5 Burst results for "Indiana University School of Medicine"
"indiana university school medicine" Discussed on Healthcare Triage Podcast
"School of Medicine is leading Indiana. University's first grand challenge the precision health initiative. Which we're GONNA talk about in detail today with both goals to cure. Multiple Myeloma triple negative breast cancer and childhood. Sarcoma and prevent type two diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. We have two guests today. One of them is returning. It's Jamie Ran Bargar. She's the Carolina Sims professor of Pediatrics and Pediatric Cancer Research at Indiana University. School medicine and joining her will be Karen pollock. She's an associate professor of pediatrics. At Indiana University School of Medicine and the Will Center for Pediatric Research. I guess that's the Herman. B Wells Center pediatric research. But both of you welcome thank you thank you so much. So we've talked to Jamie before who is an MD in a pediatric oncologist? But I wanted to talk a little bit with you Karen and talk about what you do and how you got here so first of all specifically what is your area of focus on research sir My background is I got a PhD at the University Kentucky and a so I continued with immunology training for my first post doctoral fellowship at IU and got very interested and using my basic research skills and applying it to to patients and getting a little bit more into the preclinical type of research. And so the Herman be well. Center had been established. I you and I did a second post-doctoral training fellowship of the Wall Center for Pediatric Research. And have been there ever since. It's a great training ground To really take your basic skill sets and start applying it to clinically relevant questions. So that's how I ended up in. The Wall Center was an interest that I had. So can you expand on that a little bit more when you talk about taking basic science and then applying because I mean I think most people think about you know basic science. It's either working. I mean obviously in a lab but Sharon small specific things people talk but they got into a niche. And you got to really focus focus so when you talk about taking something and then applying it. What exactly do you mean so? When I started my training it was as you said. Very kind of niche oriented. You worked on one element of cancer. Maybe okay but what's happened now? With more bridge between basic scientists and clinicians is that. It's become very multidisciplinary research so where you may have been on your own one little lane as you move up in your career to establish a successful research program you have to know a lot about many things and you can't necessarily be an expert in everything but you began to develop teams that you work with so I had very basic skills. Working in cell culture had a cells respond to specific drugs. We also do a lot of mouse modeling where we work with human tumor samples and so I was already Kinda do. I was doing all this type of work on the wall center working on various cancers and then Jamie and I started talking about five or six years ago to start bridging things a little bit more and that's when we started really the precision nomex program was starting so I started. You know really good. Basic skill sets working in the laboratory. But then being able to take that knowledge and start addressing clinically. Irrelevant questions that the oncologist will pose. I think lots of listeners will be surprised to know that that's not common in the idea that you're going to take research here and then try to figure how do we you know advance to the next level. Or how do we make it actually more clinically relevant is a relatively new thing In research and that some institutions are clearly doing it better than they used to but But it is amazing. How silo things usually are so I wonder if you could just talk about that a little bit? Yeah absolutely I think that's one thing that we are really proud of is that we're not working in silos so if you go to the wall center for Pediatric Research. There is a walkway that connects our research building to the clinical side and on each side of it. It says connecting research with kids and so that is a big mission of the well center is to really find ways to bridge that gap and the one way we have done. It is Getting a patient samples Sherline had cancer at Riley Hospital. Come in and in certain cases there is sufficient tissue to donate to research and so One example would be the Tyler Trent case where Tyler was able to donate to samples and it gets samples of course. Get the diagnosis done. We work with the pathophysiology department. When there is extra tissue we can bring it back to the lab and actually began to make different types of models To study these very rare relapsed. Osteo COMA THE CASE OF TYLER. Trent and so that is one connection. We have but it's even more than that. We get the patient tissue. We make models that we can study for years to come but we also analyze these samples and then talk with Jamie the ecology group about. How do we prioritize all of these different options? We have to look at different therapies to treat in this case Tyler. Trent OSTER COMA SAMPLES. So one of the things we wanted to talk about today is Specifically known as the Tyler Trent Model But it's a specific. I believe research model and way of doing this growing tissue with the patient that we actually know which is pretty rare. I think in pediatric research. Where most times donations are anonymous and not connected individual patient. So could you talk about that for a bit? Yeah A couple of things. I think the main thing is tyler himself. I think It was one of those situations. He was a young adult At the time you know. He's a freshman at purdue he Really established a platform and that he was so inquisitive about what was going on. And when we GET TUMOR SAMPLES TO THE LAB. We do not know who they came from because hip deregulation. Everything's de identify. We don't know anything. Jamie and her group may know who they came from. But that's how we go about the research business is that you have this. You know channel. I guess cavern between the two. You don't know the name but what happened tyler. Trent case is he was so curious about. Hey guys you know I know twice that I when I went through surgery. We donated a sample. Do you know what happened to that. And so Jamie and the group talked with Tyler. They talked with his parents. And you know said you know this is not typically the way it goes but you guys are giving us permission will contact Dr Pollock's lab and they'll break their code and so we already had the models so in that would've been fall of twenty eighteen. We had the models and Jamie said. Can you look that up? We've got permission and we're like we actually have two models from this one and these models are what we call well behaved in terms of. Unfortunately they're very aggressive models but every time you take that cell and put in the mouth a gross. It's very well-behaved model. So we already had to that we were working on. And so that's kind of how it went and then tyler was already so engaged Wanting to know what was going on. And it just went from there really. I got a bit surprise so I understand that one anonymity that they absolutely get it but I would think lots of people would want this to happen. That they'd want to know what happened with the with the tissue that they donated in what is going on with shirt and not the case. Definitely since since this has started there have been a couple of families that are particularly interested. We're very careful as anonymity. They we had a lot of law discussion. Four sort of making a decision about what to do in tyler situation and and how to manage his request Because we felt clear we felt strongly and clear that That this wasn't information that was could be used to help inform his treatment And at the time he was actually approaching end of life And and really felt like he wanted this information while he was still around to to see the potential impact that his donation and that the work that our team has done with his tissue and how that may be able to help other people so we went to his home to their home just a couple of weeks before he passed away and Had A long conversation with him including reviewing results that was was really really powerful. The families that do get involved. You can see it's really helps them And I think with Tyler's family we had lots of discussions about we had a lot of Press a couple of weeks ago and back in December and we have many groups asking as we want an update. We wanted update. We know that you all made these models a year ago. So what's been going on? And we were very cognizant of the fact that we have things to say but we want to be reasonable about what we say not over promise Louis but before that we wanna make sure that the family knows what's going on and so we held off on a lot of press releases until we had Kelly and Tony. Trent come down to the Medical Center. And we actually had a my lab meeting and Jamie joined as well and talk to them about what we had what it meant and I think that's one reason. The Tyler case went so well as we made sure we were always educating. It's not over promise. Totally it really is. Yeah because I know if it was my child I would wanNA grab hold of any everything I could but I think the trends have been so gracious and so They really listen And they asked questions and of course they've been in this for awhile but very special family right. It's helped us in a lot of ways when I would add that. It's not only impactful. I think for the families that are involved but it's incredibly impactful for our team absolutely especially yes been a really unique and special experience. I think to have interested families of kids with bad disease. Come into the loud brave for them. Bomb known there and sit down with our team. Nb So engaged gauged I think it really has given our team. Just whole new level of motivation Italy. Imagine to like it's yeah but silent before yes to have all the way to basic science connected to these are the patients that you are. Yeah trying to help. Never in a million never two million years did I think I would be going to the home of a child who was dying from Osteo Sarcoma like a life altering experience for them. Yeah but just you know the fact that the trance would come down there and be so brave to after their son is even passed away. Go into the laboratory and see their son cells growing petri dish that is. I still haven't totally process. I've that's A. That's yeah but that's where we are with really connecting all these things the basic scientists clinicians and the community. No that's that's a fantastic.
"indiana university school medicine" Discussed on Christopher Kimball's Milk Street Radio
"Next up. Let's find out what Dr Eric Carol is thinking about this week. Dr Carol well how are you. I'm good how are you good. You've probably been doing some research In have a new finding force well. The first thing that we talk about has to do with beef I don't I don't know if you saw the news a couple of months ago but there was a huge bunch of studies that came out of annals of internal medicine that you know maybe argument that the health effects of eating being red meat and processed. Meat Aren't nearly as bad as you know. Many people set in the pattern. Therefore really it's okay for lots of people to eat pretty much what they're eating and I I actually wrote an editorial to go along with it with with a CO author But we stressed at the end. And this is what. I'd love to talk about that. While we could quibbling argue about the health effects of meat on the fact that we continue to do so ignores a much larger argument in that is on the environmental impact right and that something we could all agree on probably is that you know meat. Consumption in general has a big effect on the environment right even then. It's not as simple as people think because you know first of all. Let's Acknowledge College. That raising cattle consumes a huge amount of land. Something like thirty percent of the world's ice-free land used as livestock. We have to go. A lot of crops ops to feed animals. It's very inefficient. We cut down forests be especially cattle produce a lot of methane which is not good for the climate and so in general all significant amount of man made or man caused climate change. Bad Gases are caused by the raising of cattle. And so therefore there's been a lot of press recently we're trying to find meat substitutes things that we could eat the tastes like meat might convince people to give up. You got the impossible Burger. You gotta be on meet. You got all that'd be substitutes. But part of the problem is that it's not ground beef which is which is hurting the environment. It's it's stake. Cattles and cows are not not really raised to give us ground beef in fact much of our supply of ground beef comes from whatever is left over from cattle when they're slaughtered for more expensive cuts and and from dairy cows which are no longer producing and so therefore getting people to eat more of these other products that replace Claes ground. Beef isn't necessarily going to save because people are still going to want to eat steak brisket and as long as they're being raised for those meets. We're probably I'll be going to raise a similar number of cattle and as long as we want to consume dairy cows milk. Huge number of cows are gonNA get raised and we're not gonNA have necessarily the environmental impact we might like now. Of course there's stuff on the horizon that people talk about about you know growing cultured meat in a lab and actually creating eating steaks but that's decades away. No one's got a handle on that it's unlikely to occur soon and if we want to find ways to reduce our impact on the environment by eating less meat we really need to focus on things like steak and not necessarily so much of our focus on ground beef. That's really interesting I notice Otis going back to the seventies that people often tried to replicate an item. They don't WanNa heat by using site Tan for example. I just wonder at the end of the day doesn't make any sense to try to replace an item with something similar to that item although manufactured In a different way or should we just reduce the amount of that item in our diet entirely instead of trying to replicate it well from a health health perspective. My God absolutely not so you know. We should all dispense with the idea that all of these fake meat burgers or healthier the impossible Walker's got like six hundred thirty calories versus a traditional opera. Six sixty it has pretty much the same amount of saturated fat and protein. It has more sodium carbohydrates hydrates. No one should be under the illusion that they're being healthier by making this switch now from an ethical perspective. Sure absolutely it makes sense saying I don't eat meat from an ethical perspective and you like these other things then so be it. That's great but if we really WANNA get at reducing the impact of animals the environment ground beef is a good start but it's not gonNA make a real difference for the market or for any of this also physiologically if you look at a twelve hundred pound angus or whatever. There's a lot of meat on those hind legs in all their scraps and it's very hard to sell that compared to the stake so there's superabundance of the ground meat there is and they will wind up shipping it off to other countries. There's there's lots of ways to try to make use of those cuts but unfortunately league giving up ground beef and switching to these fake meat substitutes. It's not even going to get us there. I do believe in my heart if we ever do gain the ability to culture meeting the lab Bob and create fake steak. That's a game changer. That's actually something. which could have a major impact on the market and on the Environment Hothouse Porterhouse steaks? Exactly I mean but I mean they're talking about it about using even like three D. printing of cells. We we do this actually for medical purposes for trying to create transplants or our tissues that we can do of course it's very early stages in experimental but a lot of people did that original research. The ones that went off to start some of these companies which are trying to you actually culture meat for consumption because there's not much bigger market for that clearly than there is in the medical realm but but we're still unfortunately we're just not there yet but that's I think there's much more potential there than people realize so in twenty years older my three D. hamburger printer from Amazon rain hamburger. We'll get there you. Hopefully you can order your three D. Ridi- that's what you really want Dr Carol once again defying conventional wisdom. Thank you thank you. That was Dr Eric Carol. He's the professor of Pediatrics. The Indiana University school medicine. Also a regular contributor to the York Times upshot com.
"indiana university school medicine" Discussed on Christopher Kimball's Milk Street Radio
"Then you get a sense of. Okay. The lobster is actually something going on. We can tell the lobsters will react to the temperature of the water, we can tell the lobster will react to light. We know that they react to being around other lobsters to clearly, they do take in signals and react to them in some way. That's not the same thing, though is saying that they feel pain or that they are in a state of discomfort. It could be such a low level reflects that it is just automatic without any kind of sensation at all. And so we don't know you'll get camps of, of scientists on both sides. Some who say that the stimuli the reacting to gives us enough sense that they must be feeling some level of commotion or, or some level of angst, but you'll get other scientists who will say no, they're such low level creatures with distributed brain stem that they're not reacting in a conscious way that we would consider them to be pain. It's hard. However, to argue at the fact that this is the only add full again, that were sacrificing in our house to cook, and that we're doing it in a way where we are. We know it's taking them a minute to die in. In boiling water, and we they're very few people that drop them in the pot and then hang around the watch often, it's drop them in the pot, and walk away and come back when they are did. But there are probably better ways that we could end their lives before we put them in the pot and boil them to death. Is there a consensus without obviously having definitive data, like, how would you kill a lobster based on what you research? You've read, what would you do such a great question? I almost think I mean based upon you almost have to tear them apart because you really want to get all the brain stem. Other people think that by, you know, just, you know, severing the brain stem in a couple places quickly, you could do that. But unfortunately, we don't even have good science to know if that works where exactly what have be. And it's the kind of thing you probably would have difficulty doing amateur at home. I think there's an argument made that the electric my work, but that seems like an awful lot of work in. It's great expense in order to achieve our goals. So. There times that I'm willing to admit, like I don't know. And this is one of them, but I will say that in the past, I have cooked lobsters at home by boiling them alive. Then I probably haven't done it in a decade partially because I don't know how best to do it. But I think if we really thought about a lot of the ways that we kill many types of animals that we'd, we'd probably have to reconsider the methods by which we do it. Yeah. As you said, the difference is we have to do it in our house, and the other animals. It's done somewhere else packaged and we can buy in the supermarket. Yeah. And so I think it's like it's just we're forced to confront that decision, which, of course, makes restaurants and chefs and amateurs at home. Have to think about the best way to do it, which is how you wind up with restaurants that are getting their lobsters high before they serve them to of all the methods. We've talked about that is the most interesting. Oh, absolutely. Dr Carol, thank you so much. I guess we still don't know the best way to kill a lobster. Thank you. Thank you. That was Dr Carolis to professor of pediatrics at Indiana University school medicine. Also regular contributor to the New York Times. Upshot colin. Tested, many methods of humanely, killing lobsters over the years, including balancing them on their heads in bellies to love him to sleep before.
"indiana university school medicine" Discussed on Christopher Kimball's Milk Street Radio
"It is from junk food. So theoretically trying to attack what we are getting through junk-food taxes does have promise. But I think we'd also have to try to change policy in making food that is better for us cheaper through subsidies, rather than the way we do subsidies right now, which often makes bad food for us shoe. But the thing I always think about when we talk about this is that the rise in obesity, and there was the curve towards unhealth is so vertical and in five percent or four percent or seven percent decrease in the consumption of junk foods compared to the hockey stick going up in the other direction have to have a major change in people's habits and consumption patterns to really even balance out the long-term rate of visa, right? No question, which is why I think some of these things would have to be looked at from a preventive standpoint. When we talk about again, how much calories adolescence get from junk food and younger children as well. Some of this is if we can if that in the bud before the obesity occurs and tried to make smaller changes to their long life dietary habits, it might. A big difference. But you're absolutely correct. If we want to do large scale policy changes that are going to affect obesity. We'd also have to get at the food supply and how we subsidize and pay for food being sold and grown as well as we do trying to curb people's habits by making the food that's bad for the more expensive. But we could leave with one last thought, you know, a couple years ago, Mark Pitman rooted in twirling times about school lunches, and I almost fell and my chair. Mexico spends forgotten the number three or four times more per kid per day in the United States. And we think of ourselves as the first real power with lots of money and everything else. But here's here's Mexico. So it's just a question of priorities. Right. I mean, that's the place. You would you would start to serve good food. It really isn't just made me think we should talk about school lunch program because the amount that we choose to spend his own believably low, and the fact that schools are even able to feed children a meal that we would argue even might be healthy on the small amounts of spending is inconceivable, which is often y you wind up with these very process. Food product products, which are specifically designed just to meet school nutritional lunch requirements with no thought is to actually what's in them. Or whether the good for kids is a cocktail area. Somewhere is really depressing. Well, brighter future production, Aaron Carol. Thank you so much. Thank you. Carols professor pediatrics at Indiana University school medicine, also a regular contributor to the New York Times upshot column. This week. I interview Gonzalo Guzman author of no Pollino, a Mexican kitchen goes Mon to find Mexican cooking. As corn tortillas which got me thinking about the usefulness of the simple, greedy. The old days corn was used for more bread. Ho cakes mush polenta. And of course, tortillas, but today corn is almost everything from corpus plastics batteries, cornstarch cord syrup matchsticks and textiles to medications vitamin C crayons yogurt bluetooth base. Soaps and explosives corn used to be life today. It's an industrial ingredient. And that's makes Guzman's handmade corn tortillas more than a food the really.
"indiana university school medicine" Discussed on Christopher Kimball's Milk Street Radio
"Reducing your risk of death drinking by just by drinking more water. And I promise you if this were true we would shout it from the rooftops. We would have massive public health campaigns to try to get everyone to drink drink drink because we could make such a huge difference that people would drink more. It's the this is the easiest it's ever been in the history of man to get our hands on water, especially in the United States. We have no trouble with it. It's ubiquitous it's cheap. People have access to it. They are not dropping all over the place of dehydration. It's not this magical, Alexandra, which is just going to cure, whatever ails, you know. Maybe I'm just cynical. But I remember back in the seventies and eighties when this idea of water sort of came out of nowhere. Remember, it was no one was talking about dehydration. All of a sudden they were and that was exactly the same time. The large companies were starting to sell bottled water is there. His. At all. Absolutely. In fact, if you look, and this is unfortunate. But if you look at most of the research, it is almost all funded by by companies or subsidiaries of companies that actually sell bottled water, of course. So there's a definite vested interest in trying to push people to to drink more water because they're not Suming. You're not gonna get it from the tap their Suming, you're going to buy it from someone and so there's huge conflicts of interest here. But even if you get outside the conflicts of interest, you're exactly right. There's just as water has become more and more and more available. Somehow we've gotten more and more scared that we're just not getting enough of it. And that somehow that is the reason for all the health problems that we're seeing let's own. The fact first of all whereabout is healthy if not healthier than we've ever been people are dying of almost any disease. You're gonna imagine at lower rates by age. This is the healthiest we've ever been. We're not dehydrated. We've got plenty of waters. That's not even the cause. But you're right. It's industry. And I think it's often people trying to make a buck. Even if it's through advice trying to get you to believe otherwise. So the next time my wife yells at me about not drinking water with dinner. I'll just have another glass of wine. Exactly, you could tell her. I said so I'm going to good Dr Carol. So much. That was Dr Carol. He's the professor of pediatrics Indiana University school medicine, also a regular contributor to New York Times upshot column. A health expert once told me the coffee was modern society's biggest health risk. And my wife tells me.