... I came away feeling grateful about the progress but also surprised, a bit let down.

There's still SO MUCH we don't understand about migraine's molecular etiology—and that's a problem. Researchers can't rationally design new treatments w/o a target to shoot for.

So we used this episode...

2/4

That’s super annoying ☹️

The tiny changes made to the ASL broadcast, like tracking TOI on screen, are fascinating.

And a strange tangential side effect of not having announcers talking is you can hear the on-ice chatter. In game 5, I heard "Hey! What socks are you wearing?"

This would be great idea for other major cities too. Are you selling in local bookstores?

start to finish—selecting an issue, identifying stakeholders, developing a proposal, and delivering a short pitch. Grateful to have learned from such a fun and thoughtful cohort, and proud of the work Angela Fenoglio, Max O'Connor, McKenna Parnes, and I put together in our final project.
2/2

Any weird rule changes you’d actually like to see in the NFL this year?

Admirable. I also imagine it helps to have a like-minded staff.

Aww no! That sucks!

It’s equal parts interesting and unsettling. I hadn’t heard about this before Alex pitched the episode topic to me. And I’ve had it on my mind ever since

I placed the lab keurig in my acknowledgements section and called it an honorary first author on every paper.

... Alzheimer's, we should see an uptick in those diseases in the next 10 years or so.

And with continued funding into viral vaccines and treatments, maybe—just maybe, we'll be able to put these devastating diseases behind us.

4/4

... whether these viruses cause Alzheimer's, but they certainly check a lot of the boxes scientists look for. And we might get clarity on this soon.

The world is reeling from #COVID-19, a pandemic caused by a virus. If severe viral infections really do cause diseases like
3/4

... what these viruses do to our cells and how we might stop them.

And for #publichealth nerds, we structured the episode around Bradford Hill's criteria for #causality. These criteria help scientists decide whether X really causes Y.

Currently, we can't say for sure
2/4

I like it. I've been trying to think of a catchy way to capture why that's true though if you were to use it in a talk.

I've been juggling these two ideas in my head:
1) Biology is ever-changing
2) Good enough (to reproduce) is good enough

Wild ideas about how to change the NFL, from minute rule changes to conference realignment

Totally understand. I really enjoy the audio content you produce. It’s clean & practical. I can see how applying that to an audio prospect guide would be a big undertaking. But I hope that profit margin shifts somehow in the future.

Would you consider producing a companion audio version of the Prospect Guide?

I have the 2024 version and loved it, but I just learn better via audio. Translating the colored charts to an audio format would be hard, but if the audio was only sold as an “add-on,” we could still reference the PDF.

That 4th down was a close call & could’ve gone either way. What really irks me though is why we accept some calls falling to chance. Why don’t we always have multiple cameras exactly at the first down (sideline & aerial)? Why do we tolerate the lawless jungle that is a fumble-turned-dog pile?