Podcasts about Temple University

Is there a better titled film in the history of the medium than DID YOU REMEMBER THE CAT (2025)? I'd argue no. It gives you an idea of what it's about -- remembering a cat. The title suggests comedy (it's a mix of comedy, drama, and horror). And it's something you'll never forget as a film title. Perfection.That's the kind of thought process my guest, filmmaker Daniel Foster, has put into all of his films, and he has such fantastic advice on filmmaking, festivals, crowdfunding, making short films, and more.Happy Halloween. I can't think of a better person and film to spend it with than Daniel and that awesomely titled film, now streaming on Alter's YouTube channel.In this episode, Daniel and I discuss:do we see the cat in DID YOU REMEMBER THE CAT? YES!;how he got started in filmmaking, including film school at Temple University;are filmmaking labs a good alternative to film school?;what constitutes a bad film?what he's learned from each of the films he's made;how did they come up with the beyond brilliant title: DID YOU REMEMBER THE CAT?horror's role as the ultimate big-tent genre;where he got his encyclopedic knowledge of indie films;how accurate his crowdfunding campaign was and what lessons he took away for it;why he was successful on his first day of crowdfunding;why the film was released on Alter and during spooky season;what's next for him;how he comes up with titles and his critiques for short films.Daniel's Indie Film Highlight: feathers, not wings, currently crowdfunding on Kickstarter.Memorable Quotes:"Of course watching movies is the best way to learn, but specifically to watch bad movies. To learn and then analyze like, why is this bad?" "So it's always lure people in with comedy, keep them paying attention with the horror, and then hit them with the message whether it's a gut punch or a little heartfelt like we were going for with, DID YOU REMEMBER THE CAT?""I'm a fan of statement titles. I wanted it to be something that somebody would say in the theater.""My goal and my co-writers goal to make this a film that you would turn on every Halloween and have a fun time with, we wanted it to be a crowd pleaser."About reading the reviews: "I have a incredibly supportive fiance, so sometimes when they get to me, she turns on a spooky movie and makes us some chai tea and we just relax. But no, for the most part, I love like reading the reviews because I have to grow. I have to get better. Some of the critiques that I've gotten have been super helpful in what I'm hoping to do next.""I definitely think if you are able to have your short be between like 10 to 12 minutes is the preferred.""So I think for other shorts, if there's something else like it, there's comps that you can have and that's fine, but when the comps are so similar to what you're trying to do and there isn't anything, a new angle in it, I always think just go back to the drawing board."Links:Watch DID YOU REMEMBER THE CAT?Follow Daniel On InstagramSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/first-time-go/exclusive-content

College football is alive and well in Philadelphia as Temple University is on the verge of clinching their first bowl game in over 5 years! The Head Coach of the program K.C. Keeler is live with the WIP Midday Show to discuss the teams success

In hour 3, the WIP Midday Show are joined by Temple University football head coach K.C. Keeler who breaks down how he has turned Temple football from a laughing stock to win away from being bowl eligible. Plus, V.J. Edgecombe has high expectations for the Sixers early in the season!

Spencer Reese welcomes Lieutenant Commander Webster Felix, a Navy prosthodontist, for an in-depth discussion about maximizing military medicine benefits. Webb's journey from enlisted E6 dental student to O5 prosthodontist showcases the incredible opportunities available in military healthcare. This episode unpacks lesser-known scholarship programs, specialty training funding, loan forgiveness strategies, and GI Bill transfers that enabled Webb and his wife to complete advanced degrees debt-free while building generational wealth for their family. Lieutenant Commander Webster Felix, USN Specialty: Prosthodontist (restorative dentistry expert, full mouth rehabilitations) Current Station: Naval Medical Readiness and Training Command (NMRTC) Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Career Timeline: 14 years active duty, recently selected for O5 Education: Bachelor's in Biology, Temple University (2011) DDS, Columbia University College of Dental Medicine (2015) Master's in Dental Education (completed during dental school using GI Bill) Prosthodontics Residency, USC (2021-2024, funded by DUIN) Instagram: @prosthopapi - Features clinical cases and prosthodontic work Personal Background: Son of Haitian immigrants who arrived in the US in 1987; first-generation college graduate demonstrating how military medicine can transform generational wealth trajectories HSCP vs HPSP - The Scholarship Most People Don't Know About: HPSP covers full tuition but you're not active duty during school HSCP means active duty status (E6/E7 pay + BAH + TRICARE) but you take loans for tuition Webb entered dental school as E6, commissioned directly to O3E in 2015 Critical advice: Apply for BOTH programs simultaneously The $500K Student Loan Forgiveness Strategy: Graduated Columbia dental school with ~$400-500K in loans Enrolled in Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) immediately First payments: $170/month (based on E6 salary) Current payments: ~$800/month (O4E salary) Hitting 10-year mark in October 2025—expecting full forgiveness Must consolidate to federal direct loans or you won't qualify Duty Under Instruction (DUIN) - Free Specialty Training: Navy funded Webb's 3-year USC prosthodontics residency Continued receiving full salary, BAH, and bonuses—zero out-of-pocket costs FTOS (Full-Time Out-Service) allows civilian residency attendance Competitive annual program—check BUMED notices for available slots Strategic GI Bill Transfers: Webb transferred 15 months of GI Bill to his wife She completed UCLA nurse practitioner program debt-free Still has 15 months remaining for kids' education Transfer requires 4-year commitment—sign paperwork strategically Career Highlights: Temple University → Columbia DDS → O3 commission (2015) San Diego (AEGD) → Port Hueneme/Okinawa (Seabees, 2 deployments) → Key West → LA (USC residency) → Pearl Harbor Wife completed NP degree concurrent with his residency while caring for one-year-old Key Takeaways Military Medicine Benefits Add Up Fast: TRICARE coverage during school and career Active duty time counting toward retirement during education PSLF potential for massive loan forgiveness Specialty training fully funded (DUIN) GI Bill transfers for spouse education No pressure to over-treat patients for profit Civilian vs Military Prosthodontist Pay: Civilian side approximately 2X on paper But when factoring TRICARE, BAH, pension, education benefits—much closer Some civilian practices sacrifice autonomy for high volume/pay Military provides genuine patient care without profit motive Critical Actions: Apply for both HSCP and HPSP if pursuing military medicine Consolidate all student loans to federal direct loans immediately Enroll in PSLF and never miss payments Join Facebook group: "Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program Support" (216K members) Sign GI Bill transfers concurrent with existing obligations Resources Mentioned Kate Horrell's episodes - GI Bill expert (new book: "College Planning for Military Families") Dr. Pritish Sahoo episode - Army medicine path MMM Podcast #181 PSLF Facebook Group - "Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program Support" Naval Postgraduate Dental School (Bethesda) BUMED annual DUIN notices Who This Is For Pre-med/dental students considering military service, active duty members interested in medical careers, medical officers with student debt, anyone pursuing PSLF, families planning GI Bill transfers, or those comparing military vs civilian healthcare compensation.

How did Persian mythology seep into the texts of the Hebrew Bible? In this week's Biblical Time Machine, Helen and Lloyd are joined by Professor Mark Leuchter, who has recently argued that the 'dynastic myth-making' of the Persian Achaemenid rulers left its mark on Second Temple Jewish texts. Drawing on cognitive science, postcolonial theory, ancient letters and iconography, Mark guides us through the complex world of Persian myth-making and its effects on the Hebrew Bible. Mark Leuchter is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism and Director of Jewish Studies at Temple University in Philadelphia. His publications include The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity (Oxford University Press, 2017) and more recently An Empire Far And Wide: The Achaemenid Dynastic Myth and Jewish Scribes in the Late Persian Period (Oxford University Press, 2024). He is one of the editors of the New Oxford Bible Commentary and is an executive board member of the Canadian Society for Biblical Studies. If you would like to gain a sense of the ancient Persian empire – the largest of its time – check out this map from our friends at SBL Bible Odyssey. SUPPORT BIBLICAL TIME MACHINEIf you enjoy the podcast, please (pretty please!) consider supporting the show through the Time Travellers Club, our Patreon. We are an independent, listener-supported show (no ads!), so please help us continue to showcase high-quality biblical scholarship with a monthly subscription.DOWNLOAD OUR STUDY GUIDE: MARK AS ANCIENT BIOGRAPHYCheck out our 4-part audio study guide called "The Gospel of Mark as an Ancient Biography." While you're there, get yourself a Biblical Time Machine mug or a cool sticker for your water bottle.Support the showTheme music written and performed by Dave Roos, creator of Biblical Time Machine. Season 4 produced by John Nelson.

Ray Epstein is a survivor, student activist, and legislative advocate reshaping how institutions respond to sexual violence. After experiencing abuse at 13 and being silenced by her school, she turned her pain into purpose—founding Student Activists Against Sexual Assault (SAASA) at Temple University, now over 500 members strong. She co-authored Pennsylvania's Every Voice Bill, written by student survivors for student survivors, and has secured nearly $400,000 to fund prevention initiatives, including a groundbreaking partnership with Uber Social Impact. Through testimony, keynote speeches, and national publications, Ray continues to ensure no survivor ever feels unheard, disbelieved, or alone.

Join Chef Char Nolan in her virtual office as she welcomes all of your questions. From cooking techniques to course-specific questions, to how to turn your cooking passion into profit or simply hearing the perspective of a professional chef, Chef Nolan tackled all variety of questions!Char Nolan is a serious crusader for plant-based education, armed with a degree in public health from Philadelphia's Temple University. She teaches nutrition and plant-based cooking throughout Philadelphia, and in many underserved communities. Char holds a certificate in plant-based nutrition from eCornell and completed Rouxbe's Plant-Based Professional Certification course in 2015. In 2019, Char completed post-graduate course work in social media marketing at the University of the Arts. When she is not cooking or teaching, she manages social media accounts for several plant-based influencers.Char prides herself on learning everything she knows about cooking from growing up in her grandparents' Italian restaurant. Her favorite vegetables are Brussels sprouts and kale, of course. Char originally hails from Queens, NY, but has lived in Philadelphia most of her adult life. She is a former Peace Corps Volunteer.You can watch the original video version of this episode on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Rouxbe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Bad Bunny is front and center in global news this week, making history as the first male Latin American artist to headline the Super Bowl halftime show in 2026. The NFL's announcement last month set off a frenzy, with experts from Temple University highlighting that his performance—planned mostly in Spanish at Levi's Stadium in California—will mark a powerful cultural moment for both Latin American and U.S. audiences. According to Temple Now, Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime will serve as both a “visual and musical love letter to Puerto Rico and Latinidad,” expected to spotlight Puerto Rican identity, resilience, and contemporary issues like colonialism, gentrification, and economic disparities. Many anticipate that he might share the stage with other major Puerto Rican voices such as Ivy Queen or Marc Anthony.His recent residency in Puerto Rico also broke records, generating over $733 million for the island's economy and achieving the most-watched livestream ever on Amazon Music, based on reporting from the Associated Press and Amazon Prime Video. This record-breaking residency is linked to a multiyear partnership with Amazon, combining entertainment with social impact initiatives for Puerto Rican education, disaster relief, and economic empowerment. These cultural efforts have further solidified his influence not just musically, but socially and academically, with classes dedicated to his work emerging at major universities and a forthcoming book titled “How Bad Bunny Became the Global Voice of Puerto Rican Resistance” set for release in early 2026.Bad Bunny has also been creating buzz with his new music. On the heels of his successful "Most Wanted Tour," which grossed over $210 million and ranked seventh among the biggest tours of 2024, he announced that his new album “Debí Tirar Más Fotos” (“I Should Have Taken More Photos”) will drop on January 5, 2025. This sixth studio album was introduced via a poignant video teaser that featured acclaimed Puerto Rican filmmaker Jacobo Morales in conversation with an animated character, delving into themes of nostalgia and the importance of living in the moment. The holiday single “Pitorro de Coco,” named after a traditional Puerto Rican rum, and another track “El Clúb,” each explore heartbreak and memories of past love—showing a deeper introspective turn in Bad Bunny's music, as covered by outlets like The Lagos Review and NME.His recent songs—and the album as a whole—have been described as a love letter to Puerto Rico, recorded entirely on the island with local musicians. Visual elements of his latest work, created in partnership with historian Jorell Meléndez-Badillo, span key moments in Puerto Rican history from the 16th century to today. These include references to the Grito de Lares uprising, the Ponce massacre, and debates around U.S. colonialism, bringing history into popular music in a way that's reaching a new generation of listeners.Listeners are also keeping an eye out for Bad Bunny's unexpected moves in other areas of entertainment. He recently appeared in the trailer for Adam Sandler's “Happy Gilmore 2,” hinting at further Hollywood ambitions.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for the latest on Bad Bunny and more music news. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Spoiler alert: this week we're analyzing the Twilight Zone episode “The Whole Truth.” Harvey Hunnicut is as honest a salesman as you'll find–that is if you happen to be standing on his car lot and looking directly at him. However, on this day, Harvey is going to be tasked with having to tell the truth: the whole truth. Will he ever be able to sell another car again? Maybe–or maybe not. The only thing that Harvey knows is that, in order to get the opportunity to make an honest living again, he's going to have to be able to lie. In this episode, we talk about whether or not the car in question requires a certain slant to the truth; we try and figure out what Rod Serling wants us to learn through this episode about telling the truth; and I'll reveal my moment of awe, a look at the truth behind mirror therapy at Temple University. So, grab your keys, and let's open up this door to the fifth dimension. Want to support the KOI show, get extra content, and give money to two awesome charities at the same time? Consider becoming a member in one of our tiers. 50% of every dollar, after the platforms take their fees, will go to charity: 25% to the Rod Serling Memorial Foundation and 25% to the Gary Sinise Foundation. Our goal is to preserve a way of life that Rod Serling himself would be proud of. However, even by just watching the show, subscribing, commenting, giving it a thumbs up, and sharing it with friends, you are doing your part. Thank you. You can learn more about the monetization plan for this channel from this video, which I recorded live from Serlingfest 2025: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efhcWe1dK-8&t=89sPatreon account: https://patreon.com/TheKeyofImaginationShow?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLinkYouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thekeyofimagination/joinWe're walking through Rod Serling's class Twilight Zone series and asking difficult questions about life. So, if you love The Twilight Zone, science fiction, or even just philosophizing about life, consider joining us on this journey. There's always room for more. Google form to rate this Twilight Zone episode: https://forms.gle/cMRrE2JSvLmtdpGGAPatreon: https://patreon.com/TheKeyofImaginationShow?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLinkDiscord: discord.gg/QjNY9jcyFZX Handle: x.com/keyofishowYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thekeyofimaginationHead over to thekeyofimagination.com to learn more about me, check out my Twilight Zone trinkets and collectibles, and to to continue the conversation. Episode outline:00:00 - Introduction00:47 - Plot02:28 - Episode Details02:56 - Episode Tidbits04:25 - Question 111:55 - Question 220:30 - Question 322:49 - Episode rating23:38 - Next episode and questions24:01 - Announcements and comments25:50 - How to support the showTemple University Mirror Therapy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIGisWcpuoQ&t=106sNo show did a better job than The Twilight Zone at generating awe and wonder within its audience. It just so happens that awe is exactly what we need in these difficult, divisive times. So, join me, Joe Meyer, and let's walk through the fifth dimension with Rod Serling. Along the way, we'll discuss big questions and relate them back to our Twilight Zone episodes.Background artwork by James Seehafer: https://pixels.com/profiles/j-mark?tab=artworkOpening and Ending theme: by Jacob Williams @jakeproduces on Fiverr#twilightzone #rodserling #scifi #zone #outerlimits #sciencefiction

Show originally broadcast on WHIP Radio, Temple University, Philadelphia on Tuesday 21st October 2025

This lecture by Sherry Thomas, JD, was recorded on June 7, 2025, at Seven Mile Road Church in Philadelphia, PA, at the conference “Our Story, Our Faith: South Asian American Christian Histories and Futures” (June 6–7, 2025). You can learn more about this conference here: https://ourstoriesourfaith.org/philly25/. View the plenary video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FpO9YtAICc.Plenary description: This lecture will explore how South Asians, including South Asian Christians, came to “belong” in the United States, through the lens of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases and legislation that both closed and opened doors to South Asian Christians. It will provide insight into why the South Asian Christian immigrant experience looked the way it did and how it continues to evolve as the country grapples with its relationship to race and religion.View PBS's video referenced at 24:02 of the video version (cut out of audio podcast due to copyright): https://youtu.be/0qggeLf4x-s?si=GGUf0z9rwBr3wvnv.Check out Sherry Thomas's oral history project with SAADA: https://www.saada.org/exhibit/philadelphia/malayali-story.Sherry Thomas is Kerala born and Philadelphia raised. She completed her B.A. in International Relations from the University of Pennsylvania and her J.D. from Temple University. She is passionate about issues of social and economic justice and currently combines both in her career as a public interest lawyer. She focuses her work on tenants' rights, defense and eviction prevention with the Legal Clinic for the Disabled (LCD), as its Director of Housing and Habitability and has also worked as a Legal Fellow and legal consultant for International Justice Mission (IJM), a global organization partnering with local justice systems to end violence against people living in poverty.Sherry grew up in the Marthoma Church in a tight knit Malayali community in Philadelphia. She was always interested in the ways the church could be instrumental in bridging gaps between cultures and generations. Her experiences informed her work with the South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA). Through SAADA, she preserved some stories of Malayali Christians living and working in Philadelphia, over several generations, which culminated in the publication of her project, “The Philadelphia Malayali Story: Decades in the Making.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit caacptsem.substack.com

Show originally broadcast on WHIP Radio, Temple University, Philadelphia on Tuesday 14th October 2025

Bench Ansfield is a professor in the History department at Temple University. Their book "Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City" covers how racial capitalism, political corruption, and the insurance industry created a world where landlords can profit more by burning their own buildings down than maintaining them. They were also part of the research team on the 2019 documentary "Decade of Fire". Bench Ansfield https://www.benchansfield.com Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City https://citylights.com/new-nonfiction-in-hardcover/born-in-flames-bronx-arson-1970s Decade of Fire https://decadeoffire.com Born in Flames (the film the book was named after) https://www.criterion.com/films/30707-born-in-flames Let the Fire Burn: documentary about MOVE's infamous eviction in Philadelphia  https://www.kanopy.com/en/product/let-fire-burn Recent episode on the fire at 22nd and Mission with Angelica  https://www.patreon.com/posts/aftermath-of-at-135107521

I interview Helen about Auras, and she educates us! She also tells us about her book about Auras.This is a video podcast on Spotify and YouTube.Want to know more about Helen?"Helen is a spiritual leader, yoga and meditation instructor, Feng Shui master, aura reader, tarot card designer, fine arts painter with a new gallery coming next month, flamenco dancer, and now an author who would love to share her story with you.Helen started her career on the non-spiritual path but felt unfulfilled and needed to make a life change. Helen was born in Guangzhou, China, raised in Hong Kong, and now calls Huntington Beach, CA her home. She has an undergraduate degree in psychology and social work from Nanjing University in China, and a master's degree in interior architecture and design from the Academy of Art University in San Francisco. She has published three academic peer-review articles and four conference proceedings during her Ph.D. studies in tourism and hospitality management at Temple University in Philadelphia while researching the human sensory experience pertaining to design. This path all led her to believe that her purpose is more than interior design, leading her to start Helen Creates Beauty to help others.In her new book that just launched this week, The Aura Color Wheel: What Your Soul's Aura Reveals about Your Inner Gifts, Wounds, and Lessons, she dives into how someone can tap into their true potential and life's purpose."https://helencreatesbeauty.comhttps://www.auracolorwheel.com/embodyyourlightThis Course will help you:Gain Crystal Clear Clarity of Your Soul's Purpose and Evolution PathReclaim Your Sovereignty to Embody Your LightAwaken Your Internal GPS: Your Soul & Spirit Team.Inspire to Take Soul-Aligned Actions to Embody Your Highest Self.Cultivate a routine spiritual practice to sustain your high vibrational and conscious living.A community of high-vibe souls for continued support.Ripple effects: your family and close friends will notice your radiance!A 10-Week Soul Purpose Embodiment Live Online CourseEmbody Your LightSat Oct. 18enrollment ends fri oct 17, 11:59pmHelencreatesbeauty on socials!Support the podcast! Subscribe and listen!Thank you for watching and listening!

Anesthesiologists (ASA), Desiree Chappell and Sol Aronson discuss the evolving economics of anesthesiology with guests Jonathon Gal, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, System Medical Director- Facility Revenue Integrity & Optimization; System Medical Director- Offsite ASC Anesthesia; ASA Director from New York for the Board of Directors and Chair of the Committee on Economics and Gordon Morewood, MD, Anesthesiologist-in-Chief of Temple University Health System, Chair and Professor of Clinical Anesthesiology at Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University and Chief of Anesthesia at Piedmont Health (Piedmont Healthcare System, Georgia). The conversation spans various models of payment, including CPT codes, fee-for-service, and alternative payment models. They delve into the nuances of navigating different payer systems like Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers, highlighting recent trends and challenges. Specific topics include the erosion of physician payments, the impact of the No Surprises Act, and the ASA's ongoing advocacy efforts. The episode underscores the importance of proper economic strategies to ensure the sustainability and optimization of anesthesiology practices.

TEAM Trauma Treatment-- How Does It Work? And Why?  Featuring Dr. Jill Levitt Today's podcast features one of our favorite guests, Dr. Jill Levitt, who is one of the greatest psychology teachers on planet earth. We explore trauma, and how it is treated. We focus in particular on the unique features of trauma treatment using TEAM CBT. Jill is currently the Director of Training at the Feeling Good Institute in Mountain View, California, but she has had intensive training in trauma treatment beginning during her psychology internship at the Cornell Medical Center (? is this correct) in 200? (dates please Jill) and continuing until (date please.) She worked with adults survivors of childhood physical and sexual abuse, as well as victims of the 2011 tragedy at the world trade center, which happened when she was working in New York. She got extra training from several outstanding experts in the treatment of trauma and anxiety, including the renown Dr. Edna Foa, from Temple University in Philadelphia, as well as (please list if you like, Jill!) Rhonda also has extensive experience in the treatment of trauma since she worked for (x years, please fill in) at th San Francisco Rape and Trauma Clinical. Rhonda emphasized the importance of shame and toxic but high irrational self-blame so often seen in trauma patients of all ages, including, of course, children. Jill and Rhonda emphasized the importance of the selective use of exposure techniques with trauma patients, and the unfortunate fear that many, and perhaps most, therapists have of these techniques, wrongly fearing that the patient will decompensate and that the therapist, too, will become overwhelmed when hearing the patient recount their horrific experiences in detail. I, David, will add that I've never had a negative experience with the use of exposure techniques, like cognitive flooding, memory rescripting, and many more with any trauma patients. However, I always do E = Empathy first, as well as A = Paradoxical Agenda Setting, to guarantee that the patient and I will be working together as a collaborative team. Rhonda asked us to talk a bit about "vicarious trauma" that the therapist might experience when working with trauma patients. Both Jill and David said they've never experienced this, and that only our thoughts, and not the experiences our patients describe, can upset us. We believe the concept of "vicarious trauma" is highly (but not intentionally) misleading and needlessly frightening to those working with trauma patients. Of course, if a therapist does become triggered when working with any patient, including a trauma patient, that is grist for the mill for the therapist to work out with their own therapist, using perhaps the Daily Mood Log to explore and challenge the therapist's upsetting negative thoughts. Perhaps the most important theme today focused on the treatment of trauma patients--as well as non-trauma patients--individually, using TEAM to pinpoint one moment the patient was upset, and exploring their negative thoughts and feelings with the help of the Daily Mood Log, as well as the other vitally important components of T E A M. I (David) do not place much stock in treating patients with "formulas" based on their "diagnosis" or problem. I did 20 or more two day trauma workshops around the US and Canada several years back, and treated a volunteer from the audience at each workshop on the evening of day 1, using a two-hour TEAM CBT session. In all or nearly all of these sessions, the individuals experienced a triumphant and blow-away elimination of all their negative feelings by the end of the demonstration. But here's the interesting thing: although I occasionally included cognitive exposure, it was perhaps the technique I used the least often with these individuals. Far more powerful for most were techniques like Explain the Distortions, the Paradoxical Double Standard Technique, and the Externalization of Voices. Sometime, an interpersonal technique, including the Five Secrets of Effective Communication, was helpful, even life-changing. If you are interested, you can read about those sessions in Chapter X in my most recent book, Feeling Great, as well as illustrations of the data from all the patients, showing the dramatic changes in negative and positive feelings from the start to the end of the sessions. Why did these individuals recover so dramatically and quickly--within a single session? I believe it was because I focused on what was upsetting THEM, and developing an agenda and selecting methods to focus on what they wanted. This, to my way of thinking, is different, even radically different, from imposing a pre-set agenda on patients simply because we think they have some type of trauma diagnosis. David described the three elements of an "abuse contract" between the abuser and the victim: I get to hurt or exploit you for my own pleasure. The Blame will be 100% on you. I am a blameless, superior god. We must keep this as a secret, even between us. If you violate this, I will hurt you very badly. Thanks for listening today! Jill, Rhonda, and David

Comedian Molly Vivent joins Shannon and Figs! They discuss the new Ed Gein show on Netflix, Molly's issues with her dad, the guy playing the "nice guy" card on Love Is Blind and more before diving into the stories including a nutty hookup with a creep, going on a fancy date and letting her mouth get her in trouble, getting into a fight with college kids at Temple University, living in a room haunted by a family member after their passing and so much more!Air Date: 10/07/25Support our sponsorshttps://bodybraincoffee.com use the code DING20 to get 20% off!https://yokratom.com/ - Home of the $60 Kilo*Send in your stories for Bad Dates, Bad Things, and Scary Things to...* thethingispodcast@gmail.com The Thing Is...Podcast Merch available athttps://gasdigitalmerch.com/collections/the-thing-isThe Thing Is... Airs every Tuesday, at 5:30pm ET on the GaS Digital Network! The newest 20 episodes are always free, but if you want access to all the archives, watch live, chat live, access to the forums, and get the show five days before it comes out everywhere else - you can subscribe now at gasdigital.com and use the code TTI to get a one week free trial.Follow the show on social media! Molly Vivent-Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/howdidigetsosexyShannon Lee-Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shannonlee6982/Mike Figs-Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/comicmikefigs/YouTube: @comicmikefigsSubscribe On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC87Akt2Sq_-YEd_YrNpbS2QShannon's Amazon Wishlisthttps://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/3Q05PR2JFBE6T?ref_=wl_shareSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Show originally broadcast on WHIP Radio, Temple University, Philadelphia on Tuesday 7th October 2025

Hilary Steele is preparing for her third season as the head women's gymnastics coach at Temple University. This is her first head coaching job, but she previously spent time as an assistant at her alma mater Georgia and Maryland. She was an elite gymnast in her own right, both at Georgia and prior to that, as a USA Gymnastics National Team member. In Episode #271 of "1-On-1 With Matt Leon," Matt welcomes Steele in studio to talk about her career. They discuss her experience representing the USA, learn how raucous gymnastics meets in the SEC are, talk about her time as Crossfit competitor in Hawaii and much more. “1-on-1 with Matt Leon” is a KYW Newsradio original podcast. You can follow the show on X @1on1pod and you can follow Matt @Mattleon1060.

Is there a better way to collaborate?What's the secret to good feedback? How do you manage 40 people in a room? Are group facilitators ever truly neutral? Should you tell your teammates their responsibilities, or have them tell you? What's a RACI chart? If collaboration is so important, why hasn't there been a book about it — until now?Emily Saich (Vice President of Exhibitions) and Joey Noelle Scott (Director of Exhibition Projects) from the Monterey Bay Aquarium discuss their new book “A Collaborative Approach to Exhibition Making” with host Jonathan Alger (Managing Partner, C&G Partners | The Exhibition and Experience Design Studio).Along the way: post-mortems, “Yes And,” and cardboard kelp cutouts.Talking Points:1. A book for creatives, facilitators, and problem-solvers2. Create responsibilities *with* collaborators3. Truly neutral facilitators are rare4. Healthy teams seek feedback5. Build trust with contractors6. Celebrate the workHow to Listen:Listen on Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/making-the-museum/id1674901311  Listen on Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/6oP4QJR7yxv7Rs7VqIpI1G  Listen at Making the Museum, the Website:https://www.makingthemuseum.com/podcast Links to Every Podcast Service, via Transistor:https://makingthemuseum.transistor.fm/ Guest Bios:Emily Saich has more than twenty years of experience leading exhibition development, design, prototyping, and fabrication of exhibitions and innovative visitor experiences. She has worked on several award-winning and influential exhibitions and managed projects for all types of museums and organizations, including science centers, natural history museums, children's museums, public gardens, performing art centers, art museums, historic sites, zoos, and aquariums. Emily is vice president of Exhibitions at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where she leads vision and strategy for major exhibitions and guides collaborative teams through design and creation of visitor-centered experiences.  Emily holds a Bachelor of Arts in studio art from California Polytechnic University, Humboldt, and a Masters of Fine Arts from Tyler School of Art and Architecture at Temple University.Joey Noelle Scott is the director of Exhibition Projects at the Monterey Bay Aquarium where she leads teams that create innovative exhibitions that inspire conservation of the ocean. With 20 years of experience in educational and museum settings, she's led a diversity of projects, including the creation of curriculum, professional development programs, digital products, and exhibitions. She's built expertise in facilitation, program development, and project management with a particular focus on developing processes that support collaboration, creativity, and productivity. Her formal training includes a Bachelors of Science in genetics, an MA in education, and a certification as a Project Management Professional and LEED AP ID+C. About Making the Museum:Making the Museum is hosted (podcast) and written (newsletter) by Jonathan Alger. MtM is a project of C&G Partners | The Exhibition and Experience Design Studio.Learn more about the creative work of C&G Partners:https://www.cgpartnersllc.com/ Links for This Episode:How to Buy “A Collaborative Approach to Exhibition Making” (The New Book):https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/collaborative-approach-to-exhibition-making-9781538185261/ https://bookshop.org/p/books/a-collaborative-approach-to-exhibition-making-emily-saich/ee61b106aedc6e38?ean=9781538185261&next=t Emily Saich on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilysaich/ Joey Noelle Scott on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joey-noelle-scott-6359aa12/ Links for Making the Museum, the Podcast:Contact Making the Museum:https://www.makingthemuseum.com/contact Host Jonathan Alger, Managing Partner of C&G Partners, on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanalger Email Jonathan Alger:alger@cgpartnersllc.com C&G Partners | The Exhibition and Experience Design Studio:https://www.cgpartnersllc.com/ Making the Museum, the Newsletter:Like the show? You might enjoy the newsletter. Making the Museum is also a free weekly professional development email for exhibition practitioners, museum leaders, and visitor experience professionals. (And newsletter subscribers are the first to hear about new episodes of this podcast.)Join hundreds of your peers with a one-minute read, three times a week. Invest in your career with a diverse, regular feed of planning and design insights, practical tips, and tested strategies — including thought-provoking approaches to technology, experience design, audience, budgeting, content, and project management.Subscribe to the newsletter:https://www.makingthemuseum.com/ 

Ever wonder what the hosts of The Audit talk about when the mics are rolling but the formal interview isn't happening? This Field Notes episode gives you exactly that—unfiltered conversations covering everything from coffee preferences and glider flying to trademark scams targeting cybersecurity professionals. Nick and Eric dive into Eric's latest aviation adventures (spoiler: gliders are apparently safer than planes with engines), share war stories about scam calls trying to exploit trademark filings, and swap tales about expensive vet visits. Plus, hear some nostalgic cybersecurity stories from the Wild West days when networks ran without firewalls and people could taste peanut butter straight from the jar at grocery stores. Key Topics:  Eric's glider pilot training and why it's "safer" than powered flight  Trademark registration scams targeting IT professionals  Coffee roasting tips from flight instructors  Cybersecurity nostalgia: Temple University's router-only network  Why Eric kept a scammer on the phone for 5 minutes during pickleball Whether you're here for the cybersecurity insights or just want to know why Nick prefers Diet Coke to Coke Zero, this episode delivers the authentic conversations that happen between industry pros. Don't miss Eric's glider safety argument—it might just change your perspective on risk management. #cybersecurity #infosec #fieldnotes #aviation #scamcalls #itauditlabs  

In this powerful episode of Aspire to Lead, Dr. Rachel Edoho-Eket, co-author of Relational Intelligence, joins me to explore how trust, empathy, and authentic connection transform school leadership. Together, we discuss how leaders can shift from transactional to transformational practices, especially during times of crisis and change.Dr. Edoho-Eket introduces the HOPE framework—Hope, Opportunity, Praise, and Encouragement—as a practical tool for cultivating cultures where teachers feel valued and supported. We also unpack the common communication pitfalls leaders face and share strategies for fostering authentic dialogue that builds stronger relationships across a school community.Finally, we dive into one of the most pressing challenges today: burnout. Dr. Edoho-Eket shares how relational intelligence not only helps leaders model balance but also equips them to create healthier, more sustainable environments for themselves and their teams.If you're ready to lead with heart and transform the way you connect with your staff, this episode will give you the insights and strategies you need.About Dr. Rachel Edoho-EketDr. Rachel Edoho-Eket is a wife, mother, principal, TEDx speaker, author, and the President of the Maryland Association of Elementary School Principals. With decades as a teacher and leader in public education, she has earned the reputation as a strong instructional leader, passionate educational advocate, and dedicated mentor. As the Principal of a National Blue Ribbon school in Maryland, she is a life-long learner who strives for excellence not only for herself, but also for everyone she serves. She also serves as an adjunct professor at McDaniel College helping to support the personal and professional growth of aspiring and current school leaders, and is an ASCD faculty member.Named as one of the Top 100 Influencers in Education by District Administration magazine, Dr. Edoho-Eket's belief in fostering meaningful relationships serves as the foundation for everything she does, and her highly effective teaching and leadership style continues to inspire up and coming aspiring teacher leaders. During her educational career, she has proudly served as a classroom teacher, instructional team leader, mentor teacher, Assistant Principal, and Principal. Her first best-selling book, “The Principal's Journey: Navigating the Path to School Leadership” provides a helpful and practical blueprint for educators to follow as they transition into new leadership roles. Her second bestselling book, "Relational Intelligence: The Key to Exceptional School Leadership" centers on the importance of trusting and authentic relationships as the driver of school success. Dr. Edoho-Eket holds a B.S. in Early Childhood and Elementary Education from Temple University, a M.S. in Curriculum and Instruction from McDaniel College, and a Doctorate in Leadership and Professional Practice from Trevecca Nazarene University.To invite Dr. Edoho-Eket to speak at your next event, please visit: www.racheledohoeket.comFollow Dr. Rachel Edoho-EketWebsite: Dr. Rachel Edoho-Eket Instagram: @racheledohoeketLinkedin: Dr. Rachel Edoho-EketTwitter: @racheledohoeketYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/@racheledoho-eketAmazon:

Ethereal Encounters Unveiled Welcomes Jerry Marzinsky SEPTEMBER 26TH TOPIC: Intrusive Thoughts: The Uninvited Guest in Your Head. Are Your Thoughts Your Own? Bio: Jerry is a retired licensed psychotherapist with over 35 years of experience working with and studying the thought processes and the voices heard by psychotic and criminally insane patients in some of the most volatile psychiatric institutions in the nation. He was awarded the State of Arizona's Meritorious Service Award while working in the psychology department of a large state prison. He was also awarded the Pima College's Apple Award for the teaching of Abnormal Psychology. Jerry has held the position of 2nd Lt. in the Arizona Civil Air Patrol and is a licensed commercial pilot, a certified Scuba Diver and a long distance motorcycle rider. He also served an Assistant Scout Master. His formal academic training comprises a B.A. in Psychology from Temple University, a Master's Degree in Counseling from the University of Georgia, and two years of study in a Ph.D. Psychology program. He is a co-author of An Amazing Journey into the Psychotic Mind – Breaking the Spell of the Ivory Tower. Visit Jerry's website at https://jerrymarzinsky.com/ Read Jerry and Sherry's book – “An Amazing Journey into the Psychotic Mind” https://www.amazon.com/ Learn about Sherry's “That's a Lie” program to fight back against the psychotic voices: https://keyholejourney.wordpress.com/

The redevelopment of Burlington's downtown mall is nearing completion after more than a decade of delays and missteps. Plus, why it could become easier for the state's cannabis dispensaries to advertise their products, even with recent rain Vermont is still in the throes of a drought, a former Newport employee who sued the city for being banned from public property agrees to a settlement, Champlain College students will gain access to semester-long programs abroad in a new partnership with Temple University, and we discuss the reversals of fortune for several Major League Baseball teams vying to make the playoffs with less than a handful of regular season games left in our weekly sports report. 

In this episode of the Broad Street Review podcast, host Darnelle Radford engages with Anna Snapp, a performer at the Philadelphia Fringe Festival, discussing her production 'I Found the Sun Will Rise Tomorrow.' They explore Anna's artistic journey, the evolution of her work, and the healing power of performance. The conversation delves into the importance of audience engagement, the role of direction in theater, and the personal growth Anna has experienced through her art. The episode highlights the significance of self-discovery and the necessity of checking in with oneself amidst the hustle of life.Chapters00:00 Exploring the Philadelphia Fringe Festival02:04 Anna Snapp's Artistic Journey04:05 The Evolution of 'I Found the Sun Will Rise Tomorrow'08:30 The Impact of Performance on Healing14:20 Shifting Perspectives: From Victimhood to Empowerment18:42 The Role of Direction in Artistic Expression22:00 Engaging with the Audience: The Emotional Connection27:32 Self-Discovery Through Art32:54 The Importance of Checking In with OneselfI FOUND THAT the SUN WILL RISE TOMORROWAnna Snapp boldly shares the deeply personal, painful, and earth-shattering details of her long-term battle with chronic disease, mental illness, and sexual trauma in “one of the bravest performances [I] have seen in a long time.” (“I Found That the Sun Will Rise Tomorrow is a Brave Emotional Rollercoaster” - All About Solo). Snapp takes the audience through her atypical and agonizing coming-of-age story through the lens of being a young woman who was forced to put a terrifying puzzle together without the picture on the front of the box.About the ArtistAnna Snapp is a Philly-based actor, writer, and content creator whose work has been seen at festivals and companies including but not limited to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, Off-Broadway on Theatre Row at The United Solo Theatre Festival, the Capital Fringe in Washington, D.C., New York Shakespeare Exchange, The Brick Theater, Irish Heritage Theatre, Blunt Ensemble, and Rising Sun Performance Company, and various medical establishments nationwide. She studied at The American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York, Temple University, and at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art. She has a deep passion for creating art for social change, eliminating stigma surrounding mental illness, and transforming the healthcare system from within through the telling of her experiences with health crises that changed her life forever.FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://phillyfringe.org/events/i-found-that-the-sun-will-rise-tomorrow/

⬥GUEST⬥Aunshul Rege, Director at The CARE Lab at Temple University | On Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aunshul-rege-26526b59/⬥CO-HOST⬥Julie Haney, Computer scientist and Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program Lead, National Institute of Standards and Technology | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-haney-037449119/⬥HOST⬥Host: Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/imsmartin/ | Website: https://www.seanmartin.com⬥EPISODE NOTES⬥Cybersecurity Is for Everyone — If We Teach It That WayCybersecurity impacts us all, yet most people still see it as a tech-centric domain reserved for experts in computer science or IT. Dr. Aunshul Rege, Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University, challenges that perception through her research, outreach, and education programs — all grounded in community, empathy, and human behavior.In this episode, Dr. Rege joins Sean Martin and co-host Julie Haney to share her multi-layered approach to cybersecurity awareness and education. Drawing from her unique background that spans computer science and criminology, she explains how understanding human behavior is critical to understanding and addressing digital risk.One powerful initiative she describes brings university students into the community to teach cyber hygiene to seniors — a demographic often left out of traditional training programs. These student-led sessions focus on practical topics like scams and password safety, delivered in clear, respectful, and engaging ways. The result? Not just education, but trust-building, conversation, and long-term community engagement.Dr. Rege also leads interdisciplinary social engineering competitions that invite students from diverse academic backgrounds — including theater, nursing, business, and criminal justice — to explore real-world cyber scenarios. These events prove that you don't need to code to contribute meaningfully to cybersecurity. You just need curiosity, communication skills, and a willingness to learn.Looking ahead, Temple University is launching a new Bachelor of Arts in Cybersecurity and Human Behavior — a program that weaves in community engagement, liberal arts, and applied practice to prepare students for real-world roles beyond traditional technical paths.If you're a security leader looking to improve awareness programs, a university educator shaping the next generation, or someone simply curious about where you fit in the cyber puzzle, this episode offers a fresh perspective: cybersecurity works best when it's human-first.⬥SPONSORS⬥ThreatLocker: https://itspm.ag/threatlocker-r974⬥RESOURCES⬥Dr. Aunshul Rege is an Associate Professor here, and much of her work is conducted under this department: https://liberalarts.temple.edu/academics/departments-and-programs/criminal-justiceTemple Digital Equity Plan (2022): https://www.phila.gov/media/20220412162153/Philadelphia-Digital-Equity-Plan-FINAL.pdfTemple University Digital Equity Center / Digital Access Center: https://news.temple.edu/news/2022-12-06/temple-launches-digital-equity-center-north-philadelphiaNICE Cybersecurity Workforce Framework: https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nice/nice-framework-resource-center⬥ADDITIONAL INFORMATION⬥✨ More Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast: 

⬥GUEST⬥Aunshul Rege, Director at The CARE Lab at Temple University | On Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aunshul-rege-26526b59/⬥CO-HOST⬥Julie Haney, Computer scientist and Human-Centered Cybersecurity Program Lead, National Institute of Standards and Technology | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-haney-037449119/⬥HOST⬥Host: Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/imsmartin/ | Website: https://www.seanmartin.com⬥EPISODE NOTES⬥Cybersecurity Is for Everyone — If We Teach It That WayCybersecurity impacts us all, yet most people still see it as a tech-centric domain reserved for experts in computer science or IT. Dr. Aunshul Rege, Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University, challenges that perception through her research, outreach, and education programs — all grounded in community, empathy, and human behavior.In this episode, Dr. Rege joins Sean Martin and co-host Julie Haney to share her multi-layered approach to cybersecurity awareness and education. Drawing from her unique background that spans computer science and criminology, she explains how understanding human behavior is critical to understanding and addressing digital risk.One powerful initiative she describes brings university students into the community to teach cyber hygiene to seniors — a demographic often left out of traditional training programs. These student-led sessions focus on practical topics like scams and password safety, delivered in clear, respectful, and engaging ways. The result? Not just education, but trust-building, conversation, and long-term community engagement.Dr. Rege also leads interdisciplinary social engineering competitions that invite students from diverse academic backgrounds — including theater, nursing, business, and criminal justice — to explore real-world cyber scenarios. These events prove that you don't need to code to contribute meaningfully to cybersecurity. You just need curiosity, communication skills, and a willingness to learn.Looking ahead, Temple University is launching a new Bachelor of Arts in Cybersecurity and Human Behavior — a program that weaves in community engagement, liberal arts, and applied practice to prepare students for real-world roles beyond traditional technical paths.If you're a security leader looking to improve awareness programs, a university educator shaping the next generation, or someone simply curious about where you fit in the cyber puzzle, this episode offers a fresh perspective: cybersecurity works best when it's human-first.⬥SPONSORS⬥ThreatLocker: https://itspm.ag/threatlocker-r974⬥RESOURCES⬥Dr. Aunshul Rege is an Associate Professor here, and much of her work is conducted under this department: https://liberalarts.temple.edu/academics/departments-and-programs/criminal-justiceTemple Digital Equity Plan (2022): https://www.phila.gov/media/20220412162153/Philadelphia-Digital-Equity-Plan-FINAL.pdfTemple University Digital Equity Center / Digital Access Center: https://news.temple.edu/news/2022-12-06/temple-launches-digital-equity-center-north-philadelphiaNICE Cybersecurity Workforce Framework: https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nice/nice-framework-resource-center⬥ADDITIONAL INFORMATION⬥✨ More Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast: 

Join us for an inspiring session with renowned clinical psychologist Dr. Joy DeGruy, recognized for her groundbreaking book, "Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome." Dr. DeGruy will guide us through some of the complex issues our community is grappling with today, offering insights that are crucial for understanding and addressing our challenges. Before Dr. DeGruy takes the mic, we’ll hear from Ebony McMorris of American Urban Radio Networks, who will passionately respond to Donald Trump's recent remarks, calling her 'obnoxious' during a White House news briefing. Before her, Dr. Nah Dove, an esteemed Africology professor at Temple University, will delve into the cultural construction of race, providing vital context for our discussions. We are also excited to welcome Dr. Kelechi Egwim, Executive Director of APPEAL, to enrich our dialogue.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Show originally broadcast on WHIP Radio, Temple University, Philadelphia on Tuesday 23rd September 2025

Chris Quinn is editor of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer and president of Advance Ohio. He started in journalism in 1980 in his native New Jersey before moving to reporting positions in Dover, Del.; Harrisburg, Pa. and Orlando, Fla. He joined The Plain Dealer in 1996 and moved into editing in 2002, holding a variety of positions. He hosts a daily news discussion podcast called Today in Ohio and reaches more than 200,000 people via email each week through his column, Letter from the Editor. Chris received a bachelor's degree in journalism from Temple University. Thank you for listening to "Can You Hear Me?". If you enjoyed our show, please consider subscribing and leaving a review on your favorite podcast platform.Stay connected with us:Follow us on LinkedIn!Follow our co-host Eileen Rochford on Linkedin!Follow our co-host Rob Johnson on Linkedin!

Health Affairs' Rob Lott interviews Elizabeth Van Nostrand of Temple University about her recent paper exploring how Indiana adults participating in treatment court program tended to have better health outcomes than individuals who applied and were accepted but chose not to participate.Order the September 2025 issue of Health Affairs.Currently, more than 70 percent of our content is freely available - and we'd like to keep it that way. With your support, we can continue to keep our digital publication Forefront and podcast

Are you owning your voice or still shrinking in rooms where you belong?In this episode of Career Gems for the Journey podcast, Leah C. Murphy sits down with Dawana Holmes, an accomplished leadership strategist and executive coach, for a conversation that speaks directly to anyone who's ever second-guessed their power.Dawana opens up about what it truly means to take up space as a woman, especially as a woman of color, in corporate and leadership settings. From dismantling the “be grateful to be here” mindset to challenging the ways we're taught to dim our light, this episode is a call to reclaim your brilliance without apology.

A Temple Law professor who studies comedy and democracy explains why both are imperiled in the wake of Kimmel's suspension

This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Professor Miriam Solomon, Professor of Philosophy at Temple University and a leading voice in philosophy of science, medicine, and psychiatry.Solomon reflects on her intellectual trajectory, from her early studies in the natural sciences at Cambridge and her doctoral work at Harvard, to her later contributions in the philosophy of medicine and psychiatry. She describes how questions about knowledge-making — from consensus conferences to evidence-based medicine — led her to examine psychiatry and, most recently, the constitutive role of stigma in shaping psychiatric categories.In the conversation, Solomon argues that stigma is not only a social force attached to mental illness from the outside but also a factor that has shaped psychiatry from within. It has influenced the recognition, definition, and revision of diagnostic categories, as she illustrates through cases drawn from the history of psychiatry. She situates these examples within broader debates about the nature of psychiatric disorder, the limitations of the DSM, and possible alternative frameworks.In this episode, Solomon:Recounts her path from philosophy of science to psychiatry, shaped by formative years at Cambridge and HarvardExplains why consensus conferences and evidence-based medicine sparked her interest in psychiatry and the DSMArgues that stigma is not only a social prejudice but a constitutive force within psychiatric knowledgeExamines the role of stigma in categories like Asperger's and PTSD, and its entanglement with hermeneutical injusticeAssesses debates over defining psychiatric disorder, including the harmful dysfunction model, and emphasises the centrality of “harm” over “dysfunction”Discusses the challenges facing the DSMCalls for greater awareness of how stigma operates, both within psychiatry and in everyday experiences of mental illnessRelevant LinksMiriam Solomon's home pageOn the Concept of "Psychiatric Disorder": Incorporating Psychological InjuryMiriam Soloman PhilPapersMaking Medical Knowledge (Oxford University Press, 2015)Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds. This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme. Music by ComaStudio. Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

Show originally broadcast on WHIP Radio, Temple University, Philadelphia on Tuesday 16th September 2025

Ellen Lampert-Greaux is the creative director for Live Design and LDI, an annual conference and trade show for entertainment design and technology professionals. She was on the five-person team that founded LDI in 1988, and has produced the conference and worked on special events for the show since its debut, working on all aspects from programming and promotion to operations, registration, and the attendee experience. She has also produced additional events for the Live Design/LDI franchise such as their Master Classes series for lighting, projection, audio, scenic design; the Envision Symposium; Backstage Las Vegas; and XLIVExLDI. She is also a triple award-winning writer - editor for Live Design (FOLIO: EDDY Award in 2021, 2022, and 2023) who specializes in entertainment design and technology, writing regularly for livedesignonline.com, as well as a freelance writer on technology and architectural lighting. She is also a co-host ( a Lumen sister) on the Light Talk podcast.She attended NYU where she was an English major, and Temple University for a BFA in television/film production. She earned her MFA in arts administration from Brooklyn College and was the publicity director of the Brooklyn Academy of Music (1979-1986). She is a theatrical press agent and a member of ATPAM/IATSE, as well co-founder in 1996 and co-director of the St. Barth Film Festival in the French West Indies, having run a similar festival in Avignon, France (1984-1993). She speaks fluent French and translates articles for magazines from French to English. This conversation explores the evolution and impact of LDI since its inception in 1988, highlighting the commitment of Light Switch to enhance experiences through design. The discussion covers various training opportunities, innovative events, and the importance of inclusivity and networking within the entertainment industry. The future of LDI is also addressed, emphasizing its role in fostering mentorship and professional growth.This Episode is brought to you by Lightswitch

Robert Falconer is best known for his extensive involvement with Internal Family Systems (IFS) Therapy as a practitioner, teacher, and writer. For the past decade or more Bob Falconer has devoted himself full-time to IFS work. In that time he has attended all levels of IFS training offered, and has been at many workshops and events with Richard Schwartz both as assistant and participant. In addition to studying with many of the other senior IFS trainers, He also co-authored a book with Richard Schwartz entitled, Many Minds, One Self. His other books include The Others Within Us and When You're Going Through Hell ...Keep Going. His focus is now on the study of spiritual presence experiences.Jerry Marzinsky BA M.Ed. is a retired licensed psychotherapist with over 40 years of experience working with and studying the thought processes of psychotic and criminally insane patients in some of the most volatile psychiatric institutions in the nation. Jerry is a commercial pilot, certified SCUBA diver and long distance motorcyclist. He has held the positions of 2nd Lt. in the Arizona Civil Air Patrol and Assistant Scout Master. He was awarded the state of Arizona's meritorious service award and the Pima College Apple award of teaching Abnormal Psychology. His formal academic training comprises a B.A. in Psychology from Temple University, a Master's Degree in Counseling from the University of Georgia, and two years of study in a Ph.D. Psychology program. He is the co-author of An Amazing Journey Into The Psychotic Mind - Breaking The Spell Of the Ivory Tower and currently has a private practice in Arizona.Learn more about Bob and his work:https://robertfalconer.us/When You're Going Through Hell ...Keep Going: Trauma, Healing, Spirit, and Internal Family Systemshttps://amz.run/98NoThe Others Within Us: Internal Family Systems, Porous Mind, and Spirit Possessionhttps://amz.run/98NnMany Minds, One Self: Evidence for a Radical Shift in Paradigmhttps://amz.run/98NvLearn more about Jerry and his work:https://www.jerrymarzinsky.com/https://www.causisminstitute.com/about/causism/https://www.amazon.com/Causism-Discover-Emotional-Health-Well-Being/dp/0646959409https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Over-Mind-Control-Method-ebook/dp/B0080GUMJUSeptember Breathwork Challenge!Every day of September, we will do this 10 minute morning routine (asynchronously)Breathe with Sandy - 10 Minute Morning Breathwork Routinehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb9YxCC5WBwMaryland Renaissance FestivalLET MERRIMENT ABOUND WITH ENTERTAINMENT, FEASTING AND CRAFTS FOR ALL! Visit https://rennfest.com/ and get your tickets today.Light the NightLLS is on a mission to cure blood cancers and improve quality of life for the nearly 1.7 million people in the U.S. living with or in remission from blood cancer.Help Team Zavadowski reach our fundraising goal! Thank you for your generous donations:https://pages.lls.org/ltn/fdk/Montcomd25/rsmith--Get in touch: robinsmithshow@gmail.comCall the hotline: +1 (301) 458-0883Follow Robin on Insight Timer: https://insGot a question? We'd love to hear from you!

What happens when a high school student's big idea meets a classroom full of learners? In this episode, you'll meet Ronil Dubal, a high school senior and founder of Studysnap, and Meghan Killeen, a curriculum specialist who put the app to work with her students at Temple University.After inviting Ronil to share Studysnap with her English language learners, Meghan discovered just how powerful the tool could be in supporting diverse students. Together, they reflect on the journey from idea to classroom impact and explore how AI-driven tools are reshaping the future of learning.---ABOUT OUR GUESTSMeghan Killeen is the Curriculum and Assessment Specialist for TCALC's Academic Team. She graduated from The University of Westminster, London, U.K., with a degree in Applied Linguistics and Literature. She has nearly 15 years of teaching experience at both private institutions in Japan and at universities in New York City, including CUNY-LaGuardia and Pratt Institute. She has also served as a research assistant for a professional development program aimed at K-12 educators at Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research concentration is in project-based learning, assessment, and inter-semiotic communication.Ronil Dubal is the founder of Studysnap and a current high school senior from San Jose, CA.---SUBSCRIBE TO THE SERIES: ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠YouTube Music⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Overcast⁠⁠⁠FOLLOW US: ⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠POWERED BY CLASSLINK: ClassLink provides one-click single sign-on into web and Windows applications, and instant access to files at school and in the cloud. Accessible from any computer, tablet, or smartphone, ClassLink is ideal for 1to1 and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiatives. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠classlink.com⁠⁠⁠.

The WIP Midday Show are reacting to two clips that made the rounds yesterday. One of the Oklahoma University football making fun of Temple University football ahead of their matchup this weekend. Plus, outrage at WIP's sister station in Chicago after the Bears' devastating collapse on Monday night

8:30  In person: Gabriela Watson-Burkett Gabriela is a filmmaker, producer, and journalist based in Philadelphia with Peruvian roots and a Brazilian upbringing. She is the Founder, Executive Director, and Editor-In-Chief of Inti Media, a media organization dedicated to producing multilingual news and documentaries that inspire change. Gabriela has worked with WPVI-TV/6ABC, WHYY, and PhillyCAM. Her documentary Baobab Flowers won the Audience Award for Best Documentary Short at the 2017 BlackStar Film Festival. Gabriela is a 2025 fellow of NAHJ's Adelante Leadership Academy. Her accolades include the AL DIA News Women of Merit, the Leeway Transformation Award and Art and Change Grant, the IPMF Film Grant, the Lenfest Next Generation Fund, and the Philadelphia Independent Media Finishing Fund Grant. She holds an MFA in Film & Media Arts from Temple University. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9:15 StreamYard: Marcia N. Cole: Domestic violence is not often talked about as it relates to women being the perpetrator. Marcia N. Cole is a transformational leader, author, Registered Nurse, empowerment speaker, and the visionary behind Faith, Focus, & Finish Strong Zoom Talk. Through her powerful story of faith, forgiveness, and healing after the tragic loss of her brother, she inspires others to turn pain into purpose.As the author of Shattered Yet Unbroken, she amplifies the often-ignored conversation around domestic violence against men, especially within the Black community. Marcia is passionate about helping others heal, advocating for mental health, and equipping women and families with tools for spiritual and emotional restoration. She is also a devoted wife and mother of three, committed to walking in faith and empowering others to live free and finish strong. Marcia's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marciancole?igsh=MWtiYnRldWFhYW5vOA==Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-talk-weekly--2576999/support.

Lyssa Rome is a speech-language pathologist in the San Francisco Bay Area. She is on staff at the Aphasia Center of California, where she facilitates groups for people with aphasia and their care partners. She owns an LPAA-focused private practice and specializes in working with people with neurogenic communication disorders. She has worked in acute hospital, skilled nursing, and continuum of care settings. Prior to becoming an SLP, Lyssa was a public radio journalist, editor, and podcast producer. In this episode, Lyssa Rome interviews Liz Hoover about group treatment for aphasia.   Guest info Dr. Liz Hoover is a clinical professor of speech language and hearing sciences and the clinical director of the Aphasia Resource Center at Boston University. She holds board certification from the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences, or ANCDS, and is an ASHA fellow. She was selected as a 2024 Tavistock Trust for Aphasia Distinguished Scholar, USA and Canada. Liz was a founding member of Aphasia Access and served on the board for several years. She has 30 years of experience working with people with aphasia and other communication disorders across the continuum of care. She's contributed to numerous presentations and publications, and most of her work focuses on the effectiveness of group treatment for individuals with aphasia.   Listener Take-aways In today's episode you will: Describe the evidence supporting aphasia conversation groups as an effective interventions for linguistic and psychosocial outcomes. Differentiate the potential benefits of dyads versus larger groups in relation to client goals. Identify how aphasia severity and group composition can influence treatment outcomes.   Edited transcript Lyssa Rome Welcome to the Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast. I'm Lyssa Rome. I'm a speech language pathologist on staff at the Aphasia Center of California and I see clients with aphasia and other neurogenic communication disorders in my LPAA-focused private practice. I'm also a member of the Aphasia Access Podcast Working Group. Aphasia Access strives to provide members with information, inspiration and ideas that support their aphasia care through a variety of educational materials and resources.   I'm today's host for an episode that will feature Dr. Elizabeth Hoover, who was selected as a 2024 Tavistock Trust for Aphasia Distinguished Scholar, USA and Canada.   Liz Hoover is a clinical professor of speech language and hearing sciences and the clinical director of the Aphasia Resource Center at Boston University. She holds board certification from the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences, or ANCDS, and is an ASHA fellow. Liz was a founding member of Aphasia Access and served on the board for several years. She has 30 years of experience working with people with aphasia and other communication disorders across the continuum of care. She's contributed to numerous presentations and publications, and most of her work focuses on the effectiveness of group treatment for individuals with aphasia. Liz, welcome back to the podcast.   So in 2017 you spoke with Ellen Bernstein Ellis about intensive comprehensive aphasia programs or ICAPs and inter professional practice at the Aphasia Resource Center at BU and treatment for verb production using VNest, among other topics. So this time, I thought we could focus on some of your recent research with Gayle DeDe and others on conversation group treatment.   Liz Hoover Sounds good.   Lyssa Rome All right, so my first question is how you became interested in studying group treatment?   Liz Hoover Yeah, I actually have Dr. Jan Avent to thank for my interest in groups. She was my aphasia professor when I was a graduate student doing my masters at Cal State East Bay. As you know, Cal State East Bay is home to the Aphasia Treatment Program. When I was there, it preceded ATP. But I was involved in her cooperative group treatment study, and as a graduate student, I was allowed to facilitate some of her groups in this study, and I was involved in the moderate-to-severe group. She was also incredibly generous at sharing that very early body of work for socially oriented group treatments and exposing us to the work of John Lyons and Audrey Holland. Jan also invited us to go to a conference on group treatment that was run by the Life Link group. It's out of Texas Woman's University, Delaina Walker-Batson and Jean Ford. And it just was a life changing and pivotal experience for me in recognizing how group treatment could not be just an adjunct to individual goals, but actually be the type of treatment that is beneficial for folks with aphasia. So it's been a love my entire career.   Lyssa Rome And now I know you've been studying group treatment in this randomized control trial. This was a collaborative research project, so I'm hoping you can tell us a little bit more about that project. What were your research questions? Tell us a little bit more.   Liz Hoover Yeah, so thank you. I'll just start by acknowledging that the work is funded by two NIDCD grants, and to acknowledge their generosity, and then also acknowledge Dr. Gayle DeDe, who is currently at Temple University. She is a co- main PI in this work, and of course it wouldn't have happened without her. So you know, Gayle and I have known each other for many, many years. She's a former student, doctoral student at Boston University, and by way of background, she and I were interested in working together and interested in trying to build on some evidence for group treatment. I think we drank the Kool Aid early on, as you might say.   And you know, just looking at the literature, there have been two trials on the evidence for this kind of work. And so those of us who are involved in groups, know that it's helpful for people with aphasia, our clients tell us how much they enjoy it, and they vote with their feet, right? In that they come back for more treatments. And aphasia centers have grown dramatically in the last couple of decades in the United States.   So clearly we know they work, but what we don't know is why they work. What are those essential ingredients, and how is that driving the change that we think we see? And from a personal perspective, that's important for me to understand and for us to have explained in the literature, because until we can justify it in the scientific terms, I worry it will forever be a private-pay adjunct that is only accessible to people who can pay for it, or who are lucky enough to be close enough to a center that can get them access—virtual groups aside, and the advent of that—but it's important that I think this intervention is validated to the scientific community in our field.   So we designed this trial. It's a randomized control trial to help build the research evidence for conversation, group treatment, and to also look at the critical components. This was inspired by a paper actually from Nina Simmons Mackie in 2014 and Linda Worrell. They looked at group treatment and showed that there were at least eight first-tier elements that changed the variability or on which we might modify group conversation treatment. And so, you know, if we're all doing things differently, how can we predict the change, and how can we expect outcomes?   Lyssa Rome So I was hoping you could describe this randomized, controlled trial. You know, it was collaborative, and I'm curious about what you and your collaborators had as your research questions.   Liz Hoover So our primary aims of the study were to understand if communication or conversation treatment is associated with changes in measures of communicative ability and psychosocial measures. So that's a general effectiveness question. And then to look in more deeply to see if the group size or the group composition or even the individual profile of the client with aphasia influences the expected outcome.   Because if you think about group treatment, the size of the group is not an insignificant issue, right? So a small group environment of two people has much more… it still gives you some peer support from the other individual with aphasia, but you have many opportunities for conversational turns and linguistic and communication practice and to drive the saliency of the conversation in a direction that's meaningful and useful and informative.   Whereas in a large group environment of say, six to eight people with aphasia and two clinicians, you might see much more influence in the needed social support and vicarious learning and shared lived experience and so forth, and still have some opportunity for communication and linguistic practice. So there's conflicting hypotheses there about which group environment might be better for one individual over another.   And then there's the question of, well, who's in that group with you? Does that matter? Some of the literature says that if you have somebody with a different profile of aphasia, it can set up a therapeutic benefit of the helper experience, where you can gain purpose by enabling and supporting and being a facilitator of somebody else with aphasia.   But if you're in a group environment where your peers have similar conversation goals as you, maybe your practice turns, and your ability to learn vicariously from their conversation turns is greater. So again, two conflicting theories here about what might be best. So we decided to try and manipulate these group environments and measure outcomes on several different communication measures. We selected measures that were linguistic, functional, and psychosocial.   We collected data over four years. The first two years, we enrolled people with all different kinds of profiles of aphasia. The only inclusion criteria from a communication perspective, as you needed some ability to comprehend at a sentence level, so that you could process what was being said by the other people in the group. And in year one, the treatment was at Boston University and Temple University, which is where Gayle's aphasia center is housed. In year two, we added a community site at the Adler Aphasia Center and Maywood, New Jersey, so we had three sites going.   The treatment conditions were dyad, large group, and then a no treatment group. So this group was tested at the same time, didn't get any other intervention, and then we gave them group treatment once the testing cycle was over. So we call that a historical control or a delayed-treatment control group. And then in years three and four, we aim to enroll people who had homogeneous profiles.   So the first through the third cycle was people with moderate to severe profiles. And then in the final, fourth cycle, it was people with mild profiles with aphasia. This allowed us to collect enough data in enough size to be able to look at overall effectiveness and then effects of heterogeneity or homogeneity in the group, and the influence of the profile of aphasia, as well as the group size.   And across the four years, we aim to enroll 216 participants, and 193 completed the study. So it's the largest of its kind for this particular kind of group treatment that we know of anyway. So this data set has allowed us to look at overall efficacy of conversation group treatment, and then also take a look at a couple of those critical ingredients. Does the size of the group make a difference? And does the composition of your group make a difference?   Lyssa Rome And what did you find?   Liz Hoover Well, we're not quite done with all of our analysis yet, but we found overall that there's a significant treatment effect for just the treatment conditions, not the control group. So whether you were in the dyad or whether you were in a large treatment group, you got better on some of the outcome measures we selected. And the control group not only didn't but on a couple of those measures, their performance actually declined. And so showing significantly that there's a treatment effect. Did you have a question?   Lyssa Rome Yeah, I wanted to interrupt and ask, what were the outcome measures? What outcome measures were you looking at?   Liz Hoover Yeah. So we had about 14 measures in total that aligned with the core outcome set that was established by the ROMA group. So we had as our linguistic measure the Comprehensive Aphasia Test. We had a primary outcome measure, which was a patient reported measure of functional communication, which is the ACOM by Will Hula and colleagues, the Aphasia Communication Outcome measure, we had Audrey Holland and colleagues' objective functional measure, the CADL, and then a series of other psychosocial and patient reported outcome measures, so the wall question from the ALA, the Moss Social Scale, the Communication Confidence Rating Scale in Aphasia by Leora Cherney and Edie Babbitt.   Lyssa Rome Thank you. When I interrupted you to ask about outcome measures. You were telling us about some of the findings so far.   Liz Hoover Yeah, so our primary outcome measures showed significant changes in language for both the treatment conditions and a slightly larger effect for the large group. And then we saw, at a more micro level, the results pointing to a complex interaction, actually, between the group size and the treatment outcome. So we saw changes on more linguistic measures. like the repetition sub scores of the CAT and verb naming from another naming subtest for the dyad group, whereas bigger, more robust changes on the ACOM the CADL and the discourse measure from the CAT for the large group.   And then diving in a little bit more deeply for the composition, these data are actually quite interesting. The papers are in review and preparation at the moment, but it looks like we are seeing significant changes for the moderate-to-severe group on objective functional measures and patient reported functional measures of communication, which is so exciting to see for this particular cohort, whose naming scores were zero, in some cases, on entrance, and we're seeing for the mild group, some changes on auditory comprehension, naming, not surprisingly, and also the ACOM and the CADL. So they're showing the same changes, just with different effect sizes or slightly different ranges. And once again, no change in the control group, and in some cases, on some measures, we're seeing a decline in performance over time.   So it's validating that the intervention is helpful in general. What we found with the homogeneous groups is that in a homogeneous large group environment, those groups seem to do a little better. There's a significant effect over time between the homogeneous and the heterogeneous groups. So thinking about why that might have taken place, we wonder if the shared lived experience of your profile of aphasia, your focus on similar kinds of communication, or linguistic targets within the conversation environment might be helping to offset the limited number of practice trials you get in that larger group environment.   So that's an interesting finding to see these differences in who's in the group with you. Because I think clinically, we tend to assign groups, or sort of schedule groups according to what's convenient for the client, what might be pragmatic for the setting, without really wondering why one group could be important or one group might be preferential. If we think about it, there are conflicting hypotheses as to why a group of your like aphasia severity might have a different outcome, right? That idea that you can help people who have a different profile than you, that you're sharing different kinds of models of communication, versus that perhaps more intense practice effect when you share more specific goals and targets and lived experiences. So it's interesting to think about the group environment from that perspective, I think,   Lyssa Rome And to have also some evidence that clinicians and people at aphasia centers can look to help make decisions about group compositions, I think is incredibly helpful.   Earlier, you mentioned that one of the goals of this research project has been to identify the active ingredients of group therapy. And I know that you've been part of a working group for the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System, or RTSS. Applying that, how have you tried to identify the active ingredients and what? What do you think it is about these treatments that actually drives change?   Liz Hoover I'll first of all say, this is a work in process. You know, I don't think we've got all of the answers. We're just starting to think about it with the idea, again, that if we clinically decide to make some changes to our group, we're at least doing it with some information behind us, and it's a thoughtful and intentional change, as opposed to a gut reaction or a happenstance change. So Gayle and I have worked on developing this image, or this model. It's in a couple of our papers. We can share the resources for that. But it's about trying to think of the flow of communication, group treatment, and what aspects of the treatment might be influential in the outcomes we see downstream.   I think for group treatment, you can't separate entirely many of the ingredients. Group treatment is multifaceted, it's interconnected, and it's not possible—I would heavily debate that with anybody—I don't think it's possible to sort of truly separate some of these ingredients. But when you alter the composition or the environment in which you do the treatment, I do think we are influencing the relative weight of these ingredients.   So we've been thinking about there being this group dynamics component, which is the supportive environment of the peers in the group with you, that social support, the insider affiliation and shared lived experience, the opportunity to observe and see the success of some of these different communication strategies, so that vicarious learning that takes place as you see somebody else practice. But also, I think, cope in a trajectory of your treatment process.   And then we've got linguistic practice so that turn taking where you're actually trying to communicate verbally using supported communication where you're expanding on your utterances or trying to communicate verbally in a specific way or process particular kinds of linguistic targets. A then communication practice in terms of that multimodal effectiveness of communication.   And these then are linked to these three ingredients, dynamic group dynamics, linguistic practice and communication practice. They each have their own mechanism of action or a treatment theory that explains how they might affect change. So for linguistic practice, it's the amount of practice, but also how you hear it practiced or see it practiced with the other group participant. And the same thing for the various multimodal communication acts. And in thinking about a large group versus the dyad or a small group, you know you've got this conflicting hypothesis or the setup for a competing best group, or benefit in that the large group will influence more broadly in the group dynamics, or more deeply in the group dynamics, in that there's a much bigger opportunity to see the vicarious learning and experience the support and potentially experience the communication practice, given a varied number of participants.   But yet in the dyad, your opportunity for linguistic practice is much, much stronger. And our work has counted this the exponential number of turns you get in a dyad versus a large group. And you know, I think that's why the results we saw with the dyad on those linguistic outcomes were unique to that group environment.   Lyssa Rome It points, I think, to the complexity of decision making around group structure and what's right for which client, maybe even so it sounds like some of that work is still in progress. I'm curious about sort of thinking about what you know so far based on this work, what advice would you have for clinicians who are working in aphasia centers or or helping to sort of think about the structure of group treatments? What should clinicians in those roles keep in mind?   Liz Hoover Yeah, that's a great question, and I'll add the caveat that this may change. My advice for this may change in a year's time, or it might evolve as we learn more. But I think what it means is that the decisions you make should be thoughtful. We're starting to learn more about severity in aphasia and how that influences the outcomes. So I think, what is it that your client wants to get out of the group? If they're interested in more linguistic changes, then perhaps the dyad is a better place to start. If they clearly need, or are voicing the need, for more psychosocial support, then the large, you know, traditional sized and perhaps a homogeneous group is the right place to start. But they're both more effective than no treatment. And so being, there's no wrong answer. It's just understanding your client's needs. Is there a better fit?   And I think that's, that's, that's my wish, that people don't see conversation as something that you do at the beginning to build a rapport, but that it's worthy of being an intervention target. It should be most people's primary goal. I think, right, when we ask, what is it you'd like? “I want to talk more. I want to have a conversation.” Audrey Holland would say it's a moral imperative to to treat the conversation and to listen to folks' stories. So just to think carefully about what it is your client wants to achieve, and if there's an environment in which that might be easier to help them achieve that.   Lyssa Rome It's interesting, as you were saying that I was thinking about what you said earlier on about sort of convincing funders about the value of group treatment, but what you're saying now makes me think that it's all your work is also valuable in convincing speech therapists that referrals to groups or dyads is valuable and and also for people with aphasia and their families that it's worth seeking out.   I'm curious about where in the continuum of care this started for the people who were in your trial. I mean, were these people with chronic aphasia who had had strokes years earlier? Was it a mix? And did that make a difference?   Liz Hoover It was a mix. I think our earliest participant was six months post-onset. Our most chronic participant was 26 years post-onset. So a wide range. We want, obviously, from a study perspective, we needed folks to be outside of the traditional window of spontaneous recovery in stroke-induced aphasia.   But it was important to us to have a treatment dose that was reasonable and applicable to a United States healthcare climate, right? So twice a week for an hour is something that people would get reimbursed for. The overall dose is the minimum that's been shown to be effective in the RELEASE collaborative trial papers. And then, you know, but still, half, less than half the dose that the Elman and Bernstein Ellis study found to be effective. So there may be some wiggle room there to see if, if a larger dose is more effective.   But yeah, I think it's that idea of finding funding, convincing people that this is not just a reasonable treatment approach, but a good approach for many outcomes for people with chronic aphasia. I mean, you know, one of the biggest criticisms we hear from the giants in our field is the frustration with aphasia being treated like it's a quick fix and can be done. But you know, so much of the work shows that people are only just beginning to understand their condition by the time they're discharged from traditional outpatient services. And so there's a need for ongoing treatment indefinitely, I think, as your goals change, as you age, and as your wish to participate in different things changes over a lifetime,   Lyssa Rome Yeah, absolutely. And I think too, when we think about sort of the role of hope, if you know, if there is additional evidence showing that there can be change after that sort of traditional initial period, when we think that change happens the most, that can provide a lot of hope and motivation, I think, to people.   Liz Hoover yeah, we're look going to be looking next at predictors of change, so looking at our study entrance scores and trying to identify which participants were the responders versus the non-responders that you know, because group effects are one thing, but it's good to see who seems to benefit the most from these individual types of environments.   And an early finding is that confidence, or what some people in the field, I'm learning now are referring to as actually communication self-efficacy, but that previous exposure to group potentially and that confidence in your communication is inversely correlated with benefits from treatment on other measures. So if you've got a low confidence in your ability to communicate functionally in different environments, you're predicted to be a responder to conversation treatment.   Lyssa Rome Oh, that's really interesting. What else are you looking forward to working on when it comes to this data set or other projects that you have going on?   Liz Hoover Yeah. So as I mentioned, there's a lot of data still for us to dig into, looking at those individual responders or which factors or variables might make an impact. There is the very next on the list, we're also going to be looking very shortly at the dialogic conversation outcomes. So, it's a conversation treatment. How has conversation changed? That's a question we need to answer. So we're looking at that currently, and might look more closely at other measures. And then I think the question of the dose is an interesting one. The question of how individual variables or the saliency of the group may impact change is another potentially interesting question. There are many different directions you can go.   You know, we've got 193 participants in the study, with three separate testing time points, so it's a lot of data to look at still. And I think we want to be sure we understand what we're looking at, and what those active ingredients might be, that we've got the constructs well defined before we start to recruit for another study and to expand on these findings further.   Lyssa Rome When we were meeting earlier, getting ready for this talk, you mentioned to me a really valuable video resource, and I wanted to make sure we take some time to highlight that. Can you tell us a little bit about what you worked on with your colleagues at Boston University?   Liz Hoover Yes, thank you. So I'll tell you a little bit. We have a video education series. Some of you may have heard about this already, but it's up on our website so bu.edu/aphasiacenter, and we'll still share that link as well. And it's a series of short, aphasia-friendly videos that are curated by our community to give advice and share lived experiences from people with aphasia and their care partners.   This project came about right on the heels of the COVID shutdown at our university. I am involved in our diagnostic clinic, and I was seeing folks who had been in acute care through COVID being treated with people who were wearing masks, who had incredibly shortened lengths of stay because people you know rightly, were trying to get them out of a potentially vulnerable environment. And what we were seeing is a newly diagnosed cohort of people with aphasia who were so under-informed about their condition, and Nina that has a famous quote right of the public being woefully uninformed of the aphasia condition and you don't think it can get any worse until It does.   And I thought, gosh, wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to point them to some short education videos that are by people who have lived their same journey or a version of their same journey. So we fundraised and collaborated with a local production company to come up with these videos. And I'll share, Lyssa, we just learned last week that this video series has been awarded the ASHA 2025 Media Outreach Award. So it's an award winning series.   Lyssa Rome Yeah, that's fantastic, and it's so well deserved. They're really beautifully and professionally produced. And I think I really appreciated hearing from so many different people with aphasia about their experiences as the condition is sort of explained more. So thank you for sharing those and we'll put the links in our show notes along with links to the other articles that you've mentioned in this conversation in our show notes. So thanks.   Liz Hoover Yeah, and I'll just put a big shout out to my colleague, Jerry Kaplan, who's the amazing interviewer and facilitator in many of these videos, and the production company, which is Midnight Brunch. But again, the cinematography and the lighting. They're beautifully done. I think I'm very, very happy with them.   Lyssa Rome Yeah, congrats again on the award too. So to wrap up, I'm wondering if there's anything else that you want listeners to take away from this conversation or from the work that you've been doing on conversation treatments.   Liz Hoover I would just say that I would encourage everybody to try group treatment. It's a wonderful option for intervention for people, and to remind everyone of Barbara Shadden and Katie Strong's work, of that embedded storytelling that can come out in conversation, and of the wonderful Audrey Holland's words, of it being a moral imperative to help people tell their story and to converse. It's yeah… You'll drink the Kool Aid if you try it. Let me just put it that way. It's a wonderful intervention that seems to be meaningful for most clients I've ever had the privilege to work with.   Lyssa Rome I agree with that. And meaningful too, I think for clinicians who get to do the work.   Liz Hoover, thank you so much for your work and for coming to talk with us again, for making your second appearance on the podcast. It's been great talking with you.   Liz Hoover Thank you. It's been fun. I appreciate it.   Lyssa Rome And thanks also to our listeners for the references and resources mentioned in today's show. Please see our show notes. They're available on our website, www.aphasiaaccess.org. There, you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at info@aphasia access.org.   Thanks again for your ongoing support of Aphasia Access. For Aphasia Access Conversations. I'm Lyssa Rome.       Resources Walker-Batson, D., Curtis, S., Smith, P., & Ford, J. (1999). An alternative model for the treatment of aphasia: The Lifelink© approach. In R. Elman (Ed.), Group treatment for neurogenic communication disorders: The expert clinician's approach (pp. 67-75). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann   Hoover, E.L., DeDe, G., Maas, E. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of the effects of group conversation treatment on monologic discourse in aphasia. Journal of Speech-Language and Hearing Research doi/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00023 Hoover, E., Szabo, G., Kohen, F., Vitale, S., McCloskey, N., Maas, E., Kularni, V., & DeDe., G. (2025). The benefits of conversation group treatment for individuals with chronic aphasia: Updated evidence from a multisite randomized controlled trial on measures of language and communication. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology. DOI: 10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00279   Aphasia Resource Center at BU   Living with Aphasia video series Aphasia Access Podcast Episode #15: In Conversation with Liz Hoover

It's In the News.. a look at the top headlines and stories in the diabetes community. This week's top stories: CRISPR modified cell transplant for type 1, risk of T1D if parent has a different type of diabetes, Metformin and the brain, oral GLP-1, and more! Find out more about Moms' Night Out  Please visit our Sponsors & Partners - they help make the show possible! Learn more about Gvoke Glucagon Gvoke HypoPen® (glucagon injection): Glucagon Injection For Very Low Blood Sugar (gvokeglucagon.com) Omnipod - Simplify Life Learn about Dexcom   Check out VIVI Cap to protect your insulin from extreme temperatures The best way to keep up with Stacey and the show is by signing up for our weekly newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter here Here's where to find us: Facebook (Group) Facebook (Page) Instagram Twitter Check out Stacey's books! Learn more about everything at our home page www.diabetes-connections.com  Reach out with questions or comments: info@diabetes-connections.com Episode transcription with links: Hello and welcome to Diabetes Connections In the News! I'm Stacey Simms and every other Friday I bring you a short episode with the top diabetes stories and headlines happening now. XX A 42-year-old man who has lived most of his life with type 1 diabetes has become the first human to receive a transplant of genetically modified insulin-producing cells. This marks the first pancreatic cell transplant in a human to sidestep the need for immunosuppressant drugs. “This is the most exciting moment of my scientific career,” says cell biologist Per-Ola Carlsson of Uppsala University in Sweden, who helped develop the procedure. The new treatment, he says, “opens the future possibility of treating not only diabetes but other autoimmune diseases.” This procedure uses the gene editing technique, CRISPR, to discourage the auto immune attack on the donor cells. Before the transplant, the participant had no measurable naturally produced insulin and was receiving daily doses of the hormone. But within four to 12 weeks following the transplant, his levels rose slightly on their own after meals—showing that the new beta cells were releasing some insulin in response to glucose. even though the new study is promising, it involved just one participant and is therefore preliminary. And longer-term monitoring is needed to confirm the therapy's safety before it can be offered to more people. She also notes that the injected cells produced only 7 percent of the insulin needed for a person to be fully independent of additional medication. The researchers supplied the recipient with insulin doses to maintain healthy blood sugar levels. While Herold thinks it's still too early to consider this approach for a cure, “these options are now here to change the disease in ways that have never been possible before,” he says. “There's tremendous hope.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/type-1-diabetes-patients-insulin-production-restored-with-new-cell/ XX   This one is interesting… a recent study shows that children of mothers with gestational diabetes or fathers with type 2 diabetes have higher chances of developing type 1 diabetes than kids whose parents do not have any type of diabetes. Specifically, the study found that children whose mothers had gestational diabetes during pregnancy were 94% more likely to develop type 1 diabetes compared to children of mothers without diabetes. Similarly, having a father with type 2 diabetes was linked to a 77% higher risk. The study also suggests a possible link between maternal type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes in children, although more data are needed to confirm whether the risk is real.   "What is interesting is that type 1 diabetes is a disease of lack of the hormone insulin while gestational diabetes and type 2 diabetes stem mostly from the body's resistance to the hormone. What may be happening is that genes, environments and behaviors that create insulin resistance may also, in some cases, trigger the immune reactions that lead to type 1 diabetes," adds Dr. Dasgupta. A 2019 meta-analysis by researchers at Soochow University in China found that gestational diabetes was linked to a 66% higher risk of type 1 diabetes in children. This new study, which includes more than twice as many studies, offers a robust synthesis of current evidence and shows the risk is even greater than previously estimated. It is also the first meta-analysis to examine the link between paternal type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes in offspring. "Several mechanisms may be at play. Families often share lifestyle and eating habits, which can raise the likelihood that children will be affected. But beyond that, high blood sugar levels may also cause biological changes in parents that could increase their children's risk of developing type 1 diabetes," explains Laura Rendon, co-first author of the study, who completed an MSc in experimental medicine at The Institute and, as someone living with type 1 diabetes herself, finds deep personal meaning in conducting this research. For instance, the authors suggest that high blood sugar during pregnancy may stress the fetus's insulin-producing beta cells, reducing their number at birth or making them more vulnerable to damage later in life. It may also trigger epigenetic changes—modifications to proteins and molecules attached to DNA—that increase the risk. Likewise, high blood sugar in fathers with type 2 diabetes may cause epigenetic changes in their sperm, potentially influencing their child's risk of developing type 1 diabetes. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-08-diabetes-children-linked-parents.html XX Can a CGM help you lose weight? The company Signos is banking on it – the just got FDA approval for their system, which uses the over the counter Dexcom Stelo. The claim here is that the system will help track how food choices, activity, stress and sleep can all affect metabolism. Signos also works in partnership with the digital nutrition counseling startup Nourish. It currently offers a quarterly subscription plan, including six CGM sensors, for $139 per month. And they tell you don't take any medical actions based on the app's output without consulting a physician. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/fda-clears-signos-over-counter-cgm-powered-weight-loss-app XX Good news for T1D1, a free mobile app that helps people calculate insulin doses, track daily data, and share insights with healthcare providers. After being pulled off the market with similar apps a few years ago, it's now back and FDA approved. Drew Mendelow created the app after his diagnosis at age 13. He came on the show last year and I'll link his story up in the show notes. Diabetes Center Berne provided the initial funding to support the T1D1 efforts to redesign the app per FDA standards.  Comerge AG , the registered manufacturer, enlisted a team of software engineers, regulatory experts, and design professionals to ensure T1D1 was FDA-ready. Dexcom graciously conducted the Human Factors study to ensure safety and accuracy.  ​ ​T1D1 is now FDA-cleared as a Class II medical device and is the first over-the-counter insulin calculator cleared for individuals aged 2 and older. T1D1 is expected to be live in the AppStore and Google Play Store by October 2025. https://diabetes-connections.com/the-fda-took-down-this-teens-free-bolus-calculator-he-needs-your-help-to-bring-it-back/ XX Metformin has been the standard treatment for type 2 diabetes for more than six decades, yet scientists still do not fully understand how it works. A team from Baylor College of Medicine, working with international collaborators, has now identified an unexpected factor in its effectiveness: the brain. Their findings reveal a brain pathway involved in metformin's glucose-lowering action, pointing to new strategies for treating diabetes with greater precision. The study was published in Science Advances. The researchers concentrated on a small protein called Rap1, located in a region of the brain known as the ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH). They discovered that metformin's ability to lower blood sugar at clinically relevant doses depends on suppressing Rap1 activity in this brain area.   “This discovery changes how we think about metformin,” Fukuda said. “It's not just working in the liver or the gut, it's also acting in the brain. We found that while the liver and intestines need high concentrations of the drug to respond, the brain reacts to much lower levels.”     https://scitechdaily.com/after-60-years-scientists-uncover-hidden-brain-pathway-behind-diabetes-drug-metformin/   XX Looks like GLP-1 pills are moving ahead. Lilly says it's version helped overweight adults with type 2 lose 10% of their body weights and lower A1C. Just two weeks ago, we were talking about how the same drug in people without diabetes had less than the stellar expected results. Orforglipron is a small-molecule pill that is easier to manufacture and package than wildly popular injectable drugs for obesity, such as Lilly's Zepbound and Novo Nordisk's NOVOb.CO rival treatment Wegovy, which are peptide mimics of the appetite-controlling GLP-1 hormone. In the 72-week study of more than 1,600 overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes, those who received the 36-milligram highest dose of orforglipron on average shed 10.5% of their weight, or about 23 pounds (10.43 kg), versus 2.2% for those who received a placebo, achieving the main goal of the trial. Patients on the lowest 6 mg dose of the Lilly drug lost 5.5% of their weight. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/08/26/lilly-glp-1-pill-weight-loss/85830686007/ XX     An intervention that combined a low-calorie Mediterranean diet and exercise led to less diabetes incidence in older adults. Men had a greater diabetes risk reduction with the intervention than women. The study was based in Spain, and the diet may not be as easy to adhere to in the U.S. Among nearly 5,000 adults with metabolic syndrome and overweight or obesity in the PREDIMED-Plus trial, those who followed this intervention had a 31% lower risk for type 2 diabetes over 6 years relative to those who received only ad libitum Mediterranean diet advice (aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.82). the Mediterranean diet focuses on high intake of plant-based foods, moderate consumption of fish, poultry, and dairy with optional red wine, and low intake of red meats, sweets, and sugar-sweetened beverages. Common foods featured in the diet include extra-virgin olive oil, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains. However, Sharon Herring, MD, MPH, and Gina Tripicchio, PhD, MSEd, both of Temple University in Philadelphia, pointed out that this study was conducted solely in Spain, and sticking to this type of diet may be more challenging in countries like the U.S.   "Participants in the study received extra-virgin olive oil to support adherence and retention; in the United States, prices of extra-virgin olive oil have nearly doubled since 2021 due to a combination of factors including climate change, rising production costs, supply chain disruptions, and now tariffs," they noted in an accompanying editorial. "[T]he large number of dietitian contacts during the study may prove difficult to scale broadly in the United States given challenges with health care access and reimbursement for prevention services."         https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/diabetes/117151 XX A group of Canadian researchers has identified an unexpected way to lower blood sugar and protect the liver: by capturing a little-known fuel produced by gut bacteria before it enters the body and causes harm. The findings, published in Cell Metabolism, could open the door to new therapies to treat metabolic diseases like type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease. Scientists from McMaster University, Université Laval, and the University of Ottawa discovered that a molecule generated by gut microbes can cross into the bloodstream, where it drives the liver to overproduce glucose and fat. By designing a method to trap this molecule in the gut before it reaches circulation, they achieved striking improvements in blood sugar regulation and fatty liver disease in obese mice. https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-discover-a-surprising-new-way-to-fight-diabetes/ XX Dexcom, which specializes in technology for glucose biosensing, will lay off 350 workers, with nearly 200 of them in San Diego, according to the San Diego Union Tribune. The bulk of the local jobs being lost are focused on Dexcom operations and manufacturing. The Dexcom development follows cutbacks to Verily, a life sciences company that is a subsidiary of Alphabet, Google's corporate parent. Verily's work included a project with Dexcom on wearable glucose sensors. CEO Stephen Gillett, in a memo obtained by the publication, said there will be “workforce reductions across Verily.” A representative for Verily confirmed to Business Insider that “we have made the difficult decision to discontinue manufacturing medical devices and will no longer be supporting them going forward.” https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2025/08/27/report-life-sciences-firm-dexcom-lay-off-200-san-diego-workers/ XX Front office changes at Insulet. Eric Benjamin, former chief product and customer experience officer, will take the role of chief operating officer, effective immediately. Manoj Raghunandanan Mu-NOHJ Rug-a-nun-da-nun to the position of chief growth officer, leading Insulet's new growth organization. The appointments are some of CEO Ashley McEvoy's first changes since she was hired in April. The appointments come after McEvoy outlined four priorities for Insulet on an August earnings call:   enhancing the company's commercial capabilities, building Insulet's brand and direct-to-consumer capabilities, driving growth outside of the U.S. and accelerating the pace of innovation. https://www.medtechdive.com/news/insulet-eric-benjamin-manoj-raghunandanan-appointments/758668/ XX   XX Want to highlight The Children's Diabetes Foundation in Colorado – they held a medal ceremony for patients of the Barbara Davis Center who've lived with Type 1 diabetes for 50 years or more. There were 87 medal recipients in the ceremony including Dana Davis, Executive Director of the Children's Diabetes Foundation and the daughter of the founders of the Barbara Davis Center. Davis shared: "When you got Type1 diabetes in the 70s, they thought you shouldn't have children. They thought you weren't going to live past 30 or 40. It was definitely very different," Davis said.   https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/barbara-davis-center-celebrates-colorado-type-1-diabetes-patients-milestone/

Dean's Chat hosts, Drs. Jensen and Richey, welcome Dr. Laura Brinker to the podcast! Laura Brinker, DPM, was previously a Vice President of Clinical Affairs at Paragon 28, where she drove innovation in foot and ankle surgical solutions. She now has a consulting firm to address advancements of medical devices, regulatory compliance, and clinical trials. With a background in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue and a DPM from Temple University, she completed her residency at the University of Louisville/Jewish Hospital. Dr. Brinker has combined private practice experience, clinical research, and engineering expertise to advance podiatric surgery and medical device development. Enjoy this entrepreneurial discussion with a young leader in our profession!

The Advancement Strategic Communicators Network is a growing national hub for higher education philanthropic communicators. Learn more on the ASC website  (https://asc.ucdavis.edu/)  or join the ASC Linkedin Group (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12740101/) to get connected.Guest Name: Gabrielle Giddings, Associate Vice Chancellor, Campaigns, University of DenverGuest Social: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabriellegiddings/Guest Bio: Gabrielle Giddings is the associate vice chancellor of campaigns at the University of Denver, leading campaign communications, advancement events, and campaign operations for the University's $1B Denver Difference campaign. An advancement leader with 30+ years of experience, she believes clear, authentic storytelling builds donor trust and fuels giving. Previously, she served as assistant vice president for marketing and communications at Temple Health Institutional Advancement and the Lewis Katz School of Medicine, directing an integrated program across the health system, the school, and the university. Her expertise spans campaign communications, high-impact events, direct response, donor and alumni engagement, community relations, and crisis/media management. She holds a B.A. in Archaeology from Bryn Mawr College and an M.S. in Communication Management from Temple University (communication theory and cross-cultural leadership). - - - -Connect With Our Host:Mallory Willsea https://www.linkedin.com/in/mallorywillsea/https://twitter.com/mallorywillseaAbout The Enrollify Podcast Network:The Higher Ed Pulse is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too!Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — The AI Workforce Platform for Higher Ed. Learn more at element451.com.

We are discussing perspective changes in neurology genetics with the crossover of the APOE gene in neuro and cardio as well as telehealth for neurology predictive testing. Segment 1: Is it time for a paradigm shift? Inclusion of APOE  on genetic dyslipidemia panels.   Emily Brown is a certified genetic counselor at the Center for Inherited Heart Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She graduated from the University of Maryland Genetic Counseling Program in 2014 and has practiced in cardiology for the past 10 years. Her main areas of interest include dyslipidemias, and she is a member of the National Lipid Association.   Hannah Ison is a cardiovascular genetic counselor at the Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease. She received her Master's in Medical and Molecular Genetics from Indiana University in 2018, and returned home to California to begin her career. Her primary clinical interest includes working with patients who have inherited lipid conditions in both the adult and pediatric setting. A large part of her role has been focused on developing a Pediatric Lipid Clinic at the Stanford Children's Hospital, allowing her to care for patients across the generations. Hannah was the co-chair of the Dyslipidemia Working Group through the cardiovascular SIG from 2020-2024 where she worked with members to develop dyslipidemia resources. In addition to her work in the lipid space, she also provides inpatient and outpatient genetic counseling to patients with isolated congenital heart disease, and enjoys participating in various research opportunities.    In this segment we discuss: - APOE's relevance in both Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease - Counseling strategies for APOE alleles (ε2, ε3, and ε4), including penetrance, lifestyle modification, and exploration of risk for conditions and symptoms external to Alzheimer's - Case studies highlighting APOE's diagnostic, variant, and treatment insights - The need for standardization, education, and reframing of APOE testing in practice Segment 2: Patient-reported outcomes for remote and in-person visits for genetic counseling in adult neurology.   Rachel A. Paul, MS, CGC and Laynie Dratch, ScM, CGC are board-certified genetic counselors who specialize in adult neurogenetics and work with the Penn Neurogenetics Therapy Center team in Philadelphia, PA (https://www.linkedin.com/company/penn-neurogenetics-therapy-center).   Rachel provides clinical and research genetic counseling services for the Division of Movement Disorders at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests include genetic screening for clinical trials access, remote/telemedicine genetic services, and motivations/barriers for genetics utilization. She graduated cum laude from Temple University in Philadelphia, previously worked as a genetic counseling assistant (GCA) for the Penn neurogenetics program, and completed her training with the Arcadia University (now University of Pennsylvania) Genetic Counseling Program.   Laynie's clinical focus includes frontotemporal degeneration (FTD) spectrum disorders, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and other neurodegenerative conditions. Her research interests include the lived experiences of at-risk individuals, predictive genetic testing considerations, and genetic counseling access and service delivery. She graduated summa cum laude from Colgate University with a BA in neuroscience and a minor in psychology, and completed her genetic counseling masters training at the Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health.   In this segment we discuss: - How COVID-19 pushed neurogenetics counseling from in-person to telehealth. - Why patient satisfaction stayed high across both formats, with video outperforming phone. - What drives visit preferences—travel, tech comfort, privacy, and clinical needs. - Future research to refine protocols, improve access, and explore broader applications.   Would you like to nominate a JoGC article to be featured in the show? If so, please fill out this nomination submission form here. Multiple entries are encouraged including articles where you, your colleagues, or your friends are authors.   Stay tuned for the next new episode of DNA Dialogues! In the meantime, listen to all our episodes Apple Podcasts, Spotify, streaming on the website, or any other podcast player by searching, “DNA Dialogues”.    For more information about this episode visit dnadialogues.podbean.com, where you can also stream all episodes of the show. Check out the Journal of Genetic Counseling here for articles featured in this episode and others.    Any questions, episode ideas, guest pitches, or comments can be sent into DNADialoguesPodcast@gmail.com.    DNA Dialogues' team includes Jehannine Austin, Naomi Wagner, Khalida Liaquat, Kate Wilson and DNA Today's Kira Dineen. Our logo was designed by Ashlyn Enokian. Our current intern is Stephanie Schofield.

Many school choice proponents today focus on what choice does for the students who use it to leave traditional public schools. But one of the original arguments for choice was that, through competition, it would spur traditional public schools to improve.So: Has it?Do choice programs make traditional public schools better? Does the size of these competitive effects depend on the type of choice program? And what other factors might matter for the amount of competitive pressure that choice programs exert on traditional public schools? On this episode of The Report Card, Nat Malkus discusses these questions, and more, with Sarah Cordes. Nat and Sarah discuss ESAs and the new federal tax credit scholarship program, why school transportation matters so much for competitive effects, whether choice programs can be too large, how competition affects school principals, and what effect declining public school enrollments might have on school choice in the coming years.Sarah Cordes is an associate professor of policy, organizational, and leadership studies at Temple University.Show Notes:Competition in Education Markets: Impacts, Perceptions, and Policy ContextsThe Effects of Charter Schools on Neighborhood and School Segregation: Evidence from New York CityIn Pursuit of the Common Good: The Spillover Effects of Charter Schools on Public School Students in New York City

The Food and Drug Administration or FDA regulates roughly 78% of the US food supply. This includes packaged products, food additives, infant formula, ultra-processed foods, and lots more. However, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that 99% of new food ingredients enter our food supply through a legal loophole that skirts FDA oversight and seems, to me at least, to be incredibly risky. Today we're speaking with two authors of a recent legal and policy analysis published in the Journal Health Affairs. They explain what this loophole is and its risks and suggest a new user fee program to both strengthen the FDA's ability to regulate food ingredients and address growing concerns about food safety. Our guests are Jennifer Pomeranz Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at New York University School of Global Public Health and Emily Broad, director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. Interview Summary So Jennifer, let's start with you, help our listeners understand the current situation with food ingredient oversight. And what is this legal loophole that allows food companies to add new ingredients without safety reviews. Sure. So, Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment in 1958, and the idea was to divide food additives and generally recognized as safe ingredients into two different categories. That's where the GRAS term comes from generally recognized as safe? ‘Generally Recognized As Safe' is GRAS. But it circularly defines food additives as something that's not GRAS. So, there's not actually a definition of these two different types of substances. But the idea was that the food industry would be required to submit a pre-market, that means before it puts the ingredient into the marketplace, a pre-market petition to the FDA to review the safety. And then the FDA promulgates a regulation for safe use of a food additive. GRAS ingredients on the other hand, initially thought of as salt, pepper, vinegar, are things like that would just be allowed to enter the food supply without that pre-market petition. The problem is the food industry is the entity that decides which category to place each ingredient. There's no FDA guidance on which category they're supposed to ascribe to these ingredients. What has happened is that the food industry has now entered into the food supply an enormous amount of ingredients under what we call the GRAS loophole, which is allowing it to just bring it to the market without any FDA oversight or even knowledge of the ingredient. So, in essence, what we're having now is that the food industry polices itself on whether to submit this pre-market petition for a food additive or just include it in its products without any FDA knowledge. When you said ‘enormous number of such things,' are we talking dozens, hundreds, thousands? Nobody knows, but the environmental working group did find that 99% of new ingredients are added through this loophole. And that's the concerning part. Well, you can look at some ultra-processed foods and they can have 30 or 40 ingredients on them. That's just one food. You can imagine that at across the food supply, how many things there are. And there are these chemicals that nobody can pronounce. You don't know what's going on, what they are, what they're all about. So, what you're saying is that the food industry decides to put these things in foods. There's some processing reason for putting them in. It's important that the public be protected against harmful ingredients. But the food industry decides what's okay to put in and what's not. Are they required to do any testing? Are there criteria for that kind of testing? Is there any sense that letting the industry police itself amounts to anything that protects the public good? Well, the criteria are supposed to be the same for GRAS or food additives. They're supposed to be meeting certain scientific criteria. But the problem with this is that for GRAS ingredients, they don't have to use published data and they can hold that scientific data to themselves. And you mentioned food labels, the ingredient list, right? That doesn't necessarily capture these ingredients. They use generic terms, corn oil, color additive, food additive whatever. And so, the actual ingredient itself is not necessarily listed on the ingredient list. There is no way to identify them and it's unknown whether they're actually doing the studies. They can engage in these, what are called GRAS panels, which are supposed to be experts that evaluate the science. But the problem is other studies have found that 100% of the people on these GRAS panels have financial conflicts of interest. Okay, so let me see if I have this right. I'm a food company. I develop a new additive to provide color or flavor or fragrance, or it's an emulsifier or something like that. I develop a chemical concoction that hasn't really been tested for human safety. I declare it safe. And the criteria I use for declaring it set safe is putting together a panel of people that I pay, who then in a hundred percent of cases say things are. That's how it works? I can't say that in a hundred percent of cases they say it's safe, but a hundred percent of the people have financial conflicts of interest. That's one of the major concerns there. Well, one can't imagine they would continue to be paid... Exactly. This sounds like a pretty shaky system to be sure. Emily: I wanted to add a couple other really quick things on the last discussion. You were saying, Kelly, like they're using a panel of experts, which indeed are paid by them. That would be best case in some cases. They're just having their own staff say, we think this is generally recognized as safe. And I think there's some examples we can give where there isn't even evidence that they went to even any outside people, even within industry. I think that the takeaway from all of that is that there's really the ability for companies to call all the shots. Make all the rules. Not tell FDA what they're doing. And then as we talked about, not even have anything on the label because it's not a required ingredient if it's, used as part of a processing agent that's not a substance on there. So I was feeling pretty bad when Jennifer is talking about these panels and the heavy conflict... Even worse. Of interest, now I feel worse because that's the best case. Totally. And one other thing too is just you kind of warmed this up by talking about this loophole. When we put an earlier article out that we wrote that was about just this generally recognized as safe, the feedback we got from FDA was this isn't a loophole. Why are you calling this a loophole? And it's pretty clear that it's a loophole, you know? It's big enough to drive thousands of ingredients through. Yes, totally. Emily, you've written about things like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, trans fats, and red dye number three in particular. Both of which FDA has now prohibited in food. Can you walk us through those cases? You asked about partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat, and then red dye three, which are two examples that we talk about a little bit in our piece. Actually, one of those, the partially hydrogenated oils was allowed in food through the generally recognized as safe definition. And the other was not. But they are both really good examples of another real issue that FDA has, which is that not only are they not doing a good job of policing substances going into food on the front end, but they do an even worse job of getting things out of food on the backend, post-market once they know that those substances are really raising red flags. And you raised two of the prime examples we've been talking about. With partially hydrogenated oils these are now banned in foods, but it took an extremely long time. Like the first evidence of harm was in the mid-nineties. By 2005, the Institute of Medicine, which is now the National Academies, said that intake of trans fat, of partially hydrogenated oils, should be as low as possible. And there was data from right around that time that found that 72,000 to 228,000 heart attacks in the US each year were caused by these partially hydrogenated oils. And on FDA's end, they started in early 2000s to require labeling. But it wasn't until 2015 that they passed a final rule saying that these substances were not generally recognized as safe. And then they kept delaying implementation until 2023. It was basically more than 20 years from when there was really clear evidence of harm including from respected national agencies to when FDA actually fully removed them from food. And red dye number three is another good example where there were studies from the 1980s that raised concerns about this red dye. And it was banned from cosmetics in 1990. But they still allowed it to be added to food. And didn't ban it from food until early this year. So early 2025. In large part because one of the other things happening is states are now taking action on some of these substances where they feel like we really need to protect consumers in our states. And FDA has been doing a really poor job. California banned red dye about 18 months before that and really spurred FDA to action. So that 20-year delay with between 72,000 and 228,000 heart attack deaths attributable to the trans fats is the cost of delay and inaction and I don't know, conflicts of interest, and all kinds of other stuff that happened in FDA. So we're not talking about something trivial by any means. These are life and death things are occurring. Yes. Give us another example, if you would, about something that entered the food supply and caused harm but made it through that GRAS loophole. The example that I've talked about both in some of the work we've done together and also in a perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that really focused on why this is an issue. There was this substance added to food called tara flour. It came on the scene in 2022. It was in food prepared by Daily Harvest as like a protein alternative. And they were using it from a manufacturer in South America who said we have deemed this generally recognized as safe. Everything about that is completely legal. They deemed it generally recognized as safe. A company put it into food, and they sold that. Up until that point, that's all legal. What happened was very quickly people started getting really sick from this. And so there were, I think, about 400 people across 39 states got sick. Nearly 200 people ended up in the hospital, some of them with liver failure because of this toxicity of tara flour. And so FDA followed the thread they did help work with the company to do a voluntary recall, but it then took them two years, until May, 2024, to declare tara flour not generally recognized as safe. So I think, in some ways, this is a great example because it shows how it's so immediate, the impact of this substance that, again, was legally added to food with no oversight. In some ways it's a misleading example because I think so many of the substances in food, it's not going to be so clear and so immediate. It's going to be year over year, decade over decade as part of a full diet that these are causing cardiovascular risk, thyroid disease, cancer risk, those kinds of things. I'd love to hear from either of you about this. Why is FDA falling down on the job so badly? Is it that they don't have the money to do the necessary testing? Do they not have the authority? Is there not the political will to do this? Is there complete caving into the food industry? Just let them do what they want and we're going let it go? Jennifer: All of the above? Everything you just said? It's all of the above. Emily: Jen, do you wanna talk about the money side? Because that sort of gets to the genesis of the article we worked on, which was like maybe there's a creative solution to that piece. Yes, I'd love to hear about that because I thought that was a very creative thing that you guys wrote about in your paper. That there would be an industry user fee to help produce this oversight. Tell us what you had in mind with that. And then then convince me that FDA would appropriately use this oversight and do its job. So, the idea in the paper was proposing a comprehensive user fee program for the food branch of the FDA. The FDA currently collects user fees for all of human drugs, animal drugs, medical devices, etc. With Tobacco, it's a hundred percent funded by user fees. But food, it only gets 1% of its funding through user fees. And it's important to note user fees fund processes. They don't fund outcomes. It's not like a bribe. And the idea behind user fees and why industry sometimes supports them is actually to bring predictability to the regulatory state. It brings efficiency to reviews. And then this all allows the industry to anticipate timelines so they can bring products to market and know when they're going be able to do it. In the food context, for example, the FDA is required to respond to those food additives petitions that we talked about within 180 days. But they can't respond in time. And they have a lot of timelines that are required of them in the food context that they can't meet. They can't meet their timelines because they're so underfunded. So, we proposed a comprehensive user fee. But one of the main reasons that we think a user fee is important is to address the pre-market issues that I talked about and the post-market issues that Emily talked about. In order to close that GRAS loophole, first of all, FDA needs to either reevaluate its authorities or Congress needs to change its authorities. But it would need resources to be able to do something pre-market. Some of the ideas we had was that the user fee would fund some type of either pre-market review, pre-market notification, or even just a pre-market system where the FDA determines whether a proposed ingredient should go through the GRAS avenue, or through food additive petition. So at least that there will be some type of pre-market oversight over all the ingredients in the food supply. And then also the FDA is so severely lacking in any type of comprehensive post-market into play, they would have the resources to engage in a more comprehensive post-market review for all the ingredients. Could you see a time, and I bring this up because of lawsuits against the food industry for some of these additives that are going on now. The state attorney's generals are starting to get involved, and as you said, Emily, the some states are taking legislative action to ban certain things in the food supply. Do you think there could come a time when the industry will come to government pleading to have a user fee like this? To provide some standardization across jurisdictions, let's say? So, there's two things. The first is Congress has to pass the user fee, and historically, actually, industry has done exactly what you said. They have gone to Congress and said, you know what? We want user fees because we want a streamlined system, and we want to be able to know when we're bringing products to market. The problem in the context of food for the issues we're talking about is that right now they can use the GRAS loophole. So, they have very little incentive to ask for user fees if they can bring all their ingredients into the market through the GRAS loophole. There are other areas where a user fee is very relevant, such as the infant formula 90 day pre-market notification, or for different claims like health claims. They might want user fees to speed those things up, but in terms of the ingredients, unless we close the GRAS loophole, they'd have little incentive to actually come to the table. But wouldn't legal liability change that? Let's say that some of these lawsuits are successful and they start having to pay large settlements or have the State Attorneys General, for example, come down on them for these kinds of things. If they're legally liable for harm, they're causing, they need cover. And wouldn't this be worth the user fee to provide them cover for what they put in the food supply? Yes, it's great to have the flexibility to have all these things get through the loophole, but it'd be great as well to have some cover so you wouldn't have so much legal exposure. But you guys are the lawyers, so I'm not sure it makes sense. I think you're right that there are forces combining out in the world that are pushing for change here. And I think it's hard to disentangle how much is it that industry's pushing for user fees versus right now I think more willing to consider federal regulatory changes by either FDA or by Congress. At the state level this is huge. There's now becoming a patchwork across states, and I think that is really difficult for industry. We were tracking this year 93 bills in 35 states that either banned an additive in the general public, banned it in schools. Banned ultra-processed foods, which most of the states, interestingly, have all defined differently. But where they have had a definition, it's been tied to various different combinations of additives. So that's going on. And then I think you're right, that the legal cases moving along will push industry to really want clear and better standards. I think there's a good question right now around like how successful will some of these efforts be? But  what we are seeing is real movement, both in FDA and in Congress, in taking action on this. So interestingly, the Health Affairs piece that we worked on was out this spring. But we had this other piece that came out last fall and felt like we were screaming into the void about this is a problem generally recognized as safe as a really big issue. And suddenly that has really changed. And so, you know, in March FDA said they were directed by RFK (Robert F. Kennedy), by HHS (Health and Human Services) to really look into changing their rule on generally recognized as safe. So, I know that's underway. And then in Congress, multiple bills have been introduced. And I know there are several in the works that would address additives and specifically, generally recognized as safe. There's this one piece going on, which is there's forces coalescing around some better method of regulation. I think the question's really going to also be like, will Congress give adequate resources? Because there is also another scenario that I'm worried about that even if FDA said we're going now require at least notification for every substance that's generally recognized as safe. It's a flood of substances. And they just, without more resources, without more staff devoted to this, there's no way that they're going to be able to wade through that. So, I think that either the resources need to come from user fees, or at least partially from user fees, from more appropriations and I think, In my opinion, they are able to do that on their own. Even given where current administrative law stands. Because I think it's very clear that the gist of the statute is that FDA should be overseeing additives. And I think a court would say this is allowing everything to instead go through this alternative pathway. But I really think FDA's going to need resources to manage this. And perhaps more of a push from Congress to make sure that they really do it to the best of their ability. I was going to say there's also an alternative world where we don't end up spending any of these resources, and they require the industry just to disclose all the ingredients they've added to food and put it on a database. This is like low hanging fruit, not very expensive, doesn't require funding. And then the NGOs, I hope, would go to work and say, look at this. There is no safety data for these ingredients. You know, because right now we just can't rely on FDA to do anything unless they get more funding to do something. So, if FDA doesn't get funding, then maybe this database where houses every ingredient that's in the food supply as a requirement could be a low resource solution. Jennifer, I'll come back to you in a minute because I'd like to ask how worried should we be about all this stuff that's going into food. But Emily, let me ask you first, does FDA have the authority to do what it needs to do? Let's say all of a sudden that your wish was granted and there were user fees would it then be able to do what needs to be done? I think certainly to be able to charge these user fees in almost all areas, it right now doesn't have that authority, and Congress would need to act. There's one small area which is within the Food Safety Modernization Act for certain types of like repeat inspections or recalls or there's a couple other. FDA isn't charging fees right now because they haven't taken this one step that they need to take. But they do have the authority if they just take those steps. But for everything else, Congress has to act. I think the real question to me is because we now know so many of these substances are going through this GRAS pathway, the question is really can they do everything they need to do on their own to close that loophole? And again, my opinion is Congress could make it clear and if Congress were to act, it would be better. Like they could redefine it in a way that was much more clear that we are drawing a real line. And most things actually should be on the additive side of the line rather than the generally recognized as safe side of the line. But even with their current authority, with the current definition, I think FDA could at least require notification because they're still drawing a line between what's required for additives, which is a very lengthy pre-market process with, you know, a notice and comment procedure and all of these things. My take is FDA do what you can do now. Let's get the show on the road. Let's take steps here to close up the loophole. And then Congress takes time. But they definitely can even strengthen this and give a little more, I think, directives to FDA as to how to make sure that this loophole doesn't recur down the line. In talks that I've given recently, I've shown an ingredient list from a food that people will recognize. And I ask people to try to guess what that food is from its ingredient list. This particular food has 35 ingredients. You know, a bunch of them that are very hard to pronounce. Very few people would even have any idea at all what those ingredients do. There's no sense at all about how ingredient number 17 would interact with ingredient 31, etc. And it just seems like it's complete chaos. And I don't want to take you guys outside your comfort zone because your backgrounds are law. But Jennifer, let me ask you this. You have a background in public health as well. There are all kinds of reasons to be worried about this, aren't there? There are the concerns about the safety of these things, but then there's a concern about what these ultra-processed ingredients do to your metabolism, your ability to control your weight, to regulate your hunger and things like that. It sounds this is a really important thing. And it's affecting almost everybody in the country. The percentage of calories that are now coming from ultra-processed foods is over 50% in both children and adults. So it sounds like there's really reason to worry. Would you agree? Yes. And also, the FDA is supposed to be overseeing the cumulative effects of the ingredients and it doesn't actually enforce that regulation. Its own regulation that it's supposed to evaluate the cumulative effects. It doesn't actually enforce this. So by cumulative effects do you mean the chronic effects of long term use? And, having these ingredients across multiple products within one person's consumption. Also, the FDA doesn't look at things like the effect on the gut microbiome, neurotoxicity, even cancer risk, even though they're supposed to, they say that if something is GRAS, they don't need to look at it because cancer risk is relegated only to food additives. So here we're at a real issue, right? Because if everything's entering through the GRAS loophole, then they're not looking at carcinogen effects. So, I think there is a big risk and as Emily had said earlier, that these are sometimes long-term risks versus that acute example of tara flour that we don't know. And we do know from the science, both older and emerging science, that ultra-processed food has definite impact on not only consumption, increased consumption, but also on diet related diseases and other health effects. And by definition what we're talking about here are ultra-processed foods. These ingredients are only found in ultra-processed foods. So, we do know that there is cause for concern. It's interesting that you mentioned the microbiome because we've recorded a cluster of podcasts on the microbiome and another cluster of podcasts on artificial sweeteners. Those two universes overlap a good bit because the impact of the artificial sweeteners on some of them, at least on the microbiome, is really pretty negative. And that's just one thing that goes into these foods. It really is pretty important. By the way, that food with 35 ingredients that I mentioned is a strawberry poptart. Jennifer: I know that answer! Emily: How do you know that? Jennifer: Because I've seen Kelly give a million talks. Yes, she has. Emily: I was wondering, I was like, are we never going to find out? So the suspense is lifted. Let me end with this. This has been highly instructive, and I really appreciate you both weighing in on this. So let me ask each of you, is there reason to be optimistic that things could improve. Emily, I'll start with you. So, I've been giving this talk the past few months that's called basically like Chronic Disease, Food Additives and MAHA, like What Could Go Right and What Could Go Wrong. And so, I'm going give you a very lawyerly answer, which is, I feel optimistic because there's attention on the issue. I think states are taking action and there's more attention to this across the political spectrum, which both means things are happening and means that the narrative changing, like people are getting more aware and calling for change in a way that we weren't seeing. On the flip side, I think there's a lot that could go wrong. You know, I think some of the state bills are great and some of them are maybe not so great. And then I think this administration, you have an HHS and FDA saying, they're going to take action on this in the midst of an administration that's otherwise very deregulatory. In particular, they're not supposed to put out new regulations if they can get rid of 10 existing ones. There are some things you can do through guidance and signaling, but I don't think you can really fix these issues without like real durable legislative change. So, I'm sorry to be one of the lawyers here. I think the signals are going in the right direction, but jury is out a little bit on how well we'll actually do. And I hope we can do well given the momentum. What do you think, Jennifer? I agree that the national attention is very promising to these issues. The states are passing laws that are shocking to me. That Texas passing a warning label law, I would never have thought in the history of the world, that Texas would be the one to pass a warning label law. They're doing great things and I actually have hope that something can come of this. But I am concerned at the federal level of the focus on deregulation may make it impossible. User fees is an example of where they won't have to regulate, but they could provide funding to the FDA to actually act in areas that it has the authority to act. That is one solution that could actually work under this administration if they were amenable to it. But I also think in some ways the states could save us. I worry, you know, Emily brought up the patchwork, which is the key term the industry uses to try to get preemption. I do worry about federal preemption of state actions. But the states right now are the ones saving us. California is the first to save the whole nation. The food industry isn't going to create new food supply for California and then the rest of the country. And then it's the same with other states. So, the states might be the ones that actually can make some real meaningful changes and get some of the most unsafe ingredients out of the food supply, which some of the states have now successfully done. Bios Emily Broad Leib is a Clinical Professor of Law, Director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, and Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, the nation's first law school clinic devoted to providing legal and policy solutions to the health, economic, and environmental challenges facing our food system. Working directly with clients and communities, Broad Leib champions community-led food system change, reduction in food waste, food access and food is medicine interventions, and equity and sustainability in food production. Her scholarly work has been published in the California Law Review, Wisconsin Law Review, Harvard Law & Policy Review, Food & Drug Law Journal, and Journal of Food Law & Policy, among others. Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

Those dreaded SEPTA cuts begin on Sunday, with still no state budget agreement in sight. We'll tell you what to prepare for. And school starts in Philadelphia on Monday. KYW Newsradio's Mike DeNardo tells us how the district is getting ready amidst the SEPTA cuts and a potential teacher strike, plus he previews his new weekly conversation with Superintendent Dr. Tony Watlington. We also hear about Stacy Garrity's bid for the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania Governor, changes to your PGW energy bill, and a preview of Temple University football under a new head coach. 00:00 Intro 02:08 Be prepared, SEPTA cuts are coming 07:08 Back to school with several unknowns 12:47 Stacy Garrity announces campaign for PA Governor 18:30 Federal cuts eliminate a program to prevent lead poisoning; gas bills increasing, but less than expected 24:40 Mütter Museum updates policies on acquiring human remains 28:50 Temple's new football coach previews the upcoming season Listen to The Week in Philly with Matt Leon and our team of reporters on KYW Newsradio every Saturday at 5am and 3pm, and Sunday at 3pm. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

“Ladies and gentlemen, the Bronx is burning!” That legendary and apocryphal phrase, allegedly uttered by announcers during the 1977 World Series as flames rose above Yankee Stadium, seemed to encapsulate an entire era in this nation's urban history. Across that decade, a wave of arson coursed through American cities, destroying entire neighborhoods home to poor communities of color. Yet as historian Bench Ansfield demonstrates in Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City (Norton, 2025), the vast majority of the fires were not set by residents, as is commonly assumed, but by landlords looking to collect insurance payouts. Driven by perverse incentives—new government-sponsored insurance combined with tanking property values—landlords hired “torches,” mostly Black and Brown youth, to set fires in the buildings, sometimes with people still living in them. Tens of thousands of families lost their homes to these blazes, yet for much of the 1970s, tenant vandalism and welfare fraud stood as the prevailing explanations for the arson wave, effectively indemnifying landlords. Ansfield's book, based on a decade of research, introduces the term “brownlining” for the destructive insurance practices imposed on poor communities of color under the guise of racial redress. Ansfield shows that as the FIRE industries—finance, insurance, and real estate— eclipsed manufacturing in the 1970s, they began profoundly reshaping Black and Brown neighborhoods, seeing them as easy sources of profit. At every step, Ansfield charts the tenant-led resistance movements that sprung up in the Bronx and elsewhere, as well as the explosion of popular culture around the fires, from iconic movies like The Towering Inferno to hit songs such as “Disco Inferno.” Ultimately, they show how similarly pernicious dynamics around insurance and race are still at play in our own era, especially in regions most at risk of climate shocks. Bench Ansfield is Assistant Professor of History at Temple University. They hold a PhD in American Studies from Yale University and won the Allan Nevins Prize for the best dissertation in American history from the Society of American Historians. They live in Philadelpha, Pennsylvania. Bluesky. Website. Brian Hamilton is chair of the Department of History and Social Science at Deerfield Academy. Twitter. Website. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

“Ladies and gentlemen, the Bronx is burning!” That legendary and apocryphal phrase, allegedly uttered by announcers during the 1977 World Series as flames rose above Yankee Stadium, seemed to encapsulate an entire era in this nation's urban history. Across that decade, a wave of arson coursed through American cities, destroying entire neighborhoods home to poor communities of color. Yet as historian Bench Ansfield demonstrates in Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City (Norton, 2025), the vast majority of the fires were not set by residents, as is commonly assumed, but by landlords looking to collect insurance payouts. Driven by perverse incentives—new government-sponsored insurance combined with tanking property values—landlords hired “torches,” mostly Black and Brown youth, to set fires in the buildings, sometimes with people still living in them. Tens of thousands of families lost their homes to these blazes, yet for much of the 1970s, tenant vandalism and welfare fraud stood as the prevailing explanations for the arson wave, effectively indemnifying landlords. Ansfield's book, based on a decade of research, introduces the term “brownlining” for the destructive insurance practices imposed on poor communities of color under the guise of racial redress. Ansfield shows that as the FIRE industries—finance, insurance, and real estate— eclipsed manufacturing in the 1970s, they began profoundly reshaping Black and Brown neighborhoods, seeing them as easy sources of profit. At every step, Ansfield charts the tenant-led resistance movements that sprung up in the Bronx and elsewhere, as well as the explosion of popular culture around the fires, from iconic movies like The Towering Inferno to hit songs such as “Disco Inferno.” Ultimately, they show how similarly pernicious dynamics around insurance and race are still at play in our own era, especially in regions most at risk of climate shocks. Bench Ansfield is Assistant Professor of History at Temple University. They hold a PhD in American Studies from Yale University and won the Allan Nevins Prize for the best dissertation in American history from the Society of American Historians. They live in Philadelpha, Pennsylvania. Bluesky. Website. Brian Hamilton is chair of the Department of History and Social Science at Deerfield Academy. Twitter. Website. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history