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.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Robert Meade, an expert in thermal physiology, discuss the dangers posed to human health by the rising heat. Dr Meade explains that extreme heat is a combination of air temperature and humidity, which can strain the body's ability to regulate temperature. He notes that older adults and women may be more vulnerable to heat stress due to reduced sweating and cardiovascular function. They talk about the differences between heat stress and heat stroke and how to identify symptoms to keep an eye on if you are in a hot environment. The discussion highlights the challenges of accurately measuring heat-related deaths and the importance of adaptive strategies, such as cool roofs and reflective pavements, to mitigate heat stress. Dr. Meade also mentions an ongoing study in India on the heat stress experienced by informal workers.

Key Takeaways:

• Heat stress is more than just temperature and humidity. Activity, clothing, location, and anything else that impedes and impacts the body can change the level of heat stress.

• What constitutes extreme heat will vary from person to person.

• Evaporative cooling is impacted by humidity - it's much harder to evaporate fluid from the skin into the air when there's already a lot of moisture in the air.

• The impacts of heat on the body are difficult to correctly identify in hospitals or medical records.

"The response the body takes to help maintain safe internal body temperatures implicates many bodily systems. Heat has a kind of widespread cascading effects that are just really hard to correctly identify." — Dr. Robert Meade

Connect with Dr. Robert Meade:

Professional Bio: https://hsph.harvard.edu/profile/robert-meade/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-meade-09536520a

X: https://x.com/robertdmeade

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. Brandon Sparks discuss the phenomenon of involuntary celibacy (incels). Dr. Sparks, an applied forensic psychologist, explains that incels are men experiencing long-term involuntary celibacy, often due to social exclusion and bullying during adolescence. Incels, primarily aged 18-30, are less likely to be in education or employment. The term "incel" originated from a woman's project at Carleton University. Incels often self-identify online, where they discuss the "Black Pill" philosophy, a nihilistic view of society. Dr. Sparks highlights the need for empathy and understanding to address their isolation and frustration.

Key Takeaways:

• The modern iteration is often “incel” refers exclusively to men who are experiencing involuntary celibacy and they've been experiencing this for quite some time. They've come to believe that they can't form romantic or sexual relationships, and that's causing them an extreme amount of distress.

• For women who identify with the experience of an incel, they are often called “femcels”.

• There's a lot of incels that are looking to talk to people and to share their experiences.

• One of the biggest risk factors in adolescence is the people who are already being left behind. This seems to indicate that there's certainly a subset of people who struggle to catch up.

"Incel philosophy as we know it, based on forum analysis they've created this worldview called the “Black Pill”, which is a nihilistic perspective of the world. It's this very transactional view of relationships, which is quite problematic because they're viewing women as master manipulators, playing this big game plan, and that men are just a means to an end for them." — Dr. Brandon Sparks

Connect with Dr. Brandon Sparks:

Website: https://www.brandontsparks.com/

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=vWzf3QMAAAAJ&hl=en

Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandon-Sparks-4

Twitter: https://x.com/brandon__sparks

Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/brandonsparks.bsky.social

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 discusses the impact of budgetary cuts on scientific research and the Nations Report Card from the Department of Education. She explains what the funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation supports, and argues how cutting overhead costs to 15% shuts down scientific progress. She also highlights the importance of the Nations Report Card, which has tracked student performance since 1969, for informing educational policy. Markow urges listeners to contact their representatives to reinstate funding for the National Report Card.

Key Takeaways:

• Laboratories are in buildings - buildings with plumbing, lights, air conditioning, heat, power to operate equipment, and more that all require maintenance, These are paid for by the overhead, not from the research grants

• Test results are critical for understanding where improvements need to be made in education, both private and public. We want our students to be competent.

• When people aren’t reading, they are missing information that is vital to their wellbeing and the well-being of their communities.

"When you hear complaints that these overhead costs are excessive or a rip-off, think about it. Clearly, they're essential and they shouldn't be cut." — Therese Markow, Ph.D.

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.