10 Burst results for "Amy dr marcus"

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on The Journal.

The Journal.

11:46 min | 10 months ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on The Journal.

"Movies and also writes jingles for commercials. We used to do this one Whole I try to do it over the piano when also I haven't Sung in a while so pillsbury my heart to yours yes. Andrew might be singing jingles now but a few weeks ago he was sick with covert nineteen first. His taste and smell changed for me. It smells like rotting fruit. Almost anything I tried to eat or anything. I tried to drink other than water or gatorade was sort of mildly repulsive. He developed other symptoms to about a weekend. Things started to take a turn for the worse the worse that it was the feeling of kind of like drowning. 'cause you were breathing out but you couldn't really breathe in very far so with became kind of a mental exercise to train myself to breathe more and more rapidly that's around with. Andrew's wife stepped in and she said this is more than you know. I think we need to try to handle here and I basically agreed in and we went. We went to the hospital. Andrew spent three days at the hospital getting oxygen through a mask. Once his oxygen level stabilized. He was released to continue his recovery from home as he felt better. Andrew started looking for ways to help you know when she survives something. If you could possibly help somebody else out it's required it's not heroic to me. It's just a thing that you should probably do after you've been through it and you made it you know soon. He found his opportunity to help his wife heard from Dr. She knows at a New York hospital. Who was looking to get in touch with covert survivors like Andrew? Because Cova survivors have special potential treatment coursing through their veins. It's contained in their plasma. Plasma is one of the products. That's in your blood. And it's where the antibodies are amy. Dr Marcus Covers Health. And she says doctors are really interested in these antibodies. Antibodies are the proteins that allow your immune system to identify an attack something that it perceives as an infectious agent. They go in your system and try to fight off the virus. It sort of sounds like a special weapon that your immune system figured out how to make after it had fought off in defeated the virus correct for people who've recovered from cove nineteen. Their blood is full of these. Antibodies AND DOCTORS. WanNa get those antibodies out. Doctors find covered patients and get a blood donation from them. What they do is this process where you're kind of hooked up to an IV in each arm and your blood is taken from one arm in it goes into a machine that filters out the plasma and then your red blood cells are returned back to you simultaneously and they're able to transfused that plasma with the antibodies into a sick patient in the hopes that it will help that patient also neutralize the virus and have a better outcome this technique of taking plasma from a recovered person and putting it into the body of a sick person isn't new. This approach has been used in the past. It was used during the one thousand nine hundred eighteen during the Spanish flu. It's been used when there have been other kinds of infectious outbreaks such as measles outbreaks. It was used also during the SARS crisis and it was also used in China recently early studies from China or showing the plasma can be ineffective treatment in covert patients and if it proves to be effective at large scale. The potential is huge. There's two main ways. Doctors can use the treatment. One they can give it to sick patients to help them recover faster and two. They can give it to people who aren't sick at all but are at a high risk. People like healthcare workers to help their immune systems fight off the virus before they get sick when Andrew got out of the hospital. He knew he wanted to help. But donating plasma wasn't on his mind initially he thought maybe he could be useful in other ways as someone who survived the illness and might be immune from getting it again. You know I'm in a unique position having been there and gone through it. I'm in a unique position to do something. The first thing I thought of was volunteering at the hospital because I wouldn't have to wear all that stuff but Andrew might actually need that protective gear. Amy Says Doctors Aren't sure whether survivors are immune. One of the questions. That we still don't know is whether people can get reinfected. I mean yes. We think that people may be able to return to form of normal life if they've survived this infection but every scientists I've talked to has said I have more questions than answers. I don't think anyone is yet saying to survivors. You know you have nothing to worry about. But donating. Plasma is something survivors like Andrew can do without worry and so thousands of people like him are lining up to donate every single. Life is a is a person with a family and children are people who love them. You know if you could do anything to save one person. You should do it right now. Doctors are saying that patients must be symptom free and tested negative for the Krona virus before they can donate plasma in some of the first patients in the US who are hitting that milestone are just twenty miles away from Andrew in the New York suburb of new Rochelle in new Rochelle. There was an early outbreak of people who got Cova. Did they had a blood drive. Essentially plasma drive where hospitals sent mobile units over to a synagogue and new Rochelle and I spoke with someone who helped organize the effort and he said that they had seven hundred people who had signed up on an email list who said that they were recovered patients and that they would be willing to be screened to become potential donors. It's almost like a wartime footing. Where all the good citizens are coming forward and saying. I'd like to help the effort. I'd like to help but figuring out if the people who want to help are the right type of donor. Is The big challenge facing doctors right now. Here's what one doctor told Amy. One of the first things. One of the organizers said to me is that he didn't see the main obstacle really is being finding plasma donors. He felt that there were so many people who are willing to donate and willing to volunteer. He saw the key challenges as being logistical ones. After the break the challenges facing doctors and scientists who want to push plasma therapy into the mainstream. Hey went here. From signs passes out show takes on the messy welded Muse and Internet fights to find out what's real. What's not what somewhere in between Wayne and the season our show is all about the corona virus. We're answering questions like should we be wearing homemade mosques. Like from Teasha it's all those properties that we like in our T. shirt make them problematic to US as fast. Listen for free on spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. To search for Science v S when welcome back scientists are quickly realizing that there are big challenges to getting a lot of plasma first of all. Medical workers are focused on treating patients meaning. There aren't many despair for plasma collection. And there may not even be enough donors to treat everyone who's sick. There's also the bigger question of figuring out who should donate in the first place. That's especially hard because testing hasn't been readily available in the US and doctors would like to collect plasma from people who definitely had covert nineteen. They want to start with people who did receive a test and know that they were positive. They need to also give those people a second. Cova test to make sure that they're now negative because even if they feel better they need to make sure that they're negative for the virus because some people can still be positive and not show symptoms so they need to take a second test tests. Swallows RAMPING UP. It's been in short supply and not everybody who needs to get tested has been tested. Probably know who the best donor is like. Is it best to get? Antibodies from a donor. Who didn't get very sick or someone who got very sick. So that's a great question and I actually had posed that to one of the doctors I said to the doctor would someone who had a really terrible time in the hospital but managed to come through. Would that be your ideal donor? Antibodies and the doctor said to me we don't know what about someone who their immune system was so great that they were positive for Cova did but didn't have any serious symptoms or any serious experience of disease with those people be better donors because maybe they have some kind of revved up system. That's great at fighting off a virus. Or do you want someone who went through the ringer and managed to come through. And maybe they're the best donors and if it turns out that the best donors are the ones that experienced the mildest symptoms. If any at all you probably wouldn't even be able to get their plasma because those are the people that are the least likely to have had a test to find out. If they ever even had it correct especially. Let's say in New York. A lot of people who were experiencing symptoms would call their doctors and say on experiencing symptoms and many of the doctors would say it's possible that you do have it or it. Sounds like you do have symptoms that fit into this but you don't fit into what the criteria for people who should be getting the tests because the tests are in such shortage right. Now we're not going to be able to test you once Dr. Do eventually find the right people with the right testing records. They also have to find a safe location for donors to congregate just in case. There is still contagious. You have a situation in the state of new and other states where people are being told to stay in their homes. And so you need to figure out. Well how can we get them to places where they could donate blood? How do we move these people and transport them in a safe fashion? How do we get them out of their homes to do these essential medical procedures? You don't want in the course of them doing a good deed to endanger anyone else's health the logistical and scientific questions about who are the best donors is just one piece of the puzzle. The other is how to actually treat sick patients. Once you get the plasma. There are many many scientific questions that still need to be resolved. What's the right amount of antibodies that you would need at? What course during the disease would you want to give these antibodies? When would someone be so seriously? Ill that giving this plasma with the. Antibodies won't make any difference and therefore maybe you shouldn't give it to them given all these hurdles and all these questions are scientists optimistic that it's worth the effort. The feeling.

Andrew US Cova Amy New York gatorade measles China New York hospital Dr Marcus spotify Rochelle Dr. She Wayne
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

WSJ The Future of Everything

02:31 min | 1 year ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

"<Music> <Music> <Speech_Music_Female> I don't know <SpeakerChange> but that's <Speech_Music_Female> that's that's <Speech_Music_Female> kind of the thing. I'd <Speech_Music_Male> like to know like <Music> to know more of <Music> <Music> <Music> <Speech_Music_Female> what <Speech_Female> we have. In common <Speech_Female> with. People who share there <Speech_Female> are specific <Speech_Female> genetic code <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> and how we connect <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> with them is <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> at the heart of many of <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> the DNA stories. We've <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> heard <Speech_Female> over time <Speech_Female> as the databases grow <Speech_Female> and the revelations they <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> contain ripple <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> out. It's <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> likely even more <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> people will be asking <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> those questions <Speech_Female> in the future. <Speech_Female> That may lead <Speech_Female> us to rethink <Speech_Female> reconfigure <Speech_Female> and even redefine <Speech_Female> our <Speech_Female> notions <SpeakerChange> of family. <Speech_Music_Female> I think <Speech_Female> ultimately we may <Speech_Music_Female> also end up with DNA <Speech_Music_Female> tests families. <Speech_Female> It <Speech_Female> could be this whole <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> number of <Speech_Female> people that you <Speech_Female> find to perhaps <Speech_Female> your half siblings <Speech_Female> or <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> new cousins that <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> you didn't know and you're <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> connected through a DNA <Speech_Music_Female> test <Speech_Music_Female> and you have to decide <Speech_Music_Female> <Speech_Female> how much you <Speech_Female> want to build the relationship <Speech_Female> with them. <Speech_Music_Female> I was <Speech_Female> thinking about the example. <Speech_Female> Is Stephen Walled. <Speech_Female> He wasn't comfortable <Speech_Female> saying dad <Speech_Female> because he thinks <Speech_Female> of the person who raced as <Speech_Female> Tim has dad <Speech_Female> so <Speech_Female> I did ask him what. <Speech_Female> What do you call this man? <Speech_Female> And he said <Speech_Female> I struggled with <Speech_Female> what we're to use. <Speech_Music_Female> I use <Speech_Female> donor dad. <Speech_Female> You you <Speech_Female> know that was a word he <Speech_Music_Female> sort of came up with. <Speech_Female> I think it's <Speech_Female> possible that our language <Speech_Female> is going to change <Speech_Music_Female> a lot. I think people <Speech_Music_Female> are gonNA come up <Speech_Music_Female> with new <Speech_Female> descriptions <Speech_Female> new names uh-huh <Speech_Music_Female> a lot of <Speech_Female> it will depend on <Speech_Female> what your relationship <Speech_Female> ultimately <Speech_Female> is with the new <Speech_Female> people that get introduced <Speech_Female> to you and how comfortable <Speech_Female> you feel <Speech_Female> with <Speech_Female> identifying them <Speech_Female> And placing <Speech_Female> them inside your <Speech_Female> existing identity <Speech_Music_Female> in your existing family <Speech_Music_Female> structure. <Speech_Female> I think there's probably going to <Speech_Female> be a lot of people who don't <Speech_Female> use half <Speech_Female> sibling. <Speech_Female> They're just GONNA say Sibling Sibling. <Speech_Female> There's <Speech_Female> going to be a lot of people who <Speech_Female> don't WanNA donor dad. <Speech_Music_Female> They're just going to say dad <Speech_Music_Female> and <Speech_Music_Female> that's going to <Speech_Music_Female> depend on it <Speech_Female> but I think it's GonNa <Speech_Music_Female> be fascinating to see <Speech_Female> how <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> how we look at families <Speech_Female> and even what <Speech_Female> names. We used to call <Speech_Music_Female> them. <Silence> <Music> <Music> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> <Speech_Female> The future of everything <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> is a production of <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> the Wall Street Journal. <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> This episode <Speech_Female> was based on reporting <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> by. Amy Dr Marcus. <Speech_Female> It was written <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> by amy and me <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> with contributions <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> from Phoebe Wing. <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Amanda llewellyn <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> is our producer. Her <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> editing support <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> from Stephanie. ILGENFRITZ <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> and Gerard Cole. <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Thanks <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> to Michelle Ma and <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Nikki Waller from the WSJ <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> live team <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> special things <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> to Pamela <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Powell. Carol Davis <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> and Stephen <Speech_Music_Female> Walled and their <Speech_Music_Female> families <Speech_Music_Female> are technical director. <Speech_Music_Female> Is Jacob Gorski. <Speech_Music_Female> I'm Qatari Yoga. Thanks for listening.

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

WSJ The Future of Everything

06:02 min | 1 year ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

"That conference with US came up with the name flavor saver. I don't know in a taxi cab. Tomatoes are difficult to mass farm. They need to ripen on the vine to turn vibrant red and tastes sweet but tomatoes ripen naturally don't don't have enough time to get to the grocery stores before they go bad. It's why the ones in the produce aisle tastes like wet cardboard there harvested when they're green and ripened artificially the scientists at cal gene wanted tomato that could ripen on the vine and shipped to stores and that did not pan out that well it ended up that are tomatoes it really was just on the rotting side of the softening of tomato and not on the ripening side researchers weren't able to control the technology enough enough to get the product they wanted. DNA made its way into the flavor saver that wasn't supposed to and I guess that's when I kinda step back and said do you know do we really know enough about about this technology to be going to market with it still they got the FDA approval the end result was that we could sit transform tomato on the shelf in the lab. I'm next to a control tomato and six weeks later. The genetically engineered tomato would look just fine like you just picked it and the control troll would be a pile of tomato. Goo and people loved it. They flew off the shelves couching had trouble keeping them on the shelves in fact and here's where we get back to that awed branding flavor saver. Martineau thinks that the tomato success relied on cow jeans transparency we labeled the Tomato when it hits stores wars even though we didn't have to according to the FDA's rules about it we had point a purchase brochures that described the technology we used calgene and scientists were happy. Consumers were happy so what went wrong. The company that came after couching were not as transparent and they weren't aren't GonNa Label Martineau believes this spark the public's mistrust of GMO's and the agriculture industry and she thinks maybe we should be skeptical of crisper in its potential potential problems too. I mean I strongly feel that it is the job of scientists who know the INS and outs of technology to explain it it to not just the regulatory agencies but to the public at large and that includes the possible risks and the wards of the technology technology no technology is perfect crisper can be programmed to cut a particular place on the DNA but it's not perfect it could end up editing DNA scientists. I didn't intend to target so we just have to be careful with the new technology but I think the starting point is to lay all this information out and not pick he can choose just this is more precise and crisper is more precise but we have to keep in mind these off target effects and I think to get the public behind it. You gotTA start with laying it all out on the table but she isn't holding her breath in fact she's so disheartened by the lack of transparency and bioengineering. She left the field today. She's a science writer. At the University of California Davis the flavor saver tomato retired to cede giant. Monsanto bought calgene gene and discontinued production as for Monsanto. It's one of the giants pursuing crisper along with Dow Dupont Bayer and Syngenta G. and Jacob Bungee who covers agriculture for the Wall Street Journal says even start ups are investing in it the reason for that is because the USDA right right now considers gene editing not to be the same as the GMO practice. That's the the companies have been doing for the past few decades. SEND THEM SO as results. These genetic crops don't need to go through the same lengthy regulatory process getting. GMO's through the regulatory gray process can be time consuming and expensive the process to develop a GMO crop from start to finish can take well over one hundred million dollars for that reason the GMO. Oh crop development has been pursued mainly by the biggest companies with the deepest pockets and there's another big incentive for companies while the USDA has made aided mandatory for GMO foods have labels by Twenty Twenty Crisper is still exempts the reason the USDA's current criteria for bioengineered foods states that it contains DNA from other organisms and it couldn't be created naturally foods edited with Crisper. Don't fall into that category technically. They're the same plant just with a tweak to their our own. DNA which means it'll be up to companies to decide whether to let consumers know they're getting crisper products again the Wall Street Journal's Amy Dr Marcus there is a feeling among scientists and companies that even if USDA gives you permission and says you don't need to go through these steps with us. We consider this not a genetically modified organism in the traditional sense of the word. People people understand that to gain consumer acceptance. They are going to have to involve some kind of regulatory authority. They are going to have to get some kind of societal permission. They're not going to go off on their own and try to sell you this food without it. Going through some kind of regulatory process meaning the success of the product may not be up to the scientists or the seed companies now. The real test will be with consumers emmers. They're going to be the ones who determine the outcome of this debate. The future of everything is a production of the Wall Street the Journal this episode was reported by Jennifer Strong and produced by Christian Schwab with help from Amy Dachshund Marcus Jacob Bungee Laura Sim Ryan Duty Iras and Garett Crow. Our technical director is Jake Gorski. Qatari Yoko is the executive producer of W._S._J. PODCASTS thanks for listening. I'm Anthony Green..

Crisper USDA Twenty Twenty Crisper Wall Street Journal FDA Martineau Monsanto US University of California Anthony Green Amy Dachshund Marcus Jacob executive producer Amy Dr Marcus Jake Gorski writer technical director Garett Crow Syngenta G. Dow Dupont Bayer
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on The Tel Aviv Review

The Tel Aviv Review

04:49 min | 1 year ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on The Tel Aviv Review

"Israelis. I i would say that for palestinians. The past is always present. This is what what i heard the nine hundred sixty seven war the six day war. It's it's not six days. It's still president so the sense of the past is very much present for people who are are you know up against chuck points and demolitions and curfews. I think as people get older. They're they're more likely likely to compare the rapid changes that they're experiencing now with what their childhood was like so older people are writing their memoirs publishing pushing their memoirs independently many of them and they see their sense of kind of responsibility to their grandchildren dan coming into fruition. I think in these years in their seventies and eighties. I'd like to ask you a question. Perhaps <hes> you started started off by saying how folklorist so different from entrepot logistics and i'd like to ask you now how you know it's something that's really close to my heart how different from genesis endless as a journalist who has dabbled in social science. I've often avoided at niagara for like the plague because as it's many people have told me in the past and i think with certain degree of justice journalists are bad. It offers about give me a prototype. How do i i transcend do as journalists which is essentially won't you love going around and sticking our microphones in people's faces stories and saying hang excuse me can i ask you a question in the middle of the day and also try to generalize it and not put it in in some sort of logical order. What's your added value as a folklorist norfolk. I will say that if i could do it again i would. I would be a journalist yeah. I think there's some great great satisfaction in learning about a field and not necessarily writing a book about it but finding the contours and and knowing something well enough that you can revisit and see different angles of place or of an issue. I will say that i've read some good books by journalists jerusalem nineteen thirteen by amy. Dr marcus is one of them. She took a break from the wall. All street journal. I believe and came to jerusalem and did some archival work on this period in jerusalem's history. I read that she sees is really pivotal to kind of the turning of the conflict turning in the way that it did i would say that the difference between gene sticking a microphone in someone's face as it were and taking more time to spend more time. It's a sense <music> of kind of placing yourself. In the environment many naga i come for a year or two to a place and then they leave but but there is a sense of having experienced life in a particular place and of even experiencing bodily what it's like to move like the people people i interviewed move what it's like for them to go on the bus to the other side of the city so it's kind of just stationed period along under just station asian period of allowing those experience to physically be part of my experience so essentially ethnographers journalists with more time and the decree. I don't think you need a degree to ethnographer so <hes> lord. It's really a gold. Mine of people's lived experience experience in jerusalem. I think that's how i would sum up the book as opposed to the formal national narratives as opposed to with the ministry of education till the side thing or what the politicians tell each side to think and i think that's a real contribution exactly and the resistance of those narratives i mean after all these years still the grand narratives imposed from above haven't completely crushed those that come from you know. Thank you appreciate things you know. Even pre new political implications are important for anyone believing in in a better future so for the better future. Thank you donna hertzberg for being on the show you've been talking to us about your book overlooking the border narratives of divided jerusalem and thanks to give them all to mirror sound engineer onto georgia foscarini tisha them our producers and the israel institute for their generous support now a request many most of you listen to us on the apple podcasts app and we'd like to ask ask you to please consider writing us a review you just go to the ratings and reviews section and then you actually have to write one but it can be anything you like supportive critical.

jerusalem entrepot logistics donna hertzberg president dan niagara Dr marcus chuck amy israel institute engineer apple six days six day
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on Instant Message

Instant Message

01:56 min | 2 years ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on Instant Message

"I wanna play you one quick talk with Wall Street Journal reporter, ruffling Claire and an widget skied, the CEO of twenty three and me they talked about the uses and the risks of in-home DNA tests, and what it means to collect and share that kind of data. They also talked about how DNA could make for better drugs. I've been holding off doing one of those tests for a long time myself something about it just makes me nervous. And it was fascinating to hear. And Ralph talk about it. Anyway, it was a great an important conversation. Here it is what is the most bonkers story. You've heard of somebody discovering that, you know, their parents not their parents their brothers aren't their brothers. They're actually Jewish and who knew. You've got to hear these old. You know, we I would say every day at least once a day. You know in some ways like some of it's almost. In the beginning. Like, we'd get a story about OSA one finding a family member. Somebody fight figuring out like oh, their fathers, not their father like one of our advisers. Remember calling me at one point and like on a panic and was like, I found out that, you know, my there's for Tillis issues in the family, and I did, you know, twenty three me, and I found out that my father's not my father. And I asked my mother about it. And she's like, oh, no, no, no, no. Your father's your father. He just needed a little competition with his sperm into we mixed the sperm, and we just like we. But we know your father one he just needed to look competition and Saudi did not win. And he did not wait. This is this has struck a major chord is my colleague, Amy, Dr Marcus in the audience somewhere. She's over in the back. She wrote a story this week about, you know, a family where the sisters took twenty did ancestry and one sister found out that they actually have she has a different father and the. Other sister found out that her father had an affair. And so she has a half, brother. And so it's all a mess..

Claire Wall Street Journal Amy OSA CEO reporter Tillis Ralph Dr Marcus
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ What's News

WSJ What's News

02:43 min | 2 years ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ What's News

"But also that there may be sex differences to explain some of the differences in mortality, and they're not explore how to explain all of them. While we have seen a lot of progress obesity is an issue on the horizon in in society today that has researchers very worried when I spoke with the American Cancer Society lead author of the paper she talked about obesity epidemic much like the country used to have tobacco epidemic. When many many people were smoking, and she raised this issue and the investigators in the study, more broadly, raise the issue that obesity, Ken. Be driver in predisposing people too. Great a risk for cancer. And that's something that also needs to be addressed. If we we don't wanna see you another uptick in cancer rates now that they've been succeeded now that they have been succeeding in getting the ways to decline, Amy researchers are still discovering and looking for connections between obesity and cancer. Is that right? That is correct. A number of the people I spoke with about the report said that while we searchers do believe that there is a connection between obesity and cancer more work needs to be done in teasing out. What exactly the connection is? It could be that it's tied to increased estrogen levels, which can be a risk of breast cancer. Another person told me that it's possible that obesity can change kind of the structure of your liver, and that could predispose some people till two liver cancer. They're still trying. To figure out what the connection is seems like a lesson from all this is that many cancer cases can be prevented by being more mindful and careful about our own activities. That's very much. The case I did speak with outside experts who follow the cancer space and many of them raised the issue that you can change your risk rate by changing your lifestyle in the paper. The researchers said that the majority of liver cancer cases, could potentially be prevented to lifestyle changes. And that includes not only not smoking, but also being more physically active losing weight and even getting vaccines of against hepatitis speed. For example, was one that was cited in the paper or that his Wall Street Journal health and signs reporter, Amy Dr Marcus joining us via Skype, Amy thanks so much for being with us. And that's what's news. I'm your Waylon in the newsroom in New York at the Wall Street Journal. Title.

obesity American Cancer Society liver cancer cancer Amy Dr Marcus Wall Street Journal Ken Waylon New York Skype reporter
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ What's News

WSJ What's News

02:43 min | 2 years ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ What's News

"But also that there may be sex differences to explain some of the differences in mortality, and they're not explore how to explain all of them. While we have seen a lot of progress obesity is an issue on the horizon in in society today that has researchers very worried when I spoke with the American Cancer Society lead author of the paper she talked about obesity epidemic much like the country used to have tobacco epidemic. When many many people were smoking, and she raised this issue and the investigators in the study, more broadly, raise the issue that obesity, Ken. Be driver in predisposing people too. Great a risk for cancer. And that's something that also needs to be addressed. If we we don't wanna see you another uptick in cancer rates now that they've been succeeded now that they have been succeeding in getting the ways to decline, Amy researchers are still discovering and looking for connections between obesity and cancer. Is that right? That is correct. A number of the people I spoke with about the report said that while we searchers do believe that there is a connection between obesity and cancer more work needs to be done in teasing out. What exactly the connection is? It could be that it's tied to increased estrogen levels, which can be a risk of breast cancer. Another person told me that it's possible that obesity can change kind of the structure of your liver, and that could predispose some people till two liver cancer. They're still trying. To figure out what the connection is seems like a lesson from all this is that many cancer cases can be prevented by being more mindful and careful about our own activities. That's very much. The case I did speak with outside experts who follow the cancer space and many of them raised the issue that you can change your risk rate by changing your lifestyle in the paper. The researchers said that the majority of liver cancer cases, could potentially be prevented to lifestyle changes. And that includes not only not smoking, but also being more physically active losing weight and even getting vaccines of against hepatitis speed. For example, was one that was cited in the paper or that his Wall Street Journal health and signs reporter, Amy Dr Marcus joining us via Skype, Amy thanks so much for being with us. And that's what's news. I'm your Waylon in the newsroom in New York at the Wall Street Journal. Title.

obesity American Cancer Society liver cancer cancer Amy Dr Marcus Wall Street Journal Ken Waylon New York Skype reporter
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

WSJ The Future of Everything

02:00 min | 2 years ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

"Harry, or will they view these edited humans as a threat controlling the genetic makeup of future generations is gonna be dependent on the culture in which they're raised, and if a country's advances in gene editing spark a wave of medical tourism, how do governments protect the genetic privacy of their citizens. If you imagine a lot of people from the US, traveling to say India to get their genes edited for much cheaper than it might be in the US all of a sudden companies in India will have access to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people's genetic code, and what might they do with this. It's possible, gene. Edited humans could be weaponized to become better soldiers or Jeanette crops could cause the rise of new trade disputes, gene editing, whether it's enhanced intelligence, whether it's curing diseases, whether it's designer babies in all possibilities or whether it's food security Jetta. Ending is going to allow countries to really transform their society and destiny and in that world, they might ignore these traditional institutions, and that creates a huge disruption in the framework in structure of the world has operated for so many decades. If you of everything is a production of the Wall Street Journal this episode was produced by Anthony green and a silicon Daniela Hernandez, and Amy Dr Marcus our technical director is Jacob Gorski, John doc is executive producer WSJ podcast. Stan Parrish is the editor in chief of the future of everything. Thanks for listening. I'm Jennifer strong in the newsroom in New York. How does innovation happen? More chief strategy officer at Accenture explains innovation doesn't happen to one company that happens in a very complicated ecosystem outside of a company. Get more insights from essentially, the official sponsor of the Wall Street Journal's the future of everything.

Wall Street Journal US India chief strategy officer Stan Parrish Accenture John doc Harry editor in chief Jeanette Jennifer strong New York Amy Dr Marcus Daniela Hernandez Jacob Gorski Anthony green official technical director
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

WSJ The Future of Everything

04:58 min | 2 years ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

"Complex traits. It helps us understand the intricate genetic code that makes us who we are and opens up a world of possibilities in determining who could be the company recently published research demonstrating, how this approach could also be used to predict height and advances in gene editing. Technologies. Like crisper could open the door to a world where trait prediction becomes trait prevention, we've seen a lot of work going into genome editing, and I think as we develop more research on the safety, you could actually consider curing these diseases in the embryo prior to pregnancy. Really the issue is whether or not that's considered ethical. So you see that they're all the scientific and technological advances that allow Ivy f clinics to offer a variety of new tests to couples Amy Dr Marcus covers genetics for the Wall Street Journal there's social change underway where people want to have more control. Over genetics where they want to have more choice where they consider themselves. Not only prospective parents. But also consumers who are paying for service and want to have as many options as possible available to them and those two things are fueling each other. And then also sometimes coming into tension and conflict the significance of this goes beyond. Just the conditions that they are now testing for because the kind of algorithm that they're offering might also allow them to do productions for Kuzmic traits or a static traits. And this would include height, I color, potentially other things down the road such as intelligence, and maybe even hair color skin, tone. It's hard to draw the line sometimes where some people consider something medical trait, and some people consider something a cosmetic traits. She says the American society of reproductive medicine has an ethics. Committee that weighs in on controversial issues. Like, this one thing that they're concerned about is the fact that they don't know for certain what issues may arise when you're looking in. The course of the span of a lifetime in person the testing hasn't been done for sixty seventy years. And so you don't know what might happen in the future. And therefore, they said, they don't think testing should be done in less. It's necessary. But when they went further they assessed the pros and cons and the ethical issues of doing such testing or not, and they ended up in both cases deciding that it would be up to both the doctors and clinics and the perspective parents themselves to come to a decision on whether or not to pursue such testing on the other hand IBF clinics aren't required offer these tests because the doctors themselves may have their own views on whether it's ethical to screen for conditions that have nothing to do with. Diseases and improving the health of future embryo, and also because these technologies are not yet accessible to everyone. They can cost money. They're not always covered by insurance and therefore not everyone will have access to them. So after consideration the ethics committee said essentially, everyone needs to make up their own mind. And I think in terms of the ethics of this. That's where things stand right now. There's also the ethics of what happens if people are coming into your country with edited chiens, and they're succeeding more than the local population. That's aperture precaut-. He's a geopolitical futurist, two studies the risks and opportunities of emerging tech. So give you an example of what I mean in China right now, the Beijing genomics institute is working on a project to find the geez responsible for intelligence. And they've been working on this project since twenty twelve and they interviewed about two thousand people with very high cues and one of the goals of the project is to increase the IQ of every generation by five to fifteen points. Now, if you think about that for a second a research institute in China is working on a project to enhance the intelligence of the Chinese population. Now, let's say China uncovers the genes in the near future. Whether it's twenty twenty two or twenty twenty five or twenty thirty and they start to provide it to its own population and people in China, become smarter people in China. Become more entrepreneurial millennials, the elderly the unemployed. Everybody gains from enhanced intelligence will these people stay in China or will they start to go to other countries. And we'll other countries allow them to succeed these edited humans from another country..

China Amy Dr Marcus Diseases Wall Street Journal IBF American society of reproducti Beijing genomics institute Kuzmic sixty seventy years
"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

WSJ The Future of Everything

13:48 min | 2 years ago

"amy dr marcus" Discussed on WSJ The Future of Everything

"Tomorrow's big idea is already in action today. Accenture helps organizations imagine and invent their futures driving innovation to improve the way we work and live Accenture. This is new applied now. New kinds of genetically engineered foods are coming to your grocery store, but there's a chance they'll arrive unannounced scientists are using a gene editing tool called crisper to make things like drought resistant corn and reduced gluten wheat regulators haven't decided if these foods need a label and though crisper edited foods are new. The label question is not biotech has been down this road before protests were held in dozens of cities around the world today against agriculture giant Monsanto, and it's genetically modified organisms. The March against Monsanto was organized to bring awareness what some call a disruption to mother nature. We've been eating genetically modified foods for decades, and though scientists deem them safe to eat their controversial among consumers. I think one of the problems with the whole GMO debacle in the past was that there was a feeling that unnatural. Things were being done to plants for commercial value with jeans being they. They see some potential for doing things that consumer really would notice Tangier. Strawberry. For instance, I tried to imagine myself as a consumer in the supermarket, walking down the aisle and seeing these tomatoes when you look at it with your I, it's hard to tell the difference. And I think that that's what scares people. Because when it seems like it's ordinary, it makes you wonder about, well, what does this mean? I mean, do I really understand what I'm putting in my body this episode, the scientific quest to optimize what we eat. The future of everything. A look ahead from the Wall Street Journal with Jennifer strong. So we're in cold spring harbor. It's out on Long Island. They have a greenhouse here where they're working on Christopher crops. It's probably not the setting folks would imagine. There's a lot of air traffic were off the side of a highway. We're not that far from LaGuardia Airport and New York City. Thanks, Jennifer. Jennifer Zachary Lipman is a plant biologist at cold spring harbor laboratory. I'm here to tour is greenhouse in on our way in. We see two scientists using little metal tools to scrape the seeds out of tomatoes, what makes them special. They've been gene edited using a technology called crisper Gina technicians in the lab and what they're doing now is extracting seeds from fruits that ripen in the greenhouse in this because we need the seeds for the next set of genetic experiments. And so we're gonna extract these seeds, and then we're going to sell them in the next week or two. After a moving, the seeds, they toss everything else into a big trash can. I mean, you can eat these, of course, but we just want to be efficient and get through them and basically get the seeds out. And a lot of them just don't taste that great. You know, I mean, these are different varieties. Some of them are better than others, and it's sort of a distraction to say, well, let's save them so we can eat them. Korean here because there's irrigation that drips from the pots and then we get some algae growing. So be careful when you walk down a greenhouse is full of tomatoes. Some have been Jeanette edited others haven't and they look and smell the same to figure out which is which you have to compare their DNA. So this is a nice cluster of cocktail tomatoes and so we're interested in, why do you have seven to eight flowers and fruits? Why don't you have twenty? Maybe you have some branching to give you two clusters or two tomatoes on the vine, right? I mean, I think tomato in general, has a lot of room for improvement. And if this sounds a bit like something we already do with plants, you're kind of right humans have been altering plant genetics for thousands of years through breeding, and this particular new tool is just something that happens to be much more powerful than any of the other tools that we've ever had before. Much more efficient GMO's are made by putting DNA from one organism in. Into another. It's how they got their Franken food nickname. But for now, crisper foods don't have any outside DNA you can think of the DNA in a cell. It's the instruction manual, Jennifer Dowden a of the university of California. Berkeley is one of the creators of crisper technology. So imagine being able to go into that encyclopedic information and go to a particular page one of the volumes and make a change to a sentence or a word, or even a single letter with GMO corn. For instance, scientists take some qualities of one strain and add it to another to make it resistant to herbicides. Now scientists can leave that Franken food part out because with crisper, you can actually program it to go to a particular place in the genetic code of life that's in all cells and make a cut to the DNA that triggers cells to change the DNA sequence as the cut is repaired. Doubt nece has crisper is a way for scientists to speed up evolution. Something plants have been doing on their own and with the help of farmers for centuries, I don't know how many people have seen what the precursor to modern tomatoes looks like. Looks nothing like tomato plants and the fruits are nothing like tomatoes. So how did we get to modern tomatoes? Well, you know, there's been a lot of breeding that's been done over hundreds of years. So I think it really comes down to thinking a little bit about how plants that we use today have been generated by plant breeders and how technology now give scientists so much more precise way to make changes to plants that introduce only desired change with nothing else coming along, but not everyone thinks crisper as an extension of volition. One of the most interesting aspects of the debate over crisper food turns on the issue of whether or not it's natural. Hi, I'm Amy. So Marcus. I'm a staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal covering health, science and medicine. She's been covering crisper advances and controversies since its major break. Through in two thousand twelve. If you talk to people who want to use crisper, they'll argue that this is not an unnatural technique because crisper is only used to make tweaks in the plants, natural DNA, the people who are opposed to it and who were leaders in the anti GMO movement will argue it doesn't matter that the end product doesn't have any foreign DNA in it. The process by which you made. This is an unnatural process and she says, winning the approval of consumers will be crucial to crisper success. I think people really do have to understand a little bit more about the science behind what is going on their dinner plate before they're going to be willing to move forward with eating. It. Scientists like Dowden are careful not to call Christopher's plants genetically modified. It's an attempt to separate it from what consumers already know about science, altered food back in the green house. I asked Lipman does that distinction even makes. Sense. If you're using crisper to change tomatoes, jeans, aren't those genes technically modified genetically modified. It wouldn't be this big and beautiful in Sweden. There hasn't been some genetic modification scientists and farmers, and seed companies need to figure out how they'll market crisper foods or they could undermine their product. And we know this because the biotech industry has been at this crossroads before. My name is Belinda Martineau, and I am a former genetic engineer. I worked at a small startup biotech company called Calgene incorporated in the late eighties and early nineties. When egg biotech was getting started. She was part of the team that brought the first GMO product grocery stores. It was called the flavor saver tomato flavor without the o. n. saver without the e. it was a very small company. And so I can remember we had a session where we're all sitting in a conference room and we filled a whiteboard with possible names for are tomato. And it ended up that our CEO of the company who is not sitting in in that conference room with us came up with flavors saver. I dunno in a taxi cab, tomatoes are difficult to mass farm. They need to ripen on the vine to turn vibrant red and tastes sweet, but tomatoes, ripen naturally don't have enough time to get to the grocery stores before they go bad. It's why the ones in the produce aisle tastes like wet cardboard. There harvested when they're green and ripened artificially the scientists at Cal gene wanted a tomato that could ripen on the vine and shipped to stores, and that did not pan out that, well, it ended up that are tomatoes. It really was just on the rotting side of the softening of a tomato and not on the ripening side researchers weren't able to control the technology enough to get the product. They wanted DNA made its way into the flavor saver that wasn't supposed to. And I guess that's when I kinda step back and said, you know, do we really know enough about this technology to be going to bark. With it. Still they got the FDA approval. The end result was that we could sit transform tomato on the shelf in the lab next to a control tomato and six weeks later, the genetically engineered tomato would look just fine like you just picked it and the control would be a pile of tomato goo and people loved it. They flew off the shelves, couching had trouble keeping them on the shelves in fact, and here's where we get back to that odd, branding flavors saver. Martineau thinks that the tomato success relied on cow jeans, transparency, we labeled the tomato when it hits stores, even though we didn't have to according to the FDA's rules about it. We had point a purchase brochures that describe the technology. We used couching. Scientists were happy. Consumers were happy, so what went wrong? The companies that came after Calgene we're not as transparent and they weren't going to label Martineau believes this spark the public's mistrust of. GMO's and the agriculture industry, and she thinks maybe we should be skeptical of crisper and its potential problems too. I mean, I strongly feel that it is the job of scientists who know the ins and outs of technology to explain it to not just the regulatory agencies but to the public at large, and that includes the possible risks and the wards of technology. No technology is perfect. Crisper can be programmed to cut a particular place on the DNA, but it could end up editing DNA scientists didn't intend to target. So we just have to be careful with the new technology. But I think the starting point is to lay all this information out and not pick and choose just this is more precise and crisper is more precise, but we have to keep in mind these off target effects. And I think to get the public behind it, you gotta start with laying it all out on the table. She isn't holding her breath. In fact, she's so disheartened by the lack of transparency and by. Oh engineering, she left the field today. She's a science writer at the university of California Davis. The flavor saver tomato retired to see giant Monsanto bought Calgene and discontinued production as for Monsanto. It's one of the giants pursuing crisper along with Dow DuPont Bayer and Syngenta AG and Jacob bungee who covers agriculture for the Wall Street Journal says, even startups are investing in it. The reason for that is because the USDA right now considers gene editing not to be the same as the GMO practice. That's the companies have been doing for the past few decades as results. These genetic crops don't need to go through the same lengthy regulatory process, getting GMO's through the regulatory process can be time consuming and expensive. The process to develop a GMO crop from start to finish can take well over one hundred million dollars for that reason. The GMO crop development has been pursued mainly by. By the biggest companies with the deepest pockets, crisper could bring changes to the seed industry and it's definitely bringing changes to produce crisper corn could land in grocery stores as early as next year. And while the USDA is considering making labeling, Jim o. foods mandatory by twenty twenty crisper might get a pass. That means it'll be up to individual seed companies to decide. Again, the Wall Street Journal's Amy, Dr Marcus there is a feeling among scientists and companies that even if you SDA gives you permission and says, you don't need to go through these steps with us. We consider this not a genetically modified organism. In the traditional sense of the word people understand that to gain consumer acceptance. They are going to have to involve some kind of regulatory authority. They are going to have to get some kind of societal permission because the success of the product is not really up to scientists or seed companies. The. Real test will be with consumers. They're going to be the ones who determine the outcome of this debate. In our next episode vegan meets that supposed to taste like the real thing. We try them out for ourselves. The future of everything is a production of the Wall Street Journal. This episode was produced by Kristen Schwab with help from Amy docks, Marcus Jacob bungee Laura sim, Ryan. Gutierrez, Garrett crow, and Anthony green. John doc is the executive producer of WSJ podcasts. STAN perish is the editor in chief of the future of everything. Thanks for listening. I'm Jennifer strong in the newsroom in New York.

Wall Street Journal Monsanto Jennifer Zachary Lipman Belinda Martineau Jennifer Dowden Accenture Jennifer strong Christopher Dr Marcus USDA Marcus Jacob Long Island Franken Tangier LaGuardia Airport FDA Sweden Jennifer New York City