In this episode of "In the Interim…", Dr. Don Berry provides a detailed account of co-chairing the 1997 NIH consensus development conference on mammography for women in their 40s. His conversation with Dr. Scott Berry covers the statistical and clinical complexities of breast cancer screening, addressing lead time and length bias, trial design limitations. Don discusses the panel’s finding, based on randomized trials and meta-analysis, that the average benefit of screening women in their 40s is modest (an estimated 1.4-day average life extension and 18% hazard reduction). The panel recommended individualized decision-making rather than universal screening. The episode follows the reaction: heated debate with radiologists, scrutiny from journalists and policymakers, Senate testimony, and personal threats. Don explains how these findings became distilled into soundbites, evidenced by coverage in The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and a reference in James Patterson’s Murder Games. The conversation addresses overdiagnosis, false positives, and the consequence some called the “Berry effect”—an observed drop in mammogram rates after the panel’s recommendations. Key HighlightsDon Berry’s NIH consensus conference leadership and approach to breast cancer screening recommendations.Statistical bias and trial limitations inherent in mammography evidence.Meta-analysis findings: 18% hazard reduction; 1.4-day average life extension.Policy guidance supporting individualized patient decision-making over universal screening.Strong backlash from advocacy, media, radiology, and government—including Senate hearings and personal threats.Enduring debates, public misunderstandings, and continued citation of these events in scientific and popular sources.For more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/

Join hosts Justin Dyer and Mena Hanna as they unpack a common investing misconception: the idea that loving a product means it’s a great investment. Using real-world examples like Rivian, Peloton, and GoPro, they illustrate why strong business fundamentals matter far more than popularity or hype. The conversation provides practical questions every would-be investor should ask and reveals why even boring businesses can outshine the flashiest brands. If you’ve ever been tempted to invest in a company just because you’re a fan, this episode is your playbook for making smarter decisions. Chapters (00:00) The Myth of Good Products as Good Investments (02:00) Business Models and Competitive Dynamics (05:00) Private Investments and Direct Involvement (06:00) Assessing Profitability and Market Demand (08:00) Competitive Advantage and Market Moats (10:00) The Importance of Liking the Product Versus Business Fundamentals (13:00) Boring Businesses Can Be Top Investments (14:00) The Product as the Tip of the Iceberg Connect with Us • Call or text us: 626-862-0355 • Website: https://www.athletefamilyoffice.com/ • YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc1NxpK21N1vKWEExC45YEA • LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/awmcapital/ • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/awmcapital/ • X: https://twitter.com/awmcapital • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/awmcapital/

In this episode, we take you behind the scenes of AWM Capital, sharing personal stories from our own journeys as NFL players and what inspired us to champion athlete-focused wealth management. We discuss the challenges pros face both on and off the field, the shortcomings of the broader financial industry, and the passion that drives their unique team approach. With candid reflections and powerful insights, this conversation offers listeners a rare window into why serving athlete families is different—and how real change happens from within the locker room. If you want to understand the bigger picture of athlete wealth and legacy, this episode is a must-listen. Chapters (00:00) Origin Stories and Motivation (03:15) Building the Athlete-Focused Team (07:37) Unique Paths Into Athlete Wealth Management (09:27) Personal Mission to Serve Athletes (12:15) Changing Athlete Wealth Culture (14:28) Setting Athletes Up to Succeed Connect with us • Call or text: 602-989-5022 • Website: https://www.athletefamilyoffice.com/ • LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/awmcapital/• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/awmcapital/ • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/awmcapital/ • X: https://twitter.com/awmcapital

In this episode of "In the Interim…", Dr. Scott Berry speaks with Dr. Srinivas Murthy, Dr. Thomas Hills, and Dr. Lindsay Berry about the REMAP-CAP trial results on oseltamivir in critically ill influenza patients. The trial used a Bayesian covariate-adjusted platform design and found oseltamivir was not effective at reducing 90-day mortality with a “98% and 99% probability of harm in 90-day mortality” compared to control. Covariate adjustment addressed baseline and site variation. Subgroup analyses showed greater harm in patients with higher illness severity. Sensitivity analyses using alternative neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors produced important scientific exploration of the results. No evidence was found for benefit over control in any subgroup. The discussion highlights the first randomized, controlled evidence in this patient group, contrasting prior observational studies and clinical guidelines. A mechanism of harm remains unclear. REMAP-CAP is continuing enrollment in moderate severity and pediatric cohorts to further examine population-specific effects. The episode also addresses the broader challenges of trial design and interpretation in acute care research, the limitations of nonrandomized evidence, and the importance of ongoing Bayesian analyses and transparent reporting. Key HighlightsPre-print is available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7172531REMAP-CAP platform trial, Bayesian logistic regression, covariate adjustmentOseltamivir arms: statistical trigger for inferiority, “98 and 99% probability of harm”Greater harm in sicker subgroups, consistent results across sensitivity analysesOngoing arms: moderate severity and pediatric cohorts, mechanistic questions unresolvedContext: limitations of previous historical data studies, clinical practice impact, future research directionsFor more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/