The opinions expressed by Dr. Beyrer are his own and not those of his employer.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Chris Beyrer discuss the importance of USAID, highlighting its role in global health and development, particularly through programs like PEPFAR, which has saved 25 million lives and prevented millions of HIV infections. Dr. Beyrer emphasizes that the economic and security benefits of USAID, whose support amounts to less than 1% of the total US federal budget, have had important benefits at home in the United States. It protects us from infectious diseases like Ebola and MPOX. Cuts to USAID could lead to a resurgence of HIV, polio, malaria, and other diseases. Finally, Dr. Beyrer advocates for listeners to become informed, to understand what is happening, and to engage in their citizenship rights for the benefit of all.

Key Takeaways:

• By law, USAID was only allowed to buy food from US farmers, but stopping USAID has thrown farmers into crisis due to the unstable purchasing now.

• Until January 20, 2025, USAID was supporting about 21 million people worldwide on antiviral therapy. It was also one of the biggest funders and supporters of HIV prevention because treatment is not enough - you must reduce new infections to get out from under the treatment burden.

• The only group right now that we are supporting PrEP for is pregnant or lactating, breastfeeding mothers who are at risk for HIV. Everybody else who is on PrEP has been abruptly halted. 2025 could be the year that we see the beginning of the second wave of the AIDS pandemic.

"These programs really save lives. They have saved millions of lives. We know that; we've documented it carefully. It is so important to be informed, to stay informed, to understand what is happening, and really to engage. Now, more than ever, engage in your citizenship rights." — Dr. Chris Beyrer

Connect with Dr. Chris Beyrer:

Professional Bio: https://globalhealth.duke.edu/people/beyrer-chris

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Adam Berinsky discuss political rumors and misinformation. Dr. Berinsky defines rumors as unsubstantiated claims without evidence, emphasizing their social transmission. He identifies two factors influencing rumor belief: conspiratorial thinking and partisan polarization. Berinsky's research reveals that while some people firmly believe rumors, others are ambivalent and more open to correction. He suggests focusing on these undecided individuals rather than entrenched believers. Berinsky also highlights the role of political leaders in spreading misinformation and the need for creative messaging to counteract it.

Key Takeaways:

• Political rumors (or misinformation) are claims that are unsubstantiated by the balance of publicly available information.

• Republicans and Democrats are equally (or very nearly) likely to believe different pieces of misinformation that they're presented with. Currently, Republican politicians are more likely to spread misinformation.

• The more attention you pay to politics, the more likely you are to listen to people on your side.

• Better-educated and more informed people should be more likely to reject misinformation, but what we find is that actually, they're more attuned to the partisan angle of that information.

"Maybe our effort is better spent on trying to get these people who are not sure where they stand, because those are the people that we can move." — Dr. Adam Berinsky

Connect with Dr. Adam Berinsky:

Professional Bio: https://polisci.mit.edu/people/adam-berinsky

Website: https://berinsky.mit.edu/

Book: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691158389/political-rumors

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-berinsky-7b9830/

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

BlueSky: @CriticallySpeaking.bsky.social

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. James Alcock discuss what near-death experiences are and the increase in them in recent years due to improvements in medical technology. While near-death experiences (NDEs) have been known about for a long time, we, as a scientific community, are starting to understand more about what they mean for neurological processes. However, despite knowing the science of what is happening, NDEs and how they are experienced are subject to one’s own beliefs, context, and even religious framework. Dr. Alcock and Therese also discuss the relationship between near-death experiences, hallucinations, and even reactions to various drugs and how they create powerful subjective experiences.

Key Takeaways:

• In surveys taken in the United States, about 3% of people have reported having near-death experiences. This number can be difficult to assess as they are based on memory and the surveys are taken, sometimes years after the incident in question.

• It is difficult to prove near-death experiences in research studies due to the subjectivity of what is being perceived.

• Even with the science that we do know, those who have near-death experiences (including neurologists who have studied the brain) report the reality of the feelings and perceptions that are felt in these experiences.

"Context is important. Our interpretation is important. And it's very difficult, if not impossible, for any individual to distinguish between reality and subjective fantasies in those situations." — Dr. James Alcock

Connect with Dr. James Alcock:

Wikipedia Page: James Alcock

Book: Belief: What it Means to Believe and Why Our Convictions are so Compelling

Magazine: Skeptical Inquirer

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Deborah Lang discuss the rise of skin cancer, particularly melanoma, and its causes. Dr. Lang explains that skin cancers are derived from different skin cells: basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, both linked to UV exposure, and melanoma, which can be UV-independent and linked to genetic susceptibility. Dr. Lang emphasizes the importance of early detection and personalized medicine, noting that melanoma can metastasize early. She also highlights the role of genetic mutations in cancer development and the impact of funding cuts on cancer research.

Key Takeaways:

• There are three major types of skin cancer. About 80% are basal cell carcinomas.

• Because we are living longer, we have an increased chance of cancer. However, other reasons for increased skin cancer include increased UV exposure and tanning beds.

• We are all born with moles, but if you notice a change or have a lot (such as over 100), it is worth getting them checked out.

• Between 5 and 25 minutes of sun exposure per day is enough for your vitamin D production (less for lighter skin). However, sunlight has other benefits for your health and circadian rhythm.

"Melanomas are derived from a different type of cell - from cells that produce pigment called melanocytes. While this type of cancer is much rarer than basal cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, it is the most lethal type of skin cancer." — Dr. Deborah Lang

Episode References:

• NIH: https://www.nih.gov/

• American Cancer Society: https://www.cancer.gov/

• Leo Foundation: https://leo-foundation.org/en/

Connect with Dr. Deborah Lang:

Professional Bio: https://profiles.bu.edu/Deborah.Lang

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborah-lang-691158208/

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Deborah-Lang-38651370

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Anice Lowen discuss the bird flu outbreak, highlighting the virus’s spread from birds to dairy cattle and recorded cases of human infection. Dr. Lowen explains the differences between influenza A and influenza B viruses, talks about which type causes pandemics, and what we can do to try to prevent future pandemics from these flu strains.

Key Takeaways:

• An epidemic affects a specific region, a pandemic is global. Only Influenza A viruses can cause pandemics and are often transmitted via birds and mammals.

• Humans can become infected with viruses from animals only if we are exposed to those animals.

• Flu epidemics happen every winter due to the circulation of influenza A and B viruses. Pandemics happen sporadically, the last four were well documented in 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009.

• Bird flu can become serious if human to another. So monitoring is critical.

"Viruses circulating in these domestic animals actually present the greatest pandemic risk simply because humans are exposed to those animals more than they are to wild animals." — Dr. Anice Lowen

Connect with Dr. Anice Lowen:

Professional Bio: biomed.emory.edu/PROGRAM_SITES/MMG/about-us/faculty-detail/anice-lowen-phd

Website: https://www.lowenlab.com/

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Joshua Weitz discuss his book "Asymptomatic: The Silent Spread of COVID-19 and the Future of Pandemics" and his work in understanding the risk of COVID spread from as early as spring of 2020. He highlights the double-edged sword of asymptomatic infections, discusses what governments could do to help mitigate at-risk populations, and what we, as individuals, can do to help keep everyone safe. Dr. Weitz criticizes early predictions of COVID-19's disappearance by mid-2020, attributing the error to underestimated infections and behavioral changes. He emphasizes the importance of public health measures, vaccination, and testing, especially in vulnerable populations. Finally, Dr. Weitz talks about the role of asymptomatic transmission in future pandemics and the need for proactive public health investments.

Key Takeaways:

• Not having symptoms doesn’t mean that you never had COVID-19. Nearly 50% of cases in early 2020 were asymptomatic (though that number varies by age).

• There was not one single group of modelers trying to make sense of the data coming out of the pandemic. As such, different projections can come out even from the same pandemic information.

• For infectious diseases, our behavior is correlated with the risk.

• COVID is not the flu. COVID is not gone, and we now have a double seasonal burden from both flu and COVID.

• If everyone is asymptomatic or it was always mild, we wouldn't worry. We wouldn't have stopped things or been so upset just by cases or infections; it was the severe ones and the number of severe cases that dictated the approach to control, as the transmission potential by asymptomatic individuals was not considered.
  
  

"The double-edged sword is good news, in some sense, for individuals, but it's bad news for populations, because many more people can be infected. They're contagious and interact with more people. When we try to think from a public health perspective, not just a personal health perspective, then we have to be concerned." — Dr. Joshua Weitz

Connect with Dr. Joshua Weitz:

Professional Bio: https://biology.umd.edu/people/dr-joshua-weitz

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-weitz-5866599/

Substack: http://joshuasweitz.substack.com/

Website: https://weitzgroup.umd.edu/

Book: Asymptomatic: The Silent Spread of COVID-19 and the Future of Pandemics https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/53730/asymptomatic

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

When we hear the term tumor or cancer, the image that often comes to mind is a bunch of bad cells next to normal ones, and growing. Like many things, it's just not that simple. How do the normal cells turn bad? Can our immune systems detect the cancer cell and kill it? Why does some initially successful chemotherapy stop working? Why does cancer spread? These are all great questions, since cancers of one kind or another will affect so many of us either as patients, friends, or loved ones. Well, basic science is providing some critical answers. In today’s episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Ajit Nirmal discuss just these questions.

Key Takeaways:

• If we didn't have an immune system, we'd all get cancer.

• Drug resistance continues to be the principal limiting factor to achieving cures in patients with cancer.

• Once a normal cell has turned cancerous, it is likely dividing much faster than a normal cell. This rapid cell division is error-prone and can lead to the accumulation of mutations at a much faster rate.

"I truly believe, with adequate basic understanding of the molecular underpinnings of cancer evolution, and how the tumor microenvironment helps it or promotes it, we will be able to predict the best course of action to target all cancer cells up until the very last one, and consequently to the patient." — Dr. Ajit Nirmal

Connect with Dr. Ajit Nirmal:

Professional Bio: https://scholar.harvard.edu/ajitjohnson/home

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajitjohnsonnirmal/

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Jodi Gilman discuss the implications of cannabis use on health and safety. Dr. Gilman explains that THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, binds to cannabinoid receptors in the brain, affecting areas involved in emotion, memory, and decision-making. Cannabis use can lead to long-term brain alterations, particularly in adolescents, frequent users, and those using high-potency products. Dr. Gilman highlights the risks of cannabis-induced psychosis, depression, and anxiety, especially in those with a family history of psychosis. She also notes the lack of evidence for medical marijuana's efficacy and the challenges in detecting cannabis impairment.

Key Takeaways:

• Edibles typically last longer than smoked or vaped cannabis, but it takes longer to feel the effects. It can take 30-60 minutes to reach the brain.

• The three things that make cannabis risky are the age you start to use cannabis, the frequency of use, and the potency of the product you are using. Those three factors increase the likelihood of long-term alterations on the brain, structurally and functionally.

• Cannabis is a psychoactive substance, like alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, and cocaine; it is addictive to some people. It is estimated that 1 in 5 people who use cannabis will become addicted.

• THC impairs attention, it impairs coordination, and it impairs reaction time - all of these are critical for driving. THC is thought to double the risk of a crash.

"People think cannabis is safe, like bubble gum. It’s not bubble gum. It's a psychoactive compound that affects your brain, and you really need to be cautious about these products." — Dr. Jodi Gilman

Connect with Dr. Jodi Gilman:

Professional Bio: https://researchers.mgh.harvard.edu/profile/4080912/Jodi-Gilman

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jodi-gilman-474a4ab4/

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.