things that I have found is that patients are really quite astute in understanding that genotype and phenotype are not deterministic relationships. What you have to do is always interpret these things in context of a probabilistic understanding.                                            Most patients, I think, when they're told this, understand that we're going to learn much more about genomics going forward than we will ever imagine we could know at the present. That will involve lots of different things. It will involve new ways of displaying data, new ways of thinking about the data in the clinical context. I actually think one of the most interesting things about genomics, and to be honest, any assay is that they rarely reach any form of maturity until they are used in the clinic, until they are actually used in implementation. For example, many genetic tests at the moment, don't change therapy and they don't change outcomes. But partly, that's because they've never been studied in that context.                                            One of the things that I think Glen [inaudible 00:26:58] has to be really congratulated for is his focus on pharmacogenomics as being one of the early areas in which this will really move forward. I believe that by immersing ourselves in it, by actually trying it in the clinic, we're going to learn much more.                                            Part of that gets back to the original topic that we spoke about, which is phenotype. The only way to really begin to understand collection of phenotype is if you do it in the context of existing genotype, I think. And so, as we move into new phenotypic areas, we're not going to be able to test everything and everybody. I think there, the genome will end up being an important framework, lifelong framework for the management of a patient's diagnosis, prognostication, and then therapy, potentially in that order.                                            I think you need a whole different set of skills. You need a whole different set of technologies. But most importantly, you need information that you can interpret in the context of the person in front of you. Until you can make mechanistically important insights with one person, it's going to be very difficult for genomics to really change medical care. That's something that I think we should be focusing on.                                            I think we've tended to have an associate of strategy for genetics. We haven't driven it into the clinic. As we drive tests into the clinic, whether it's troponin T or whatever, you begin to understand much better how to use them. Although, sometimes, that can also go in quite extreme directions that you may not necessarily anticipate. Troponin originally was a stratification tool for acute coronary syndromes, and now it's virtually a diagnosis in its own right. And I think you'll see that tendency revert over time as people begin to understand the biology of troponin, of isoform switching, and peripheral tissues of the way in which troponin may represent very different disease biologies.                                            At the moment, it seems like it's a very simple and straightforward yes/no type of test. There's no such thing in medicine, and I think that's what we're learning about genomics. Instead of conceiving it as a series of ten to the nine yes/no tests, we're going to end up with a very different vision and view of how it can be implemented in clinical practice. And that can only come from having clinicians and geneticists work together on this. In fact, one of the things that we've been doing in the partners environment with some of our colleagues, and I have NIH funding to do this with Heidi Rehm, with Sandy Aronson, and with Sean Murphy, is to think about how we display data, but also how we collect information in light of that genomic data that helps in an iterative way and a learning fashion, informed genotype/phenotype relationships in a much more probabilistic manner than we have done to date. There are lots of efforts in that space, that just happens to be one that I'm involved in. But I think it's a generalizable approach that you're going to see moving into the clinic in the next few years.                                            From the standpoint of training, I think what you want to do is to get exposure to all types of genetic information so you understand common alleles, rare alleles, genomics, and individual panels. I think the best way of doing that is to have that be part of training programs. In fact, with one of my junior colleagues, Dr. Aaron Aday, we recently wrote a short piece highlighting how important it will be for all of us to come together to think about how do we start to introduce the concepts of genomics into standard clinical training programs. And that's something we're working on fairly avidly at the Brigham, and I'm sure there are ... I know there are efforts at many other institutions to do similar things. Dr Anwar Chahal:            That article was published in Circulation in July of this year, if anybody wants to download that. I think if we talk to clinical trainees and ask them what are their concerns about training, as you know, training can be very long in cardiology, which is a procedurally based specialty, whether or not you become an invasive proceduralist at the end of it, there is that component at the beginning. Do you think a standard, in the U.S. a standard three-year program with two years of clinical and one year of research, can incorporate that at a sound enough level to allow somebody to practice? Do you think we're going to look at increasingly a one-year, or a six-month, sort of add-on fellowship for those interested more on the inherited side or more on the genomic side?                                            I, like yourself, trained in London, and the training programs are longer in the U.K. It was probably six years when you were there, it shortened to five, and now increasingly, it's going to become six and maybe even more with a general fellowship for five years, and then a super-advanced fellowship. Inherited cardiovascular conditions, certainly there, has become a module that is encouraged for people to take and then become somewhat certified in inherited cardiovascular conditions. What do you think there, in terms of incorporating all of that as well as learning basics of echo, and device therapy, and catheterization, what are your thoughts? Dr Calum MacRae:          Again, I look at this as a spectrum. There's a trajectory for all of these types of innovation and knowledge. It starts off being super-specialized, it goes into a more general location, and then eventually, it's an integral part of everybody's clinical practice. I do think that what you're going to see is rather than, and this is already, I think, the case in many elements of medicine. Medicine has already exceeded the knowledge base, even when I was training, by probably a log order in terms of the complexity and extent of content, not that I trained that long ago.                                            One of the core elements that I think that we're seeing is that we need to move medicine from what I believe has become somewhat deprofessionalized state, to one where you're actually focusing not on the actual core knowledge that you bring with you to the table, but actually the way in which you integrate knowledge. So, I think the focus of training is going to change somewhat. It has had to change in other fields. Medicine, I think, for a long time favored that sort of single, comprehensive approach in one mind. And medicine is going to become more of a team sport, and it's also going to become more of a knowledge integrator profession that it has been for some time.                                            It's interesting, when medicine started, there was so little knowledge that you really had to have almost every physician be an experimentalist using [inaudible 00:34:48] of one experiments in front of them. I think the way that I see medicine evolving is that as the knowledge base and the rigor of that knowledge base improves, many of the things that we think of as professional activity today, will actually devolve through primary care and, to be honest, into the community. There are many things where the rigor of the underlying [inaudible 00:35:12] are as such that there's no reason for a licensed provider to be involved. We allow our patients to install their own wireless networks without a technician. I'm sure most of them could look after their own lipids pretty effectively if they were given the right information.                                            So, a lot of stuff will begin to move in that direction. And as that happens, I think the way in which information is displayed, the way in which data are collected, and the workflow around integrating information will change. That doesn't get past the point that you brought up, which is that that will probably take a couple of decades, and in the interim, I think people are going to end up training in modules of subspecialty, but I think one of the things that I sometimes like to ask myself is what's the end game? Where is this going to end up? And can we build systems that train directly for that end game, rather than going through these intermediate steps. I think that's something where I think we tried, in the short piece that we wrote in Circulation, to argue that everybody should have some exposure, and that that exposure can change over time. We should be equipping people, not to know genomics, but to be able to learn how genomics is impacting their patients for the next 50 years.                                            That model of professional training is actually the one that really was the dominant model until maybe 100 years ago. And then, for reasons that don't quite seem obvious to me at least at the moment, we sort of tended to slowly move to more of a learned knowledge base that was then applied. Physicians sort of steadily got to the point where we're now data entry clerks. The actual amount of professional and intellectual engagement has, I think, slowly diminished in many medical subspecialties and medical specialties.                                            The opportunity that genomics and other advancements in technology in medicine bring is the chance to, I think, reprofessionalize ourselves to move from just simply defining ourselves in terms of the knowledge base that we each bring to the table, but defining ourselves rather in terms of how we put the knowledge together around individual problems and individual patients. It's a very much more patient-centered biological approach than perhaps we've had over the last couple of decades.                                            I think these are ... I'm obviously stating a lot of this somewhat in extremes, but I think that these are general trends that you see in medicine. They've happened in other fields as well, and people have overcome them. It's usually a function of changing the workflow itself, of changing the way in which the information ends up in the professional's hands and how you collect the data that you use, then, to interpret the existing knowledge. That, I believe, we haven't really reworked probably since Ozler's time.                                            It is amazing that we still have workflow ... I mean, it's amazing in lots of ways. It's an amazing tradition, but it is quite interesting that we still have workflow that is probably largely dependent on what Ozler liked to do when he was growing up in terms of the times of day that he got up and his workflow. That's sort of instantiated in many ways in everything that we do. Nothing entirely wrong with it, but there's a lot happened since then that we haven't really changed. Medicine is not yet, in many instances, a 24/7 profession, and yet most other things that have much less in the way of impact on society, are already 24/7 professions in many settings.                                            So, I think you're going to see a lot of demographic changes in medicine that come from the advent of technology and other industries. And I think those will all transform the way that we imagine training in medicine, along the same sort of timeline as some of the traditional approaches that you described, building out a training module and then having a subgroup of people do a six-month or a year of extra training. I see that as a short-term solution. I think, ultimately, longer term solutions are changing the whole workflow of medicine. Dr Anwar Chahal:            What have you done in your own program at the Brigham to introduce genomic medicine training for fellows? Dr Calum MacRae:          We are building out ... Obviously we have a fairly large cardiovascular genetics clinic. I think probably the largest in the world. We have now seven, soon to be eight, providers working only and wholly in cardiovascular genetics. We therefore have the ability to have our fellows rotate through our genetics clinic. We have inpatient and outpatient genetics services. And we also, obviously, involve our fellows in a lot of the academic pursuits going on in both our genetics and genomics programs in the cardiovascular clinic.                                            As we do, our colleagues are no longer in training. We have regular, in our clinical conference slot, we have, several times a year, a genetics component. And then, what we have also, is an integrated training program with clinicians and pathologists that is really bringing the individuals who are understanding the technical aspects of the genetic testing with the individuals who are learning and understanding the clinical aspects of that testing. And so, we imagine over time that this will evolve into potentially the type of specialist module that you described. But also, into a fixture that goes all the way through our two-year clinical training program.                                            We've sort of taken the point of view that we probably need to do a bit of both. We need to, given what I've said in the last few minutes, that we need to take a thread that recognizes a short term and intermediate term need for specialization, but also recognizes that we have to equip every one of our trainees, and every one of our physicians with the ability to begin to learn the underlying sides of genomics, and the underlying approaches to using genomics in every aspect of clinical cardiology. And so, we're doing both of those things, and have active efforts in both. Dr Anwar Chahal:            You mentioned integration with pathologists, but for our colleagues who are not clinicians, what about the research angle, and the scientists, when they're in training? Is that integrated so that we are getting this meeting of minds that is essential? Dr Calum MacRae:          Absolutely. In fact we, thanks to a variety of efforts at Brigham Women's, we have now at least three separate venues in which this occurs. I mentioned cardiovascular genetics clinic. We also have a genomic medicine clinic, which I'm one of the clinical co-directors for, where we actually have cases that come through routine clinical care that seem as if they would benefit from whole genome or whole axiom sequencing. And then we have a weekly conference that's actually led by Dick Maas and Shamil Sunyaev, two of our genetics colleagues, and taped in specialists from Althrop Medicine as well as scientists from the entire Harvard Medical School environment. So we bring everybody together around mechanistically solving individual clinical cases.                                            And then the third venue is one that's part of a national network, the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. We are one of the sites on the national NIH-funded UDN network. And there again, one of the themes is identifying individuals or families who would benefit from both rigorous genomic analyses as well as much deeper phenotyping. That's been a program that I think has been very exciting, and one that we, again, have learned a huge amount from in terms of how do you begin to build the infrastructure that brings, not just the fresh clinician to see the patient, but somebody who ... A whole team of people, who understand and can evaluate all the biological aspects that are relevant in that patient.                                            It also brings to bear the scientific expertise that you might need in order to make a mechanistic connection between genotype and phenotype in that one individual. And some of that involves animal remodeling. In cancer, for example, there's a concept that has emerged over the last two to three years of what's called co-clinical modeling. Once you've identified some of the genomic features, it allows you to begin to model in an animal, in parallel with the trajectory of the patient, and individual [crosstalk 00:44:54]- Dr Anwar Chahal:            As some people call them. Dr Calum MacRae:          Exactly. Creating an avatar. And in many instances, that's an avatar that includes multiple different disease models. We have begun to do that in the cardiovascular space. I think, obviously it's early days yet, but I think there are lessons to be learned about how you build the types of infrastructure that allow people to move beyond this state where a patient's outcome is dependent on him seeing the right doctor, on the right day, at the right time.                                            There are actually systems that funnel the patients into the right venue based on objective criteria at every stage. I think that's the type of reorganization, re imagination of the medical system that we need. We sort of duplicate things in lots of different areas, and you're still dependent on hitting the right specialist, on the right day, at the right time. Or not seeing a specialist. Seeing a generalist on the right day, at the right time, who is able to put everything together. Or even hitting somebody who has the time to listen to your story in a way that helps you identify the exposure or the genetic basis of your condition.                                            If we recreate the professional environment that I talked about earlier, I think in ways that are both traditional and novel at the same time, I think we will do ourselves a great service and build a platform that lets all of the technologies, including genomics that we've talked about today, begin to impact patients in a real way on a regular basis. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you for that. One question I think is important to look at from the other side, you've gone from One Brave Idea to one revolution in medicine if I can be so bold. You mentioned so many other services are 24/7. You give an example, you can book your hotel in Shanghai sat in the Midwest, and you can change your booking on an app on a phone, and yet in medicine, it's so difficult to arrange an appointment. We have resisted that 24/7 service, aside from the acutes. But for the sort of chronic workload that we have, the 24/7 model has been resisted. What do you think are some of the challenges? Because I can almost hear members of our profession saying, "Well, who wants a 24/7 service and who wants to provide that 24/7 service?", and is it always necessary to have that 24/7 service?                                            As you say, so many things, such as hypertension treatment, you mentioned lipid management, could actually be done reasonably well by patients who are well trained. And certainly in heart failure, you can teach patients to take their Furosemide or their Lasix by weighing themselves and adjusting it, and can do it relatively well, and relatively safely. What do you think are the challenges to get the profession to realize that this is what's going to happen, and they've got to get on board? Dr Calum MacRae:          Well, I don't think you want to make it somehow mandatory. I think there are elements. Every patient is different. I think that's something we've used as a chivalrous for many decades as a profession. The reality is that we don't do very well. It takes, from the time a medication hits the guidelines, not the trials are finished, but the time that it gets accepted into the guidelines, let's say as a Class I recommendation. The average time to reaching equilibrium in the population is 12 to 15 years in cardiovascular disease. So you'd hate to be the person who got that drug in the 11th year, if you actually end up having your event in year three or four. And yet you can upgrade software for your phone, and hundreds of millions people upgrade it in the first couple of days after a release.                                            So, we have to build systems that allow us to be as efficient as every other element of our lives, and yet don't, in any way, diminish the importance of the personal interaction, the healing interaction that comes from a patient provider encounter. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we just imagine everything in exactly the same way as it's always been. A lot of it just requires us to make relatively modest changes to the types of things that we do, and to cede some control over some elements of it.                                            People are not dependent on making cyclical appointments to have doses of drugs tritrated. But once we've identified that a drug needs to be on board as a result of a primary indication, that we allow the titration to take place in an efficient and cost-effective manner. I think a lot of what we do is driven by how we get paid. A lot of ... And that's not criticism, it's natural in every single profession on the planet. You do things the way that the system is set up to have them be done.                                            And so, I think with relatively little in the way of systems engineering, you can have a 24/7 system without having 24/7 physicians. There are some areas, obviously intensive care units, where you do have 24/7 coverage already, but people are so used to having asynchronous care that being able to literally come home after a night shift and make their reservation for a restaurant the following evening, on their phone, often on another continent, it is a little bit strange that we literally can't book patients into your own clinic without calling up a couple of people.                                            I just think that some of this is resistance for resistance's sake. Some of it is people actually simply restating the things that we all believe are important parts of medical encounters. I think we just have to be creative about how we move from here to there. I think the thing that I find perhaps most interesting is that somehow the creativity of physicians is not fully exploited. We haven't really asked doctors and patients to come up with new approaches to how care is delivered, to how patients are seen. But I think if we allowed venues where that could happen, that would be actually the way in which we would evolve a very different system.                                            I think some of that, as I said, just goes back to the way in which everything is structured. All of the payment models, all of the ... Even the types of places that we see patients, are very much anchored in history. They're legacy items and there are lots of reasons why that's the case. Medicine, you can't show up with a minimally viable product. You need something that works perfectly day one, because of the liability. And so, what we need are just to rethink the way in which we even move medicine forward. What we know we can't do is just keep doing what we're doing, and changing modestly, rearrange the deck chairs.                                            What we need to actually be able to do is find places where we can actually, or venues where we can change things and test new models of care in a relatively low risk situation. I think you already see lots of payers, the federal government, and the NIH all thinking about how you can do that. Some of the [inaudible 00:52:55] efforts, some of the ... Even the NHGRI efforts in genomics. One of the nice things about genomics is because it's a new tool, it allows you to reinvent the way in which medicine is delivered. And so, I believe things as diverse as the precision medicine initiative, and as some of the most fundamental ways in which NIH funding is being restructured, will all potentially impact the way in which creativity and innovation start to evolve within the healthcare system.                                            I don't want to sound revolutionary. We're all doing all of this, all of the time. It's just not structured in a way that seems to very efficiently reach reduction to practice across the entire medical ecosystem. Part of what I think we need to do is, as a profession, build better ways of identifying where the innovation is occurring, and I will tell you I think it's occurring almost evenly across the entire medical universe, it's just that it doesn't propagate. All medicine, at the moment, is quite local. I think the things that you start to see happening in the industry that will change it are the fact that medicine is becoming much more like every other area of endeavor. It's becoming linked by technology. And once information flows more efficiently, I think a lot of the things that sound as if they're revolutionary, will end up actually just seeming like a series of obvious conclusions, based on the information that we've gleaned from early outlets or success stories.                                            Many of the things that I've mentioned today, they're not revolutionary at all. There are entire healthcare systems that use these approaches. But they just haven't become generalized because of the way that medicine works. And so, I think that's one of the reasons that I'm a believer that technology in particular will have a transformative effect, just on the way that doctors talk to other doctors or relate to their patients, and the way in which creativity and innovation propagate through the medical system will change very rapidly as a result of that.                                            And that's one of the great benefits of the electronic health record. I don't think EHR's now are perfect. In fact, in many ways, they're where other industries were 15 or 20 years ago. The supply chain in many large retail organizations was much more sophisticated in the mid-80s than the average EHR is. But what they've done is begin to collect the data in the right place, and in the right way, in a structured format. But as technology begins to cut across different EHR's and across different healthcare network, you'll see things, synergies begin to emerge that will accelerate the pace of change.                                            It's not by chance alone that medicine has attracted different types of people over the last 50 or 100 years. I think they'll just see the types of individuals that come to medicine be more diverse and more distinctive, and that also I think will help. More distinctive in their skillset, and that will help accelerate change in ways that again, will seem far from revolutionary fairly quickly. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you for that. I wanted to come to the last section of the podcast, and sort of back to where I said it was joking, and you said I wasn't joking about doing three residencies. So, could you tell us a little bit about your own training and your own path? Originally from Scotland, through to London, and then over to the U.S.                                            And also, if you could share some of those pearls that you've picked up that aren't obvious to us in books, or sometimes are so obvious that they're elusive and not always apparent to young, up and coming trainees, both on the research side as well as the clinical. Dr Calum MacRae:          Yeah, sure. I trained in [inaudible 00:57:15] which had I think a very healthy attitude to specialism and generalism, and the relationship between them, and instilled in all of the specialists the need to always maintain some general medical capability. To this day, I still intend on general medicine for that reason.                                            I then moved, I did cardiology training in London, and was fortunate to work in a couple of hospitals, one of which had a very interesting, I supposed, quaternary care clinic which had extremely complicated patients. That's where I did my second internship, at the Ross Graduate Medical School in Hammersmith. And everybody who was an intern in that setting had already basically been board certified in internal medicine, so they'd all finished their medical training, come back to do an internship in that setting.                                            And there, I saw some amazing cases. There was an entire service for carcinoids, there was an entire service for many rare and wonderful diseases. At that point, you began to see how super-specialist knowledge can be incredibly helpful. But it can also be restrictive if it's not applied in the right way.                                            And then I did cardiology training at St. George's Hospital in London with some amazing mentors. John Camm, who many people will know from his work in atrial fibrillation and sudden death. David Warr, another very well known electrophysiologist, one of the early pioneers. Bill McKenna was my primary mentor, and he was somebody who had worked on the very earliest descriptions of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy when he had originally been at the Hammersmith, and then moved to St. George's.                                            He taught me a lot about, well many things. First of all, focus in your career, understanding the skillsets that you needed to accumulate in order to a) build a distinctive portfolio and b) to maintain your relevance by accumulating new skillsets as you move forward. And he had actually established a collaboration with Simon's. That was one of the reasons that I ended up moving to the U.S., and had a fantastic time with John and Cricket, at one of the earliest times in genetics moving into cardiovascular disease.                                            I learned a huge amount from colleagues, at that stage, both at the bench. Hugh Watkins is now chair of cardiology and lecturer of medicine now in Oxford, was a bay mate who was there a couple of years ahead of me and I learned a huge amount from him. I realized ... My wife is from New York City, from Long Island rather, and I realized I had to probably stay in the U.S. for those reasons, and I retrained at that stage in internal medicine again at the Brigham where mentors such as Marshall Wolf and, actually cardiology mentors at that stage were people like Punky Mudge and Pat O'Gara, who then helped me to adapt to the U.S. system.                                            The only thing I will tell you is that I don't think I ever learned as much as I did in each of my internships. I think the learning curve is incredibly steep. I'd been out of clinical medicine for four or five years, focusing on the lab, before I went back to my third internship. But I still think it was one of the most amazing experiences, largely because of the fact that you learn from every colleague, and you learn from every patient. I think if you go through most of your life thinking like that, I think you can end up doing very well.                                            Actually, one of the other things that's really important is actually emphasizing those personal connections. The first fellow I had at Brigham and Women's when I was an intern was Joe Hill, who's now the editor of Circulation, the chair of cardiology at UT Southwestern. Almost everybody that I know in cardiovascular medicine, I've encountered in those types of settings. Either in training settings, or in research collaborations, or at research meetings. You just begin to see a whole list of people that have worked together in different ways, and have learned from each other. I think that's one of the most powerful things to take away from research or clinical training.                                            I then was fortunate enough to get the chance to do a second cardiology fellowship at Mass General. There, I went to Mass General actually because of the focus on zebra fish genetics. I realized at that stage to really be able to study things at the scale that I thought was going to be necessary, I needed a high [inaudible 01:02:40] system, and Mark Schwartz, before he went to Novardis, on the zebra fish and the cardiovascular system, was very inspiring and I had a great time there. And then, ended up spending some fantastic years at Mass General where I eventually became the program director. But again, there I learned an incredible amount from people like Bill Dec, from Roman Desanctis, from Dolph Hutter. All of whom had very strong clinical presence, as well as from the researchers. Mark Fishman, the late Ken Bloch, and many others.                                            And then also, perhaps one of the most important people in my long term training was Peter Yurchak, who had been ... He had actually defined, I think, the training programs in U.S. cardiology about 35 years earlier. He had been the program director since its inception in the 50s until he retired in 2005 I think it was. And then I became the program director and was there until I moved back to the Brigham in 2009, and became chief in 2014.                                            I think the trajectory is really, I outline it only to highlight the fact that it took me a long time to get where I was going, but that I spent most of my life enjoying the journey. And I think that's actually one of the most important lessons I took away from it. You can end up finding situations where you feel like you might become frustrated, but in fact, if you go into them with the right attitude, and not only that, if you do it with the right people, you can take a huge amount out of it.                                            I was incredibly fortunate in the fellowship class that I had at Mass General. Mark Sabatine is now the chair of TIMI, Patrick Ellinor, who is the head of EP and a pioneer in atrial fibrillation genetics. Stan Shaw, who is now the chief scientific officer with me in One Brave Idea. Danita Yoerger, who's the head of ECHO, and an outstanding ECHO researcher at Mass General. Mark Rubenstein, who's a very successful cardiologist, and a fabulous clinician. That group of people actually, I think, together helped me realize how much you could take from training no matter how old you are, and no matter how grumpy you seem when you don't get the full nights sleep.                                            In the research side, I think the other thing that was obvious was that so many people bring so many different things to the table in research that you should never over or underestimate any aspect of the entire profession. I think I still get remarkable insights into research questions from colleagues who are clinicians, who've never done any research, just from astute observation and declaring a problem in a way that encourages investigation. I think that's one of the most important elements of training is how do you work out what you need to do, and how do you make sure that everything that you do between the start and the finish of that journey is used to help and to improve the way in which you end up doing what you ultimately find as your sort of settling point in your career.                                            I think the other thing that I will say from the standpoint of research is it's always best to try and think about blending different fields together. What you don't want to do is end up being a clone of one of your supervisors or your mentors. It's really an important thing, and I encourage this in all of our trainees the importance of being a bridge between different disciplines. I think that's something that requires real emphasis.                                            And then, finally, never ever forget that the single most important thing in all of this, whether it's the reorganization of clinical care or the core research environments, is the biology in the patients in front of you. And so, one of the things that I'm particularly and acutely aware of almost every time I see patients is that the patients often know much more about the condition that they have than you ever will. Listening to them is actually very important piece of everything that you do.                                            In fact, one of the reasons that we began to move outside the heart in our heart failure research was talking to patients about their pre-clinical elements that they found in their families. So, often, when you see a family with inherited heart disease, before the gene is identified, before anybody has a phenotype that you recognize, the patients themselves can assess who's likely to develop the disease from their intrinsic knowledge of their siblings, and their cousins, and their other family members.                                            So, for example, one of the families that I've worked on intensely, there's a anxiety disorder that is a much more stable and much more specific part of the phenotype than any of the cardiac arrhythmias, and it's actually turned out to be quite a difficult anxiety disorder to define using even DFM criteria. But when we asked the family, they were very able to tell the people in the family who just were at the normal edge of neurotic from those who truly had the anxiety disorder that co-segregated eventually with the arrhythmia.                                            The lesson I've learned time and time again is that patients always are a vital and central part of the answer. And it's a pride thing to say, but particularly in genetics and genomics, I think, and particularly with the reemphasis on phenotype, that I believe is necessary, I think we do well to try and make sure our research and our clinical care, our discovery, and our disease management are very tightly aligned. And I think technology is one of the ways that will help that happen. That actually is part of what being a professional really is. If you go back to the early professional guilds, that's exactly how they were formed. It was groups of experimentalists who were interested in particular problems that formed the original professions in European cities during the Renaissance. I think that's something that we would do well to think about as we continue to remodel medicine in the 21st century. Dr Anwar Chahal:            Thank you for that. Lots of important points there, and I guess your emphasis that enjoying the journey rather than thinking about the destination, but did you always know where your destination would be? And, in fact, that brings me to another question. Have you actually reached your destination, or is your journey still ongoing? Dr Calum MacRae:          So, exactly. I think that's the key thing. You don't need to necessarily know where you're going to stop. You just need to know where you're headed. That's something I actually tell people as they're interviewing for fellowship or residency, that part of what people are looking for when they talk to you is that you have thought through and organized your life around your goals. And those goals can change. Nobody's going to hold you ...

The #3 most downloaded episode of all time!   In which Jeff is the guest of honor at his own fortieth birthday party, accompanied by Northwest comedy legends KC KAOS, Casey McLain, Spenser O'Neill, Tony Lewis, and Jill Silva; Chase Roper faces a harsh accusation (mediocre arson); ten minutes into the show it actually starts; Casey plows up Jeff and KC's spot; presidential candidates debate and our heroes abstain from watching it; the Mariners still have a shot (spoiler alert: no they don't); we remind you to listen to Casey's first appearance on the show in Episode 55: The Abortion Ghost Panic of 1878; Casey has a new sports podcast called The Swill; Jeff and KC explain why it's not easy being awesome; KC makes a startling revelation; we learn where KC's derbygirls practice [spoiler alert: Rollin 253 and Auburn Skate Connection]; Jeff is taken over by a positivity alien; Jeff cleans up dog poop OUTSIDE CASEY MCLAIN JESUS; the first derby bout of the you was awesome; Fast Girl Skates closes; Jeff's bicycle tire explodes; Jeff's best friend Erica calls in; Jeff tries to read an itunes review - can't find any; Tony does My Little Pony erotic fan videos (allegedly); Spenser O'Neill watches Magic Mike and makes sweet love; Jeff realizes who Jill Silva is and things get awkward; Tony appreciates Jeff as a person; Jill and Mark were Americans in Canada, and now they're in love; Kamryn Minch and Peeled Bananas gave Jilly a place to rock; getting adjusted to adulthood after the recession isn't easy;Jeff does a weird thing called opening presents; IMPROMPTU TWISTER!!!; Casey recalls the TalkBoy; Jeff recalls the 1ST EVER GAMEBOY!!!; Jeff loves KC (KC, CASEY, NOT CASEY, GET IT RIGHT WEIRDO I DONT LOVE YOU); Jeff gets Darth Vader Yoga Pants and Throw Pillow; Louis is farty; Jeff's dad sounds cooler with a British accent; Tony and Spenser face off for birthday presents; Tony feeds an old friend acid - goes to sleep; Tony calls out his coworker [Steve]; Casey's wife didn't see his until their wedding day; Tony loads up on axes; selfie-sticks have come a long way; Jeff throws card in vain attempt to not cry (I LOVE YOU KC); Jeff gets Bag of Holding - reveals mega D-and-D-nerd-ness; one time he got scared and crawled up inside it; Colleen Gray and Stan Shaw arrive!; Jeff gets a book about pruning; some loose female dogs cause trouble; Spenser hosts a podcast called Elephant Crossing; Jeff looks younger than Casey; we learn that Jeff has two gay dads; this is Spenser's last night alive; HI TONY!; Jeff gets punked by relighting candles gawldangit; Facebook tries to tell Jeff the score; Plugs are made, Podcasts extolled; candles are stamped out; and Jeff reads a special poem for the woman he loves [HINT HER NAME IS KAYCIE CAO AKA KC KAOS AND SHES AMAZING].   Plugs: Skating at Rollin 253 and Auburn Skate Connection In Porch Taste VIII: A Taste of Victory - Wednesday October 12, Bremerton Band of Lovers: back to Tacoma - Friday October 21st 7 pm, Tacoma   Podcasts:   TBTL Mental Illness Happy Hour with Paul Gilmartin Last Podcast on the Left The Nar Bar with Josh Firestine and Narin Vann   Songs in this episode:   "Star Wars Opening Theme" - John Williams "This Lamb Sells Condos" - Owen Pallett "Wake Up" - Arcade Fire "I'm a Believer" - The Monkees   Check out our website at: awesomepod.squarespace.com   Email us at everythingisawesomepodcast@gmail.com Twitter: @EIAPodcast

A young karate expert searches for her brother's killer in Hong Kong.Director: Cirio H. Santiago (as Cirio Santiago)Writers: Dick Miller, Ken MetcalfeStars: Jeannie Bell, Stan Shaw, Pat Anderson - via IMDBhttps://archive.org/details/T.n.t.Jackson

Story: Sie sehen, sie hören, sie sprechen: Hochentwickelte Roboter haben den Menschen alle niederen Arbeiten abgenommen. Doch dann erfindet ein wahnsinniger Computerspezialist einen Todes-Chip. Die elektronischen Gehirne drehen durch und ihre Metallkörper werden zu eiskalten Killermaschinen. Die "Runaway"-Spezialeinheit zur Roboterüberwachung macht Jagd auf die Killermaschinen. Sergeant Jack Ramsey kommt dabei dem Wissenschaftler Charles Luther auf die Spur. Doch Luther hat eine teuflische Falle vorbereitet. DVD/Blu Ray-Release: 08.10.2015 (Koch Media GmbH - DVD) Science Fiction, Action Land: USA 1984 Laufzeit: ca. 100 min. FSK: ab 16 Regie: Michael Crichton Drehbuch: Michael Crichton Mit Tom Selleck, Cynthia Rhodes, Gene Simmons, Kirstie Alley, Stan Shaw, ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew53FIOvpFo

Story: Sie sehen, sie hören, sie sprechen: Hochentwickelte Roboter haben den Menschen alle niederen Arbeiten abgenommen. Doch dann erfindet ein wahnsinniger Computerspezialist einen Todes-Chip. Die elektronischen Gehirne drehen durch und ihre Metallkörper werden zu eiskalten Killermaschinen. Die "Runaway"-Spezialeinheit zur Roboterüberwachung macht Jagd auf die Killermaschinen. Sergeant Jack Ramsey kommt dabei dem Wissenschaftler Charles Luther auf die Spur. Doch Luther hat eine teuflische Falle vorbereitet. DVD/Blu Ray-Release: 08.10.2015 (Koch Media GmbH - DVD) Science Fiction, Action Land: USA 1984 Laufzeit: ca. 100 min. FSK: ab 16 Regie: Michael Crichton Drehbuch: Michael Crichton Mit Tom Selleck, Cynthia Rhodes, Gene Simmons, Kirstie Alley, Stan Shaw, ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew53FIOvpFo

In this week's episode, the gang spends a long weekend with Sinbad and Phil Hartman in the mistaken identity comedy, Houseguest! How the hell does this mix-up even get pulled off? How much McDonald's can Sindbad eat? And just how terrible of a father is Phil Hartman? Plus: a whole lot of Jeffrey Jones jokes. Like, a whole lot. Houseguest stars Sinbad, Phil Hartman, Kim Griest, Jeffrey Jones and Stan Shaw; directed by Randall Miller.