Podcasts about supervised

Brian O'Connell, RTÉ Reporter

In this Huberman Lab Essentials episode my guest is Lex Fridman, PhD, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), an expert in robotics and host of the Lex Fridman Podcast. We discuss the development of artificial intelligence through machine learning, deep learning and self-supervised techniques. We also examine the growing significance of interactions between humans and robots, including their potential for companionship and emotional connection. This episode explores how AI is shifting from a technical tool into something that could reshape human relationships, emotions and society. Read the episode show notes at hubermanlab.com. Thank you to our sponsors AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman Maui Nui: https://mauinui.com/huberman Function: https://functionhealth.com/huberman David: https://davidprotein.com/huberman Timestamps 00:00:00 Lex Fridman; Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning, Deep Learning 00:02:23 Supervised vs Self-Supervised Learning, Self-Play Mechanism 00:09:06 Tesla Autopilot, Autonomous Driving, Robot & Human Interaction 00:14:26 Sponsors: AG1 & Maui Nui 00:17:47 Human & Robot Relationship, Loneliness, Time 00:22:38 Authenticity, Robot Companion, Emotions 00:27:55 Robot & Human Relationship, Manipulation, Rights 00:32:12 Sponsors: Function & David 00:35:14 Dogs, Homer, Companion, Cancer, Death 00:40:04 Dogs, Costello, Decline, Joy, Loss 00:47:31 Closing Disclaimer & Disclosures Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Master Google Cloud's most advanced AI certification with this definitive 2025 study guide. From TensorFlow and data pipelines to ML ops, model deployment, and ethical AI—this book delivers the knowledge, tools, and confidence to help you ace the Professional Machine Learning Engineer Exam. Backed by real-world examples, mock exams, and hands-on insights.

Send us a textWe break down supervised learning, explaining how AI learns from labeled examples just like how children learn from teachers identifying objects.• Supervised learning is when AI learns from labeled examples (like seeing pictures of apples with labels)• The more examples an AI sees, the better it gets at recognizing patterns• Real-world applications include Google Lens, spam filters, AI art apps, and medical diagnostic tools• Bad or confusing data leads to incorrect learning outcomes• AI can struggle with examples it hasn't seen before (like only recognizing yellow cats but not black ones)• Try the "Label It Game" at home using pictures from magazines or your own drawings• Experiment with Google's Teachable Machine website to train your own mini AI modelJoin us next time for the letter T in our ABCs of AI series!Support the showHelp us become the #1 podcast for AI for Kids.Buy our new book "Let Kids Be Kids, Not Robots!: Embracing Childhood in an Age of AI"Social Media & Contact: Website: www.aidigitales.com Email: contact@aidigitales.com Follow Us: Instagram, YouTube Gift or get our books on Amazon or Free AI Worksheets Listen, rate, and subscribe! Stay updated with our latest episodes by subscribing to AI for Kids on your favorite podcast platform. Apple Podcasts Amazon Music Spotify YouTube Other Like our content, subscribe or feel free to donate to our Patreon here: patreon.com/AiDigiTales...

The supervised injection centre in Merchants Quay in Dublin opened last December has seen over 4,000 people come through it's doors which allows them to take drugs in a safe, supervised facility. There have been calls for more centres to be rolled out across the country. For more on this Eddie Mullins, Chief Executive of Merchants Quay Ireland.

Michael welcomes Oren Nissim, CEO and Co-founder of Brook Health, which focuses on AI-powered remote health care management, particularly for individuals with chronic conditions. The two discuss the unique balance between advanced technology and the human touch necessary to enhance the patient experience and the present and future of artificial intelligence in the industry. 

Send us a textIn this powerful episode of The Modern Divorce Navigator, family law attorney Billie Tarascio explores the often misunderstood world of supervised parenting time with Christie Carter, founder of Angels Monitoring AZ. Together, they dive into what happens during supervised visits, how safe exchanges work, and when therapeutic monitoring is appropriate.Whether you're navigating a high-conflict custody situation or simply want to better understand court-ordered supervision, this episode offers clear, practical guidance for families, attorneys, and anyone involved in family law mattersWhat You'll Learn in This Episode:The difference between supervised and therapeutic monitoringWhat actually happens during a visit—from safe exchanges to detailed documentationHow professional monitors maintain neutrality and de-escalate conflictReal examples of boundary violations and how they're handledWhat language you should consider including in a court orderHow monitored parenting time supports reunification, parent education, and child safetyFounded by Christie Carter, Angels Monitoring AZ is built on a mission to provide ethical, compassionate, and professional supervised monitoring services to families in transition. Her team prioritizes safety, neutrality, and high standards—helping to rebuild parent-child relationships in a supportive, structured environmentPersonal Inquiries: angelsmonitoringaz@gmail.comCase Management & Family Services: angelsmonitoringazinfo@gmail.comFacebook: Angels Monitoring AZ Instagram: @angelsmonitoring_az#SupervisedVisitation #TherapeuticMonitoring #SafeExchanges #ParentingTime #FamilyLawSupport #ModernDivorceNavigator #AngelsMonitoringAZ #CoParentingHelp #ChildSafety #CustodySupport #ArizonaFamilyLaw #BillieTarascio #ModernLaw #HighConflictCustody #DivorceHelp

Grand événement - À la recherche d'un Avenir Commun DurableL'IA et les mathématiques pour la météorologie et la climatologieAI and math for meteorology and climatologyCollège de FranceAnnée 2024-20255 mai 2025Grand événement - AI and math for meteorology and climatology - Claire Monteleoni: Confronting climate change with generative and self-supervised machine learningClaire MonteleoniResearch Director, INRIA Paris & Professor, University of Colorado BoulderRésuméRésuméThe stunning recent advances in AI content generation rely on cutting-edge, generative deep learning algorithms and architectures trained on massive amounts of text, image, and video data. With different training data, these algorithms and architectures can also be used to confront climate change. As opposed to text and video, the relevant training data includes weather and climate data from observations, reanalyses, and even physical simulations. As in many massive data applications, creating "labeled data" for supervised machine learning is often costly, time-consuming, or even impossible. Fortuitously, in very large-scale data domains, "self-supervised" machine learning methods are now actually outperforming supervised learning methods. In this lecture, I will survey our lab's work developing generative and self-supervised machine learning approaches for applications addressing climate change, including downscaling and temporal interpolation of spatiotemporal data and generating probabilistic weather predictions.Claire MonteleoniClaire Monteleoni is a Choose France Chair in AI and a Research Director at INRIA Paris, a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Colorado Boulder (on leave), and the founding Editor in Chief of Environmental Data Science, a Cambridge University Press journal launched in December 2020. Her research on machine learning for the study of climate change helped launch the interdisciplinary field of Climate Informatics. She co-founded the International Conference on Climate Informatics, which will hold its 14th annual event in 2025. She gave an invited tutorial: Climate Change: Challenges for Machine Learning, at NeurIPS 2014. She currently serves on the U.S. National Science Foundation's Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education, and as Tutorials co-Chair for the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 2024 and 2025.

Major tech companies like Google, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Amazon are actively integrating and enhancing AI capabilities across their products and services, from AI assistants and search functions to coding tools and cloud platforms. The text also addresses critical discussions surrounding AI ethics, data usage policies, and the potential societal impacts, including concerns about misinformation, job displacement, and the responsible deployment of AI in education and social contexts. Additionally, it touches upon technical advancements, new AI model releases, and the strategic partnerships shaping the industry's future.

Randall Balestriero joins the show to discuss some counterintuitive findings in AI. He shares research showing that huge language models, even when started from scratch (randomly initialized) without massive pre-training, can learn specific tasks like sentiment analysis surprisingly well, train stably, and avoid severe overfitting, sometimes matching the performance of costly pre-trained models. This raises questions about when giant pre-training efforts are truly worth it.He also talks about how self-supervised learning (where models learn from data structure itself) and traditional supervised learning (using labeled data) are fundamentally similar, allowing researchers to apply decades of supervised learning theory to improve newer self-supervised methods.Finally, Randall touches on fairness in AI models used for Earth data (like climate prediction), revealing that these models can be biased, performing poorly in specific locations like islands or coastlines even if they seem accurate overall, which has important implications for policy decisions based on this data.SPONSOR MESSAGES:***Tufa AI Labs is a brand new research lab in Zurich started by Benjamin Crouzier focussed on o-series style reasoning and AGI. They are hiring a Chief Engineer and ML engineers. Events in Zurich. Goto https://tufalabs.ai/***TRANSCRIPT + SHOWNOTES:https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n7yev71nsjso71jyjz1fy/RANDALLNEURIPS.pdf?rlkey=0dn4injp1sc4ts8njwf3wfmxv&dl=0TOC:1. Model Training Efficiency and Scale [00:00:00] 1.1 Training Stability of Large Models on Small Datasets [00:04:09] 1.2 Pre-training vs Random Initialization Performance Comparison [00:07:58] 1.3 Task-Specific Models vs General LLMs Efficiency2. Learning Paradigms and Data Distribution [00:10:35] 2.1 Fair Language Model Paradox and Token Frequency Issues [00:12:02] 2.2 Pre-training vs Single-task Learning Spectrum [00:16:04] 2.3 Theoretical Equivalence of Supervised and Self-supervised Learning [00:19:40] 2.4 Self-Supervised Learning and Supervised Learning Relationships [00:21:25] 2.5 SSL Objectives and Heavy-tailed Data Distribution Challenges3. Geographic Representation in ML Systems [00:25:20] 3.1 Geographic Bias in Earth Data Models and Neural Representations [00:28:10] 3.2 Mathematical Limitations and Model Improvements [00:30:24] 3.3 Data Quality and Geographic Bias in ML DatasetsREFS:[00:01:40] Research on training large language models from scratch on small datasets, Randall Balestriero et al.https://openreview.net/forum?id=wYGBWOjq1Q[00:10:35] The Fair Language Model Paradox (2024), Andrea Pinto, Tomer Galanti, Randall Balestrierohttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11985[00:12:20] Muppet: Massive Multi-task Representations with Pre-Finetuning (2021), Armen Aghajanyan et al.https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11038[00:14:30] Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2023), Kyle Mahowald et al.https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627[00:16:05] The Birth of Self-Supervised Learning: A Supervised Theory, Randall Balestriero et al.https://openreview.net/forum?id=NhYAjAAdQT[00:21:25] VICReg: Variance-Invariance-Covariance Regularization for Self-Supervised Learning, Adrien Bardes, Jean Ponce, Yann LeCunhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2105.04906[00:25:20] No Location Left Behind: Measuring and Improving the Fairness of Implicit Representations for Earth Data (2025), Daniel Cai, Randall Balestriero, et al.https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06831[00:33:45] Mark Ibrahim et al.'s work on geographic bias in computer vision datasets, Mark Ibrahimhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.12210

The Government is keen on making it easier to get more drivers on the road. If proposed changes announced this week go through, the second practical driving test required for a full licence will be scrapped, and the number of eyesight tests needed will be reduced, with new safety measures being introduced as well. It comes as the Government continues with its pledge to reverse Labour’s “blanket speed limit reductions” - something National campaigned on. But will a more affordable drivers license system, and higher speed limits, make our roads any safer? Today on The Front Page, we’re joined by AA road safety spokesperson, Dylan Thomsen , to discuss the Government’s latest plans for our roads. Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network. Host: Chelsea DanielsSound Engineer: Richard MartinProducer: Ethan SillsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Preview: Author Ronald C. White, "On Great Fields," answers the question, was Chamberlain the man who supervised the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox CourtHouse in April, 1865? More later." 1865 APPOMATOX COURTHOUSE

In this episode, Niall asks: Is it really inappropriate to touch the statue of Molly Malone, or are Dublin City Council overreacting by hiring supervisors to stop tourists from doing it?The discussion follows a new move by the Council to station staff near the iconic statue after concerns were raised about tourists fondling the statue's bronze breasts for selfies. The so-called “Tart with the Cart” has long been a popular photo op on Grafton Street, but officials now argue the statue is being treated in a disrespectful and overly sexualised manner. Critics, however, say it's political correctness gone mad—and a waste of money.Some callers think absolutely, it's inappropriate. That statue represents a part of Irish history and culture, and constantly grabbing her chest is just plain disrespectful. Tourists wouldn't do that to a statue of a male figure, so why is it okay here? Hiring someone to protect it might seem silly, but maybe it's what's needed. One caller said it's embarrassing—we're known for our craic, but this crosses a line. It's not funny anymore when every tourist feels the need to grope a statue for a photo. It's degrading, and the council is right to step in.While other callers feel it's a bit of harmless fun. Tourists have been doing this for years and nobody was offended until recently. It's not done with any malice. Spending public money on supervisors for a statue is ridiculous. Others said we've far bigger problems in Dublin than people touching Molly Malone. Save the money and focus on housing or cleaning the streets instead of policing a bronze chest.Niall concludes by acknowledging how something seemingly light-hearted like a tourist attraction can spark a deeper conversation about respect, cultural preservation, and whether we've lost the run of ourselves with public money. Is this about dignity, or are we just being killjoys?

  "Supervised neglect" is no way to treat dental patients. If this is the situation in your practice, it may be time to look for a new position. Amber Auger, MPH, RDH Read by Brittany Duncan  https://www.rdhmag.com/career-profession/article/55261992/hygiene-mentor-when-is-it-time-to-leave-an-office 

Jerry opens the show by saying why you shouldn't be April Fooled about the carbon tax with today's lower gas prices. Clayton Campbell from the Toronto Police Association discusses bail and how it can be impacted by the federal election. Then, Frank Leo joins the show to talk about condo investors failing to close, and landlords offering incentives to rent. Then, Gavin Tighe weighs in on supervised consumption sites closing despite court injunction.

Part 2 of this series could have easily been renamed "AI for science: The expert's guide to practical machine learning.” We continue our discussion with Christoph Molnar and Timo Freiesleben to look at how scientists can apply supervised machine learning techniques from the previous episode into their research.Introduction to supervised ML for science (0:00) Welcome back to Christoph Molnar and Timo Freiesleben, co-authors of “Supervised Machine Learning for Science: How to Stop Worrying and Love Your Black Box”The model as the expert? (1:00)Evaluation metrics have profound downstream effects on all modeling decisionsData augmentation offers a simple yet powerful way to incorporate domain knowledgeDomain expertise is often undervalued in data science despite being crucialMeasuring causality: Metrics and blind spots (10:10)Causality approaches in ML range from exploring associations to inferring treatment effectsConnecting models to scientific understanding (18:00)Interpretation methods must stay within realistic data distributions to yield meaningful insightsRobustness across distribution shifts (26:40)Robustness requires understanding what distribution shifts affect your modelPre-trained models and transfer learning provide promising paths to more robust scientific MLReproducibility challenges in ML and science (35:00)Reproducibility challenges differ between traditional science and machine learningGo back to listen to part one of this series for the conceptual foundations that support these practical applications.Check out Christoph and Timo's book “Supervised Machine Learning for Science: How to Stop Worrying and Love Your Black Box” available online now.What did you think? Let us know.Do you have a question or a discussion topic for the AI Fundamentalists? Connect with them to comment on your favorite topics: LinkedIn - Episode summaries, shares of cited articles, and more. YouTube - Was it something that we said? Good. Share your favorite quotes. Visit our page - see past episodes and submit your feedback! It continues to inspire future episodes.

Machine learning is transforming scientific research across disciplines, but many scientists remain skeptical about using approaches that focus on prediction over causal understanding. That's why we are excited to have Christoph Molnar return to the podcast with Timo Freibusleben. They are co-authors of "Supervised Machine Learning for Science: How to Stop Worrying and Love your Black Box." We will talk about the perceived problems with automation in certain sciences and find out how scientists can use machine learning without losing scientific accuracy.• Different scientific disciplines have varying goals beyond prediction, including control, explanation, and reasoning about phenomena• Traditional scientific approaches build models from simple to complex, while machine learning often starts with complex models• Scientists worry about using ML due to lack of interpretability and causal understanding• ML can both integrate domain knowledge and test existing scientific hypotheses• "Shortcut learning" occurs when models find predictive patterns that aren't meaningful• Machine learning adoption varies widely across scientific fields• Ecology and medical imaging have embraced ML, while other fields remain cautious• Future directions include ML potentially discovering scientific laws humans can understand• Researchers should view machine learning as another tool in their scientific toolkitStay tuned! In part 2, we'll shift the discussion with Christoph and Timo to talk about putting these concepts into practice. What did you think? Let us know.Do you have a question or a discussion topic for the AI Fundamentalists? Connect with them to comment on your favorite topics: LinkedIn - Episode summaries, shares of cited articles, and more. YouTube - Was it something that we said? Good. Share your favorite quotes. Visit our page - see past episodes and submit your feedback! It continues to inspire future episodes.

Supervised Visitation has a really negative connotation. But there's a lot you might not know! My guest in this episode is Trina Nudson, JD, CDC, divorce attorney, mediator and founder of her co-parenting program, BeH20. Our discussion is dedicated to what you need to know about supervised visitation, which Trina calls "supervised parenting time" since no parent should have to "visit" their children. Learn more: https://www.divorcedgirlsmiling.com/10-things-to-know-about-supervised-visitation/

What happens when the people who were supposed to love and protect you become the source of your deepest wounds? Therapist Gabrielle Wells joins us to dive into the reality of growing up with narcissistic or emotionally immature parents—the red flags, the long-term impact, and how it shapes the way we navigate love, trust, and boundaries. Whether you've gone no-contact, are still trying to make it work, or just find yourself dissociating at family dinners, this conversation is for you. Because sometimes, “but they did their best” just isn't good enough.Tools and references from Gabrielle: Gabrielle Wells, MS, Associate Marriage & Family Therapist #142692 Supervised by Briana Ferron, M.A., LMFT #130324You can look into individual and group therapy services with Gabrielle here.Resources on coping with a narcissistic parent: Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents: How to Heal From Distant, Rejecting, or Self-Involved Parents by Lindsay C. Gibson, PsyDRecovering from Emotionally Immature Parents: Practical Tools to Establish Boundaries & Reclaim Your Emotional Autonomy by Lindsay C. Gibson, PsyDAdult Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers: Quiet the Critical Voice in Your Head, Heal Self-Doubt and live the Life You Deserve by Stephanie M. Kriesberg, PsyDDr. Ramani on YouTube

A great learning experience comes at the material using different practices—listening, reading, memorizing, interrogating, doing, speaking, and/or writing about the idea until it crystallizes in the student's mind. And a great teacher facilitates those practices in his class plan. For his talk at the 2024 Forum Teaching Conference, upper school teacher Austin Hatch borrowed the “three modes of teaching” proposed by author and educator Mortimer Adler. These are: didactic instruction, supervised practice, and active participation. Mr. Hatch explains why they are each needed in good proportion, and what each can look like in the classroom. Chapters: 00:04:25 The beginning and end is friendship 00:09:57 Didactic instruction: be brief and clear 00:12:23 Supervised practice: make the time 00:20:54 Active participation: host a seminar or performance 00:31:27 Beholding a man in performance 00:33:21 Q1: preparing students for a seminar 00:35:07 Q2: escaping the grade game Links: Paideia Program: An Educational Syllabus by Mortimer Adler De Amicitia (On Friendship) by Cicero Featured opportunities: Teaching Essentials Workshop at The Heights School (June 16-20, 2025)

Supervised visitation and therapeutic visitation are meant to provide safety and structure for children and families navigating complex custody dynamics. But what happens when there are no regulations, inconsistent oversight, and a severe lack of training among those facilitating these visits? In this episode, I share real-life stories, my experiences getting trained, and the major concerns with how these services are currently being implemented. I'll break down:What supervised and therapeutic visitation should look likeThe risks of unregulated or poorly structured visitation servicesWhy documentation, training, and therapist collaboration must be prioritizedWhat we can do to bring awareness and demand better oversightIf you've experienced supervised or therapeutic visitation—or have concerns about how it's being handled in your case—this episode is for you.Referenced Links: Episode 44: The Myth of Parental Alienation: What is it really?Please leave us a review or rating and follow/subscribe to the show. This helps the show get out to more people.If you want to chat more about this topic I would love to continue our conversation over on Instagram! @risingbeyondpcIf you want to support the show you may do so here at, Buy Me A Coffee. Thank you! We love being able to make this information accessible to you and your community.If you've been looking for a supportive community of women going through the topics we cover, head over to our website to learn more about the Rising Beyond Community. - https://www.risingbeyondpc.com/ Where to find more from Rising Beyond:Rising Beyond FacebookRising Beyond LinkedInRising Beyond Pinterest If you're interested in guesting on the show please fill out this form - https://forms.gle/CSvLWWyZxmJ8GGQu7Enjoy some of our freebies! Choosing Your Battles Freebie Canned Responses Freebie Mic Drop Moments Freebie ...

On Nick Ferrari at Breakfast, Children in the most deprived areas of England will get access to a programme of supervised toothbrushing at school to help protect them from tooth decay. Nick speaks to Care Minister Stephen Kinnock. Triple killer Kyle Clifford searched for Andrew Tate's podcast before rape and murders.Volodymyr Zelenskyy plans to head to Saudi Arabia where his team will meet with US officials. All of this and more on Nick Ferrari - The Whole Show podcast.

A new initiative is being rolled across England which will see supervised toothbrushing taking place daily in schools across the country. It's hoped the Government backed campaign will save the NHS millions by reducing the number of children who require hospital care for tooth decay…Is this something that should be done in Ireland?Dr. Caroline Robbins of Kiwi Dental in Carlow joins Kieran to discuss.

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

Dean's Chat hosts, Drs. Jensen and Richey, welcome Dr. Gerit D. Mulder to the podcast!  Dr. Mulder gave Dr. Jensen an opportunity to join his practice at the Wound Healing Institute after residency, providing a tremendous foundation for future research that included the National Institutes of Health, and Department of Defense opportunities.  Dr. Mulder has a storied history in podiatric medical research in the wound care space.  He received his BS at University of Redlands; a masters degree from Cal State - San Bernadino, then received his DPM from the College of Podiatric Medicine. He received his PhD from Chulalongkorn University through University of California San Diego specializing in Biomedical Sciences/Stem Cells.  Gerit speaks 5 languages and has taught wound care, and implemented wound care programs around the world.  Tune in for a fabulous interview! Below is a brief history of Dr. Mulder's activities and qualifications: • Extensive expertise in the development, implementation and management of clinical trials, clinical operations and teams.  Experience as a lead Principal Investigator interacting with and guiding multicenter trials.  Direct interaction with the FDA, Pharmaceutical Industry and Academic Research Centers.  Focus on Inflammatory Diseases, Dermatology and Infectious Disease.  • Responsible for development and oversight than 120 clinical trials. • Supervised, educated, and guided research teams globally. • Developed project budgets, protocols, guidelines, and implementation plans for developing wound clinics. • Provided strategic and tactical input to the medical industry related to clinical trials with emphasis on Phase 1,2 and 3 studies.  • Created tissue and wound repair programs to increase product understanding to assist Emerging Markets. Additional Expertise and Affiliations Include: • Understanding of Regulatory Affairs. • International experience with monitoring and overseeing clinical trials. • Served as a national and international  • Provided input on new product development for novel disease states.  • Conversational skills in English, Spanish, Italian, French, and German • Extensive experience with KOLs and medical advisory boards. Physician at Christus St. Vincent Medical Center, Wound & Hyperbaric Center. December 2021 to current. • Provide advanced clinical care for chronic wounds of all etiologies including diabetic, venous, pressure, trauma and other wounds. • Direct wound and tissue repair and regeneration research Medical Research Consultant – Independent 2019 – current Clinical Tissue Repair and Regeneration Specialist – 2019-current • Consult internationally on Phase 1,2, and 3 clinical trials • Provide input for development and implementation of clinical trials and educational materials for health care providers related to phase 1, 2 and 3 studies as well as approved products. • Provide clinical care to patients with acute and chronic wounds of all etiologies Director, Professor of Surgery and Orthopedics University of California San Diego Medical Center, Wound Treatment and Research Center   April 1998- December 2013 •  Provided clinical and surgical care, conducted medical student, resident and staff education, oversaw clinical research.  Treated more than 3000 patients per year.  Published in peer reviewed medical journals and key presenter at medical conferences globally. • Oversaw research within my division of the Department of Trauma, with focus on tissue regeneration and repair, inflammatory and infectious related diseases and cell regeneration. June 1986-April 1998: President of WCI (Wound Consultants Inc., previously Wound Healing Institute)    WCI offered consulting services to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry related to clinical protocols and trials, implementation of related patient care, planning and managing medical education.  Advised on development of new products related to tissue regeneration and repair. Patient Care    Vice President of Marketing and Medical Affairs DermaRx  May 1995- March 1998 Vice President of Clinical and Regulatory Affairs Organogenesis, Inc.   May 1994-May 1995     Wound Clinic Director Veterans Administration Hospital Denver June 1983- Jne 1992 FDA Experience: • Participated as an advisor to the FDA and companies working with the FDA • Completed and submitted 510k for hydrogel, foam, and other wound treatment devices • Completed clinical section of PMA submission on Apligraf for Organogenesis • Consulted as wound care expert on panels for medical and pharmaceutical industry. • Chaired Human Subjects Committee in Denver for two years for a major IRB. • Interacted with FDA on Dermatology and Inflammatory Diesease Dr. Mulder can be reached at (619) 417-9249 or at gerit.mulder@gmail.com;  gerit.mulder@stvin.org  or on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/gerit-mulder/a/321/6b5

Many people unknowingly settle for less in relationships because they don't realize their true worth. In this episode, Catholic therapist Adam Cross explores the core of Theology of the Body, revealing why you are worth dying for and how this truth should shape your view of love, marriage, and sexuality. Topics covered: Why people settle for distorted love How modern culture misleads us about relationships Understanding your dignity as a beloved child of God What Theology of the Body teaches about true love Tune in for an insightful discussion that will challenge the way you think about relationships and help you embrace your God-given worth. Have questions? Please visit my website: adamcrossmft.com Adam Cross Registered Associate Marriage and Family Therapist #89628​ Supervised by Esther C. Bleuel, M.A. MFT, MDR (31181)

Starlink Direct to Cell 開始beta測試. 7月開通.Rivian 電動貨車開始販售特斯拉 FSD Supervised 軟體開放到墨西哥Mexico全新Model Y增加新功能確認新Model Y 後驅版本以及高性能版本美國新Model 3租賃優惠方案. 一個月 $250.

Check out The MainlandCheck out Reuther MaterialBUY OUR MERCH HEREJoin the mail bag by leaving a voicemail at: 908-67-9999-3Our personal Instagrams:SoboChomikJimmyJordanWelcome back to The Garden State, the only NJ podcast that gives you all the news you need to know this week. Thanks for tuning in once again and for supporting the podcast. If you're enjoying the show, make sure to leave us a review! We love reading those!Follow us on all our socials to keep up to date with that and everything else happening. https://linktr.ee/thegardenstate

Have you ever thought about becoming a Catholic therapist? What does the journey entail, and how do faith and therapy intersect? In this episode, Adam Cross (#116623), speaks with Joshua Hernandez, a trainee therapist completing his Master's in Counseling. They discuss: The process of becoming a licensed Catholic therapist (LMFT, LPCC) The challenges and rewards of faith-based therapy How to integrate Catholic faith into psychological practice The importance of mental health in the Catholic community How therapy can align with God's plan for healing and flourishing If you've ever considered Catholic therapy as a vocation, this episode is for you.

The work of our city's School Resource Officers (SROs) doesn't stop in the summer. Learn about the summer program "Safety Town." Supervised and run by SROs to help guide and teach our youth. Safety Town is two-hour a day, one-week program (new for 2025!) for five (5) and six (6) year old children (not older, not younger) that teaches safety lessons on strangers, traffic, pedestrians, fire, bicycles, bus, poisons (including drugs), water and guns. It will take place at Lewis Recreation Center and Barber Park. Go to safetytowngreensboro.com for more information.

Disclaimer: This podcast does not provide medical advice. The content of this podcast is provided for informational or educational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for informed medical advice or care. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health issue without consulting your doctor. Always seek medical advice before making any lifestyle changes. TO READ THE ACTUAL STUDY: https://www.healthpromoting.com/sites/default/files/imce/Water%20Fasting%20and%20Lymphoma%20Case%20Study%20TNH.pdf https://www.healthpromoting.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/Myers%20et%20al_2018_Follow-up%20of%20water-only%20fasting%20and%20an%20exclusively%20plant%20food%20diet%20in%20the%20management%20of%20stage%20111a%20lymphoma.pdf Please get the book here now! To get a copy signed by Dr. Goldhamer: https://www.healthpromoting.com/can-fasting-save-your-life To buy on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1570674191?linkCode=ssc&tag=onamzchefajsh-20&creativeASIN=1570674191&asc_item-id=amzn1.ideas.1GNPDCAG4A86S&ref_=aip_sf_list_spv_ofs_mixed_d_asin Dr. LIsle and Dr. Goldhamer's book The Pleasure Trap: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1570671974?tag=onamzchefajsh-20&linkCode=ssc&creativeASIN=1570671974&asc_item-id=amzn1.ideas.1GNPDCAG4A86S Dr. Alan Goldhamer is the co-founder of TrueNorth Health Center, a state-of-the-art facility that provides medical and chiropractic services, psychotherapy and counseling, as well as massage and bodywork. He is also director of the Center's groundbreaking residential health education program. Dr. Goldhamer has supervised the fasts of thousands of patients. Under his guidance, the Center has become one of the premier training facilities for doctors wishing to gain certification in the supervision of therapeutic fasting. Dr. Goldhamer was the principal investigator in two landmark studies. The first: "Medically Supervised Water-Only Fasting in the Treatment of Hypertension" appeared in the June 2001 issue of the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. Its publication marked a turning point in the evolution of evidence supporting the benefits of water-only fasting. The second study: "Medically Supervised Water-Only Fasting in the Treatment of Borderline Hypertension," appeared in the October 2002 issue of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

In this episode, we dive deep into the world of AI engineering with Chip Huyen, author of the excellent, newly released book "AI Engineering: Building Applications with Foundation Models". We explore the nuances of AI engineering, distinguishing it from traditional machine learning, discuss how foundational models make it possible for anyone to build AI applications and cover many other topics including the challenges of AI evaluation, the intricacies of the generative AI stack, why prompt engineering is underrated, why the rumors of the death of RAG are greatly exaggerated, and the latest progress in AI agents. Book: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/ai-engineering/9781098166298/ Chip Huyen Website - https://huyenchip.com LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/chiphuyen Twitter/X - https://x.com/chipro FIRSTMARK Website - https://firstmark.com Twitter - https://twitter.com/FirstMarkCap Matt Turck (Managing Director) LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/turck/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/mattturck (00:00) Intro (02:45) What is new about AI engineering? (06:11) The product-first approach to building AI applications (07:38) Are AI engineering and ML engineering two separate professions? (11:00) The Generative AI stack (13:00) Why are language models able to scale? (14:45) Auto-regressive vs. masked models (16:46) Supervised vs. unsupervised vs. self-supervised (18:56) Why does model scale matter? (20:40) Mixture of Experts (24:20) Pre-training vs. post-training (28:43) Sampling (32:14) Evaluation as a key to AI adoption (36:03) Entropy (40:05) Evaluating AI systems (43:21) AI as a judge (46:49) Why prompt engineering is underrated (49:38) In-context learning (51:46) Few-shot learning and zero-shot learning (52:57) Defensive prompt engineering (55:29) User prompt vs. system prompt (57:07) Why RAG is here to stay (01:00:31) Defining AI agents (01:04:04) AI agent planning (01:08:32) Training data as a bottleneck to agent planning

Amber (not her real name) is among the first people to use Ireland's long-awaited Supervised Injection Facility in Dublin. Speaking to Irish Times social affairs correspondent, Kitty Holland, Amber says up until now her day has been taken up by procuring heroin and crystal meth and then strategising about where she can consume them. Suffering from substance abuse since her teens, she says the new centre at Merchants Quay Ireland will change her life. "I am so tense when I am injecting I have had a needle break in my arm. Being able to relax, there is no price on the peace that would come with that.” The SIF was first proposed in 2015 and hasn't been without controversy. Objections to the centre came from stakeholders like the local primary school, where parents fear it will increase dealing and dangerous behaviour in the area. But those behind the pilot project say it will take intravenous drug use off the streets, encourage addicts to link in with local services and prevent deaths by overdose. Presented by Sorcha Pollak. Produced by Aideen Finnegan. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Sean Hashmi and Dr. Alan Goldhamer explore the power of nutritional excellence and therapeutic fasting in revolutionizing kidney health and wellness. Learn how these practices can improve renal function and overall health. #KidneyWellness #NutritionalExcellence #TherapeuticFasting

In today's podcast episode, we are joined by Raj Date, who has served in a variety of roles at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including as the acting head of the agency and as it's first-ever Deputy Director. He recently wrote a thought-provoking article in a new online publication, Open Banker, entitled “Banks Aren't Over-Regulated, They Are Over-Supervised.” Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, and is joined by Joseph Schuster, a partner in the Group. By way of background, Mr. Date described how bankers have almost uniformly complained to him that banks are over-regulated. Mr. Date responds to these complaints in his article as follows: At the time, in the still-smoldering ruins of the financial crisis, this struck me as bizarre. Banks are the beneficiaries of an array of government privileges: subsidized leverage (through insured deposits), liquidity (through the discount window and the home loan banks), exclusive access to payment rails (both through the central bank and bank-only private networks), and even choice of law (through federal preemption). Given all that, safeguards on capital, liquidity, credit exposure, market and interest rate exposure, cybersecurity, and consumer protection seemed like a fair trade to me. More than a decade later, I realize that those bank CEOs were not exactly wrong, they were imprecise: Banks are not over-regulated, but they are — quite dramatically — over-supervised.  Mr. Date makes the following points in support of his thesis that the banking industry is over-supervised: 1.       Bank examination tries to cover too many areas and, as a result, sometimes fails to see the forest through the trees. 2.       Bank examination obsessively focuses on process rather than substance.  That focus is evidenced by the supervisors' requirements that the banks document everything. 3.       It takes far too long for banks to receive examination reports after exams are completed, sometimes years later. The final exam reports are often anachronistic. 4.       Bank examinations often stultify bank innovation because supervisors' examinations are often critical of banks offering new products and services and this results in bank management being reluctant to innovate out of fear that they will be downgraded. 5.       Examiners' focus on process rather than risk itself has resulted in a bank management brain drain. Mr. Date then explains how the examination process should be changed. Mr. Date first calls for immediate changes even though the banking industry is largely thriving.   Mr. Date suggests the following approach in his article and during the podcast: The regulatory agencies are, probably justifiably, proud of their long histories of public service. But that pride breeds cultures that are strikingly conservative and resistant to change. As importantly, unlike private sector firms, they do not have the crucible of a profit imperative to burn away unproductive practices and orthodoxies. And it shows. It is not as though bank examiners cannot articulate the most important issues facing their regulated charges; it is just that they often just have no reason to stop working on things other than the most important issues. The only solution is strong top-down leadership that imposes ambitious goals. Without stretch goals that will feel strikingly out of reach at the outset, real change will not be possible. If it were me, I would set out, in a pilot with a handful of mid-sized banks, to structure a supervisory exam strategy that costs 75% less (in combined bank and agency costs) and is 75% faster from first-day letter to final report than today's norms.[9] I would embrace pilot uses of new technology tools in pursuit of those goals. And then I would iterate on those initial (almost certainly unsuccessful) results. This will be difficult, and even painful. But I very much believe it will be worth it. While acknowledging the issues with over-supervision, Joseph directs significant attention to the problem of over-regulation. He argues that modern regulatory practices have become more complex, restrictive, and less clear, creating barriers to innovation and access to credit. Joseph highlights how over-regulation stifles the development and availability of consumer finance products. Joseph explains how products like "Buy Now, Pay Later" (BNPL) face regulatory hurdles despite addressing consumer needs effectively. Joseph also discusses the potential negative impact of proposed changes to late fee regulations, warning that such measures could limit access to credit and push consumers toward higher-cost alternatives. Joseph criticizes the heavy-handed approach taken by regulators, such as the CFPB's issuance of circulars, which adds further uncertainty and complexity for institutions attempting to innovate in this space. Joseph advocates for a return to a more structured and transparent regulatory framework. He suggests that agencies recommit to the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), emphasizing the importance of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Drawing parallels to the Federal Reserve Board's process during the implementation of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act, Joseph argues that meaningful engagement with the industry could lead to clearer regulations that balance consumer protection with innovation and operational feasibility. Joseph endorses Raj Date's call for clear and focused priorities in the supervisory process, and emphasizes that both banks and examiners benefit from a more straightforward understanding of the rules. Joseph concludes by warning against the trend of "regulation through enforcement," which undermines transparency and predictability, ultimately harming consumers and financial institutions alike.

Will a medically supervised injection centre be beneficial?

Eleanor Burnhill on the opening of Ireland's first supervised injection facility at Merchant Quay Ireland's Riverbank centre in Dublin.

Eddie Mullins, CEO, Merchants Quay Ireland and Professor Eamon Keenan, HSE's National Clinical Lead on Addiction Services

Ireland's first medically supervised injection facility is due to open its doors in the coming days at Merchant Quay Ireland's Riverbank centre in Dublin city. To discuss further we heard from Dr Garrett McGovern Medical Director at the Priority Medical Clinic in Dundrum and GP addiction specialist.

In this special episode, Bessie explores the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence. It stands out because 90% of the content, including a 20-minute dialogue, transcripts, and even the shownotes, have been generated by AI tools. Inspired by Google's AI-powered notebook platform NotebookLM, Bessie experiments with feeding her handwritten notes from a 10-week London Business School course on AI into this tool, resulting in a fascinating dialogue on AI and machine learning's real-world applications.We discuss:Key AI Concepts – Breaking down AI, Machine Learning (ML), and their types (Supervised, Unsupervised, and Reinforcement Learning).Industry Case Studies – How AI is reshaping customer service (Vodafone, T-Mobile), quality control (Domino's Pizza), and predictive maintenance (Schneider Electric).Practical Insights – Challenges, opportunities, and a framework for successful AI implementation in businesses.Future of AI – The role of leadership, data as an asset, and embracing a culture of innovation.� What Makes This Episode Unique:Almost entirely AI-generated, this episode is a testament to AI's capabilities in content creation. It raises the question:How will AI continue to transform creative industries?� Join the Conversation:What are your thoughts on AI's potential and its role in content creation? Share your reflections in the comments section!Thank you for tuning in! Let's explore the future of AI together. �

Weighted balls revisited Long Toss Routine Law of Diminishing Max Effort Max Distance Long Toss Programs Benefits 1. Builds Arm Strength • Develops throwing muscles and endurance through long-distance throws. 2. Improves Flexibility • Enhances shoulder mobility and throwing mechanics. 3. Boosts Velocity • Promotes force generation, increasing pitching speed. Risks 1. Overuse Injuries • High stress on growing joints (e.g., UCL tears, shoulder strains). 2. Biomechanical Issues • Poor form at max effort leads to injury risks. 3. Ignoring Limits • Pitching through pain or fatigue worsens injuries. Recommendations 1. Supervised Training to ensure safe mechanics. 2. Gradual Distance Progression to reduce arm stress. 3. Limit Max Effort Throws to prevent overuse injuries. 4. Include Recovery Periods for proper healing and adaptation. Conclusion • Benefits include strength, flexibility, and velocity improvements. • Risks require structured, cautious implementation for safety and development. Alternative Training Methods to Long Toss Programs Introduction • Overview of long toss programs and potential risks for young pitchers. • Importance of alternative methods focusing on strength, flexibility, and proper mechanics. Conclusion • Benefits include strength, flexibility, and velocity improvements. • Risks require structured, cautious implementation for safety and development. Alternative Training Methods to Long Toss Programs Introduction • Overview of long toss programs and potential risks for young pitchers. • Importance of alternative methods focusing on strength, flexibility, and proper mechanics. 1. Resistance Training Programs • Description: Structured resistance training tailored for pitchers. • Benefits: ◦ Increases throwing velocity. ◦ Enhances muscle strength and endurance. ◦ Reduces arm strain compared to long toss. • Examples: Weighted medicine ball throws, resistance band exercises 2. Interval Throwing Programs • Description: Controlled throwing distances with gradual intensity increases. • Benefits: ◦ Builds arm strength progressively. ◦ Reinforces proper throwing mechanics. ◦ Reduces abrupt stress on the arm. • Approach: Start with shorter throws and gradually increase distance and intensity. 3. Flat Ground Throws • Description: Controlled throws performed on flat ground. • Benefits: ◦ Focus on mechanics and control. ◦ Reduces torque and stress on the arm compared to long toss. ◦ Mimics pitching without high-intensity strain. • Implementation: Specific distances and controlled velocity for skill development. 4. Focus on Flexibility and Mechanics • Flexibility Training: ◦ Importance of shoulder and arm mobility. ◦ Includes targeted stretching routines. • Mechanics Training: ◦ Emphasizes proper throwing technique. ◦ Supervised drills to prevent injury and enhance performance. • Benefits: Improves range of motion and reduces injury risk. Assessing Individual Training for Pitchers I. Importance of Individual Training Assessment • Enhances performance • Prevents injuries • Optimizes development II. Key Approaches and Methods 1. Functional Strength Assessment ◦ Performance Tests: ▪ Medicine ball throws, push-ups, resistance band exercises ▪ Identifies strength deficits ◦ Profile Comparison: ▪ Benchmarks against normative data ▪ Guides targeted training efforts 2. Flexibility and Mobility Evaluation ◦ Shoulder and Hip Flexibility Tests: ▪ Identifies range of motion limitations ◦ Stretching Routines: ▪ Analyzes dynamic and static stretching outcomes ▪ Guides improvement-specific flexibility exercises 3. Biomechanical Analysis ◦ Video Analysis: ▪ Detects mechanical flaws (e.g., arm angles, timing) ◦ 3D Motion Capture: ▪ Offers detailed kinematic and kinetic insights 4. Performance Metrics MonPerformance Metrics Monitoring ◦ Velocity Tracking: ▪ Monitors throwing velocity via radar guns or tracking systems ◦ Pitch Control and Accuracy: ▪ Tracks accuracy using pitching targets 5. Fatigue and Recovery Assessment ◦ Self-Reported Fatigue Surveys: ▪ Identifies recovery needs through subjective feedback ◦ Monitoring Recovery Status: ▪ Evaluates soreness and responsiveness post-session 6. Personalized Training Plans ◦ Individualized Workouts:▪ Tailored programs targeting core stability, lower-body power, etc. ◦ Periodic Evaluations: ▪ Tracks progress with scheduled reassessments ▪ Adjusts training based on feedback III. Conclusion • A comprehensive assessment is crucial for identifying specific training needs. • Regular monitoring and adaptations ensure sustained development and injury prevention.

In today's episode, I'm joined by Danielle Rice, a clinical and health psychologist whose PhD research zeroed in on a unique perspective: how to support caregivers of scleroderma patients. Believe it or not, before Danielle's work, there had only been one small study on this crucial topic! We often overlook how scleroderma affects not only the patients but also their loved ones. Danielle has done incredible work to bring much-needed support to caregivers, and today, she shares insights on the impact they face and the ways not to feel isolated.

Exploring Healing and Embodiment: Theology, Neurobiology, and Integration Join Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (#116623) Adam Cross and graduate student/therapist trainee Kolbe Young in an insightful discussion about healing, embodiment, and the integration of body, mind, and soul. Drawing from Theology of the Body, interpersonal neurobiology, and their personal experiences, they explore how physical practices like surfing and mindfulness foster mental and emotional healing. Learn how trauma research, relational connections, and intentional movement enhance spiritual and therapeutic practices. Discover the profound connection between body and soul through the lens of Catholic theology, practical therapeutic techniques, and unique insights into embodiment. Topics include anxiety, dissociation, if yoga is okay for use by Catholics, and the role of physical awareness in mental health and spiritual growth. Whether you're curious about integrating faith with therapy or seeking practical steps to deepen healing, this conversation offers something for everyone. Have questions? Please visit my website: adamcrossmft.com Adam Cross Registered Associate Marriage and Family Therapist #89628​ Supervised by Esther C. Bleuel, M.A. MFT, MDR (31181)

In the UK, around a third of British children have tooth decay. Just among the under-fives, it's a quarter - a figure that rises significantly in the most deprived areas.Tooth decay can cause speech development issues, embarrassment for children and in 2023, 15 million school days were missed due to tooth pain or treatment. There's a financial cost too – in 2023 in England alone tooth extractions under a general anaesthetic cost the NHS £41 million.And it's totally preventable. So, how can we stop teeth rotting in the first place? One way initiative announced by the new Labour government is to expand supervised toothbrushing sessions to more children. We find out how these work with Oral Health Team Lead Helen Bullingham who supports nurseries and schools in East Sussex to deliver these programmes.But what about the evidence to support this intervention? Zoe Marshman, Professor of Dental Public Health at University of Sheffield, explains her findings and dental hygienist and researcher at King's College London Dr Claire McCarthy describes what parents should be doing, in an ideal world, at home. And finally, what role does sugar play and how can we get consumption down? Dr Nina Rogers from the Population Health Innovation Lab at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine explains her findings into the impact of the Sugar Drinks Industry Levy introduced in 2018.Presenter: James Gallagher Producers: Hannah Robins Content Editor: Holly SquireInside Health is a BBC Wales & West production for Radio 4, produced in partnership with The Open University.

In today's episode, I'm diving into the simple yet incredibly powerful idea of “feeling all the feels.” It's a journey of truly acknowledging our emotions—no matter how heavy, uncomfortable, or even overwhelming they might be. I share stories from my sessions and the importance of slowing down to connect with our bodies and emotions. It's about giving ourselves the space to feel grief, sadness, or even anger and realizing that healing begins when we're present with ourselves. It may sound simple, but the impact can be life-changing. And guess what? God is right there with us in the midst of it, inviting us into a deeper relationship of self-love and understanding.   Have questions? Please visit my website: adamcrossmft.com Adam Cross Registered Associate Marriage and Family Therapist #89628​ Supervised by Esther C. Bleuel, M.A. MFT, MDR (31181)

So much tech, so little time! Mike is joined by Graye Williams, tech expert this week. Tesla has offered all its drivers in North America a free month of Supervised Full Self Driving. Mike's tried it out in his Model 3, and reveals the good the bad and the ugly! Exciting times in the e-reader world! Amazon has released several new Kindles, including a colour version! Mike sits down with Penny Panos, Amazon's Head of Devices and Services to find out all the details. And finally, on the Intel Core Ultra AI Segment, Mike and Graye discuss OpenArt.AI, a super amazing tool to easily create images using your own as a base, or ones from scratch. So easy anyone can use it to create their own masterpieces.

 In this episode, I'll share why having a therapist who truly understands and honors your Catholic faith can be so meaningful. After all, our faith isn't just a small part of our lives—it shapes who we are in the deepest way possible. But, I also get that finding a Catholic therapist isn't always easy, especially if you live in a small state or a remote area. So, I'll talk about practical ways to navigate that, including working with secular therapists when needed and when to be extra mindful. Plus, I'll be sharing some exciting news. Have questions? Please visit my website: adamcrossmft.com Adam Cross Registered Associate Marriage and Family Therapist #89628​ Supervised by Esther C. Bleuel, M.A. MFT, MDR (31181)

Will Williams is CTO of Speechmatics in Cambridge. In this sponsored episode - he shares deep technical insights into modern speech recognition technology and system architecture. The episode covers several key technical areas: * Speechmatics' hybrid approach to ASR, which focusses on unsupervised learning methods, achieving comparable results with 100x less data than fully supervised approaches. Williams explains why this is more efficient and generalizable than end-to-end models like Whisper. * Their production architecture implementing multiple operating points for different latency-accuracy trade-offs, with careful latency padding (up to 1.8 seconds) to ensure consistent user experience. The system uses lattice-based decoding with language model integration for improved accuracy. * The challenges and solutions in real-time ASR, including their approach to diarization (speaker identification), handling cross-talk, and implicit source separation. Williams explains why these problems remain difficult even with modern deep learning approaches. * Their testing and deployment infrastructure, including the use of mirrored environments for catching edge cases in production, and their strategy of maintaining global models rather than allowing customer-specific fine-tuning. * Technical evolution in ASR, from early days of custom CUDA kernels and manual memory management to modern frameworks, with Williams offering interesting critiques of current PyTorch memory management approaches and arguing for more efficient direct memory allocation in production systems. Get coding with their API! This is their URL: https://www.speechmatics.com/ DO YOU WANT WORK ON ARC with the MindsAI team (current ARC winners)? MLST is sponsored by Tufa Labs: Focus: ARC, LLMs, test-time-compute, active inference, system2 reasoning, and more. Interested? Apply for an ML research position: benjamin@tufa.ai TOC 1. ASR Core Technology & Real-time Architecture [00:00:00] 1.1 ASR and Diarization Fundamentals [00:05:25] 1.2 Real-time Conversational AI Architecture [00:09:21] 1.3 Neural Network Streaming Implementation [00:12:49] 1.4 Multi-modal System Integration 2. Production System Optimization [00:29:38] 2.1 Production Deployment and Testing Infrastructure [00:35:40] 2.2 Model Architecture and Deployment Strategy [00:37:12] 2.3 Latency-Accuracy Trade-offs [00:39:15] 2.4 Language Model Integration [00:40:32] 2.5 Lattice-based Decoding Architecture 3. Performance Evaluation & Ethical Considerations [00:44:00] 3.1 ASR Performance Metrics and Capabilities [00:46:35] 3.2 AI Regulation and Evaluation Methods [00:51:09] 3.3 Benchmark and Testing Challenges [00:54:30] 3.4 Real-world Implementation Metrics [01:00:51] 3.5 Ethics and Privacy Considerations 4. ASR Technical Evolution [01:09:00] 4.1 WER Calculation and Evaluation Methodologies [01:10:21] 4.2 Supervised vs Self-Supervised Learning Approaches [01:21:02] 4.3 Temporal Learning and Feature Processing [01:24:45] 4.4 Feature Engineering to Automated ML 5. Enterprise Implementation & Scale [01:27:55] 5.1 Future AI Systems and Adaptation [01:31:52] 5.2 Technical Foundations and History [01:34:53] 5.3 Infrastructure and Team Scaling [01:38:05] 5.4 Research and Talent Strategy [01:41:11] 5.5 Engineering Practice Evolution Shownotes: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/d94b1jcgph9o8au8shdym/Speechmatics.pdf?rlkey=bi55wvktzomzx0y5sic6jz99y&st=6qwofv8t&dl=0

In this episode, we explore how to love and support those struggling with mental health, whether they are family members or close friends. We discuss the importance of seeking to understand their experiences and challenges before offering advice or solutions. Have questions? Please visit my website: adamcrossmft.com Adam Cross Registered Associate Marriage and Family Therapist #89628​ Supervised by Esther C. Bleuel, M.A. MFT, MDR (31181)