10 Burst results for "Skyler Johnson"
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"Not only <Speech_Male> on treatment, but also <Speech_Male> on <Speech_Male> screening and diagnosis <Speech_Male> as well as <Speech_Male> survivorship. So <Speech_Male> it's a really <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> great well <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> rounded source <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> of information <Silence> <SpeakerChange> Well, <Speech_Male> doctor Skyler John said <Speech_Male> if people wanted <Speech_Male> to learn more <Speech_Male> about these <Speech_Male> issues and follow <Speech_Male> you maybe on social <Speech_Male> media, where would they find you? <Speech_Male> So I <Speech_Male> have predominantly <Speech_Male> shared most of <Speech_Male> my research and thoughts <Speech_Male> in the area <Silence> of on <Speech_Male> prem cancer treatments <Speech_Male> and cancer misinformation <Speech_Male> on Twitter. I'm <Speech_Male> not sure how much water <Speech_Male> that's going to <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> get a persist, but right <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> now it's <Speech_Male> sky <Silence> underscore <Speech_Male> underscore <Speech_Male> John, <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> and <Speech_Male> you can also <Speech_Male> go read about <Speech_Male> our most recent <Speech_Male> research updates <Speech_Male> on my <Speech_Male> lapi website, which <Speech_Male> is found at the Huntsman <Speech_Male> cancer institute on <Speech_Male> my name <SpeakerChange> Skyler Johnson. <Silence> <Speech_Male> Very good. <Speech_Male> Well, thank you very much <Speech_Male> for a compelling discussion <Speech_Male> because this <Speech_Male> is a really <Speech_Male> important issue for anybody <Speech_Male> who has cancer <Speech_Male> in the family, you know, <Speech_Male> they're going to turn to those <Speech_Male> types of treatments. <Speech_Male> And <Speech_Male> as more of us <Speech_Male> survive the <Speech_Male> easy things, <Speech_Male> like, you <Speech_Male> know, falling down <Speech_Male> flights of stairs and heart <Speech_Male> attacks, things like that. <Speech_Male> Things like cancer <Speech_Male> may increase <Speech_Male> in incidence with time. <Speech_Male> And so this is a <Speech_Male> really important <Speech_Male> conversation. So thank you very <Speech_Male> much today. <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> Well, thank you for having <Speech_Male> me. It was a great discussion. <Speech_Male> Pub type many more <Speech_Male> in the future. <Speech_Male> And maybe that's the most <Speech_Male> important point. Is <Speech_Male> the future and <Speech_Male> where are we going to go <Speech_Male> as I <Speech_Male> mentioned before? <Speech_Male> As more rare <Speech_Male> cancers that receive <Speech_Male> less funding, maybe <Speech_Male> begin to take <Speech_Male> more prevalence as <Speech_Male> people see <Speech_Male> this in their families. I think <Speech_Male> it's one in three families <Speech_Male> will be touched by <Speech_Male> some sort of cancer, <Silence> that it's <Speech_Male> very easy and <Speech_Male> very appealing <Speech_Male> to look at an alternative <Speech_Male> therapy or <Speech_Male> some non substantiated <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> therapy <Speech_Male> as something <Speech_Male> worth trying, <Speech_Male> yet these can get <Speech_Male> in the way of conventional <Speech_Male> therapy. They can <Speech_Male> be expensive, <Speech_Male> and maybe <Speech_Male> even not <Speech_Male> work at all. <Speech_Male> And too many <Speech_Male> cases where people have <Speech_Male> forgone <Speech_Male> actual <Speech_Male> treatment for <Speech_Male> some of these <Speech_Male> therapies with disastrous <Speech_Male> results. So <Speech_Male> keep keep up <Speech_Male> with doctor Johnson <Speech_Male> and learn how to <Speech_Male> tell the difference and share <Speech_Male> that with your family and friends. <Speech_Male> So thank you <Speech_Male> very much for listening. <Speech_Male> This is the talking BioTech <Speech_Male> podcast by <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> collaborator, and <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> we'll talk to you again <Silence> <Advertisement> next week. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Female> This podcast was brought <Speech_Female> to you by collabra. <Speech_Female> In <Speech_Female> collaborative electronic <Speech_Female> lab notebook, <Speech_Female> you can incorporate <Speech_Female> all forms of data, <Speech_Female> including images, <Speech_Female> videos, <Speech_Female> PDFs, and other <Speech_Female> files, <Speech_Female> with collabra, <Speech_Female> scientists no longer <Speech_Female> have to operate in <Speech_Female> silos. <Speech_Female> Now, you can tag <Speech_Female> and mention colleagues <Speech_Female> in the experiments <Speech_Female> and collaborate in <Speech_Female> real time. <Speech_Female> Start working as a team <Speech_Female> today, <Speech_Female> sign up for a demo <Speech_Female> at collaborative <Speech_Female> app. <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> Dot APP.
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"Think they're trying to be a little more nuanced? Well, it's a real challenge. I think it's a combination. Fortunately, the national Institutes of health and specifically the national cancer institute has made addressing misinformation, especially misinformation online, help priority, and they are doing that by putting up the money to basically find to fund grants to be able to research this issue in terms of how individual physicians are doing right now. I would say that it's really probably not great. There's a lot of room for improvement. Again, we've got so many time constraints. And as physicians, we deal in uncertainty and this is the way that we discuss the science surrounding the benefits and the risks that the treatments that we offer. And sometimes that could really be off putting to patients. And so we know that patients oftentimes prefer anecdotes and stories and we're stuck kind of in this area of knowing the data and describing the data in ways that are not necessarily compelling to cancer patients. Yeah, welcome to my world. I mean, this is what we battled with for years, right? But I think we're getting better. I guess the last question I would have for you is the question of intent. How much information out there is false information because people just believe in their heart that if you manipulate your energy field, you can cure the tumor versus how much of it is blatant disinformation where people are actively spreading false information knowingly with the intent of profit or some sort of political influence. Yeah, it's a good question. I couldn't tell you what the data says because as you are listening to probably where it becomes really difficult to be able to discern intent from some of the sources that we're trying to evaluate in terms of cancer information. So we can say, yeah, this is false versus this is true versus this is likely not harmful versus harmful, but it becomes much more difficult to be able to say, this person has ill attacked. And so I couldn't tell you exactly what that what that looks like. I will tell you that it's not uncommon to see what I would consider the sources of disinformation online in terms of people who are in circular providers looking to make money who are from these types of recommendations. Yeah, I just was curious if there's any kind of idea. You're right, you can't judge intent very well, but there seems to me to be a lot of very well educated people who are working maybe in medical space or closely related field that pedal false information. And I guess I can, you know, I mean, I could name names and things like that. But I think people know who we're talking to. They have tremendous online empires that sell products and have big stores of attention. Yet, and they have medical training. And they know better, because they have practiced legitimately in the past, but now taking this turn, it really surprises me. So I guess maybe to kind of wrap things up, if you had to leave people with the best source of information to go with it. What were the best sources that we could go to? So, you know, my preferred sources are the national cancer institute and cancer dot gov. So these are the best sources they have cancer specific information.
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"The challenge really becomes how do you pursue that in a pragmatic way. I will tell you what's been really surprising from a psychological perspective, being in my position, watching these patients who have used unproven cancer therapies are followed the advice of online gurus or a practitioner who they trusted greatly, even though their cancer spreads and becomes metastatic and it's very clear that that treatment didn't work, they will stay loyal to those individuals, and it's been quite surprising to see. Yeah, but I think that's what I think that's what we see, though, is that if it didn't work well, it's because of obviously some influence from big pharma or something else. You know, there's some always some reason that the trusted therapy from the trusted source didn't work and some other, it's somebody else's fault rather than there's no evidence for it working. And it really gets into the psychology of this more, which, you know, my interests in misinformation are probably very similar to yours just in a different area. But the dynamics in the psychology of this are really tough. So how much are oncologists trained in how to talk to patients about the potential mistakes they could make?
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"Yeah, it's really, it's really quite a challenge, you know, obviously a lot of these centers are being put in place for not necessarily based reasons, but oftentimes financial incentive reasons, and it can be quite challenging because it does legitimize some therapies that could potentially harm a patient, especially if they forgo what are the recommended conventional cancer therapies. You know, I will say it's a little bit of a double edged sword, however, because although there is risk of legitimizing and it does happen where online it blogger or medical article will say, this unproven and cancer treatments can share your chance around look even Harvard or even memorial Kettering or cognitive cancer institute or operating this type of therapy and that's a risk on the other hand at times I will encounter patients who are trying to use an unproven cancer treatment. They have some baseline level of distrust in physicians, some baseline level of distrust in the medical, I guess I'm using my air quotes here in medical industrial complex and our pharmaceutical industry. And because of that, this trust at times has been nice to be able to send patients to a evidence based center like the one I feel like we have here where they say, you know what, yoga, massage, exercise, all these things are going to make you feel better and we're going to use these to try to help you get through your cancer treatments, but they're not a replacement. So it's nice to kind of have an ally in that space where I can send patients to to get what is the second opinion that will encourage them not to forgo their conventional cancer treatments. Yeah, and I guess it falls in the category of wouldn't hurt. You know, you send someone for yoga or for massage therapy and that could have some benefits in other ways. And even just treatment effects do have a benefit to a patient, at least in their well-being and someone who's suffering from cancer diagnosis could use that. So I kind of see that side of the coin, right? I mean, it does seem to potentially have some, yeah, exactly. But the real challenge becomes, again, that people are using some combination of these therapies that are medical provider might recommend for just general sense of well-being, but great. Go exercise, eat a healthy diet, get a massage. These are all things that I obviously work strongly, but then they'll combine these things to lend credibility
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"Despite kind of news media and TV and newspaper falling in rates of trust amongst individuals, cancer, physicians remain really high with nearly 80 to 90% of patients suggesting that they still trust physicians. Interesting where we are in process of publishing some data that compares users of unproven cancer therapies with non users of unproven cancer therapies. And we show that these rates and trusts and physicians is similar. However, it appears as though those individuals who use on prudent cancer therapies also have increased trust in practitioners that fall kind of outside of the traditional medical paradigm and chiropractors and natural paths, often who don't have any cancer specific training. And so that is a little bit concerning. And this is when you look at subgroup analyses, patients who are using treatment specifically for a share of their cancer, it's even higher for those providers. Yeah, I kind of drives me crazy because if you talk to legitimate oncologists who tell you that cancer is not one thing and that there's different theology in different manifestations of all the different types of cancers, the treatments detection, everything's different. For someone to tell you I can cure cancer, automatically should disqualify them from giving you any kind of treatment. Because it just seems like even the experts, these are perplexing problems that require a high degree of specialization and to say that by cracking a certain vertebra is going to give you some sort of stimulatory effect to compat, you know, a solid turmeric. I mean, I don't know where this comes from. And it's really upsetting, but this kind of thing does happen, right? Yeah, it does. And I think some really interesting data that came out of the COVID pandemic in terms of police misinformation belief demonstrated that patients really wanted sure. And I think as a scientific communicator and a scientific indicators, we all realize that in science, we don't talk in terms of a 100% confidence and we say things like maybe or likely. And this is often how I communicate with patients, so I can, you know, just despite the frustration that I have with this, I can also understand from a patient's perspective who has a really aggressive cancer and wants to do everything they can to secure their cancer when they come to meet and I say, hey, there's a 60% chance that we could share your cancer. I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure you're in that 60%. And then they may go to somebody else who says, hey, listen, there's a 100%, 100% chance that I drew your cancer. You're not going to have any side effects. I mean, those discussions are completely different.
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"This study suggests that one third of the articles that are on social media applications have misinformation and most concerningly of these articles that contain misinformation, four out of 5 of them contain the potential for harm for patients who use those potential therapies. So is it harm from the therapy specifically or is it harm from using that therapy in lieu of a real effective therapy? Yeah, so how these were created as part of the research were in these specific categories, namely, was it a harmful action, meaning did the therapy have some potentially toxic effects of doing kind of the suggested therapy could have been a harmful inaction where it led to some delay or not seeking medical attention for what was a treatable or a durable condition. And then there's these harmful interactions that are known and unknown medical interactions with curative therapies for example remedy that inhibits or amplifies the metabolism of chemotherapies, either making those chemotherapy less effect or even more toxic than they would be normally. And then there's even the risk of economic harm we're out of pocket financial costs associated with these treatments or even travel to international locations such as Mexico or even some European countries which don't have quite as stringent protections for cancer patients as we do in the United States. And I guess maybe an important question then, so you're in your practice. Do you have a personal example of this that kind of brought you into this area or is this always been kind of an interest? It's interesting question. So when I was a second year medical student, my wife was diagnosed with what was a Hodgkin's lymphoma and I guess I should preface this story by saying that she's really great now and it's cured from her cancer. But at that time, I did what I imagined most people do and immediately wait to the Internet and we searched for what the treatment was with the prognosis was. And I was really surprised even at that point at how much misinformation there was online about cancer treatments and how to approach during a person's cancer. And I was really caught up guard by this because even though I had a little bit of medical knowledge, it was really difficult even for me to discern what was credible and what was not credible. So that experience really stuck with me.
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"Now you want to stick to dot gov EDU, nonprofit organizations in most cases, but even then there's some gray areas. Well, is it cancer specifically? I mean, if you compare against other things like, say, heart disease, or Alzheimer's, whatever. Parkinson's. Does it seem like more misinformation happening around long-term developmental issues like cancers? You know, I don't think that there's any data to suggest that that's true. What we do know is that there are cancer patients, obviously. And there are a lot of cancer survivors as our treatments improve our curators and priests. And that there's a lot of misinformation surrounding unproven and disproven cancer treatments and supportive therapies. And I'd say multi-billion dollar per year industry and so there's a huge drop for many cancer patients to want to pursue some of these unproven therapies that are the result of misinformation online in terms of whether I can compare that to other disease sites. I don't think there's any data that's bad. And I guess I always think of the kind of marquee examples like the brzezinski stuff in Mexico and all the folks who are making claims about curing these unusual cancers by using urine derivatives and all this kind of stuff. But is it a much more pervasive problem with like over the counter type of therapies and ideas that people are passing on that are, you know, just maybe a much more lower level or are they really just a few big marquee cases of people making claims about either detection or cures? It's really quite complicated. There's so many granular recommendations that are coming from many different sources. So one of the studies that we're conducting right now is actually evaluating from a multi institutional perspective. The exposures of basically misinformation to cancer patients in terms of the unproven and disproven treatment of the patients that are coming away, where those are coming from, how they determine whether those recommendations are credible. And preliminarily, it appears as though there are many, many recommendations. It's quite shocking how many different types of unproven at disproven cancer treatment recommendations are being made
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"So today we'll explore the cancer misinformation space, where speaking with doctor Skyler Johnson, doctor Johnson is an assistant professor at the Huntsman cancer center at the university of Utah, and he'll be speaking this week at the university of Florida on November 15th at 11 a.m., so if you're in the Gainesville metropolitan area, stop by and give it a listen.
Talking Biotech Podcast
"skyler johnson" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"And with longer life, the odds of facing long-term degenerative or a barren proliferative proliferative, easy for you to say, proliferative diseases increase. So we're either going to break down and fall apart, or sloppy cellular processes start to give rise to these cells that lose control of their ability to divide. So proliferation and differentiation, it's the genetic generic commonality to the disease state we think of as cancers. Now currently one in three families will be touched by some sort of cancer. And it'll happen with increasing frequency as surveillance and detection continued to improve. Now as you look back over 7 and a half years of podcasts that talking BioTech, you find quite a few that are dedicated to the novel strategies to detect and treat certain cancers. In the newest techniques borrow from many molecular approaches, which are super cool, including elements that look more like the COVID vaccine than traditional chemotherapy. And innovation is just rampant in this space with startups everywhere. Implant BioTech people are pushing back against innovation. In medical BioTech, people push back in a different way. They state that alternatives might be better or safer, maybe more natural. You know, you get the picture. Sadly, the tremendous advances in cancer therapies they've evolved hand in hand, with misinformation and sometimes disinformation about the efficacy of these tested improving treatments. And they push the fantasy of alternative or integrative therapies. And we've seen it, you know, you see it online anytime there's a discussion of chemotherapy, herbal concoctions, joint manipulation, nostrums, isolated from your whiz. You know, all these different ways that hucksters, everywhere, feel they can solve a complexity like cancer with some sort of alternative treatment that sometimes can be extremely expensive, not covered by insurance, and it doesn't work. Which is the main problem.
AP News Radio
No. 6 OU leans on Rattler, video review to top K-State 37-31
"Spencer rattler threw for two hundred forty three yards and two touchdowns for six ranked Oklahoma in a thirty seven thirty one victory at Kansas state rattler second scoring toss made it twenty seven ten Kennedy Brooks added ninety one yards rushing and a touchdown and Jeremiah hall reach the end zone twice to help the Sooners get the five NO Oklahoma benefited from a pair of replay reversals one on an onside kick and the other on an illegal touch of the football on a kick Skyler Johnson returned from a knee injury to throw for three hundred twenty yards and three touchdowns for the Wildcats on the ferry