This Pride Month, Peter F. Garrett appeared on The Cancer Letter Podcast to talk about what his experience during the HIV/Aids crisis has taught him about effective healthcare communication and advocacy.
This episode is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Youtube.
Garrett spoke with Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, and Jacquelyn Cobb, associate editor.
In the 1980s, Garrett was a closeted gay man in his twenties. He met his now-husband, Ken, who was open, and through him was introduced to a network of people who were openly gay. They became Garrett’s “instant-friends.”
“All of a sudden I knew all these great people,” Garrett said on this week’s episode of In the Headlines. “But they then were also dying.”
That time period was characterized by an “overwhelming sense of fear and constant anxiety,” Garrett said.
“It was so mysterious at first. Nobody knew what was going on. They didn’t know if it was an infectious thing, if it was a cancer related to poppers, or some sort of environmental thing,” Garrett said. “So, it was just this very scary feeling that you never knew what a phone call was going to be. Phone calls—I remember being kind of terrifying, (these would’ve been landline phones, obviously) because it just seemed like bad news was coming in, and so forget about doctor’s appointments… Right now, everybody’s getting hay fever and allergies. That terrified you. If you had a sore throat, colds, anything with a fever, you just assumed you had HIV/AIDS.”
This experience was formative for Garrett, who later became the director of External Affairs at NCI. Garrett has since founded Patient Action for Cancer Research, an advocacy organization that aims to organize and amplify patient voices in an effort to protect life-saving health research.
“It was really, really scary. I found myself at the epicenter of something that was happening very quickly to a certain population but was really being talked about broadly, and that very much framed the way I think about disease in general,” Garrett said. “This is really about a pandemic, a disease like cancer that, unlike cancer, which has been around forever, was all of a sudden there, but like cancer in many ways, it had a stigma. And I think that stigma associated with disease is something that is part of what you have to think about when you’re talking with patients about what they’ve experienced in their cancer journey.”
Garrett had a message for people with cancer: Stories have power.
“It’s about people coming to the table and realizing that their story, should they decide to tell it, has a lot of power,” Garrett said. “Whether they tell it to their neighbor or their church community or their local reporter or The New York Times or whomever or a member of Congress, I think it’s all powerful. Because it just reminds us that this is not just about science. Science is cool, but this is about being healthier.”
Stories mentioned in this podcast include:
- Proposed OMB rule aims at the heart of the US research enterprise—and scientists are fighting back
- House bill gives NCI $7.4 billion in FY 2027—$110 million above current budget
- As his Senate testimony alleged danger from mRNA COVID vaccine, El-Deiry had an offer to run NCI Frederick lab
- Lessons from the AIDS Quilt: what the cancer world can learn from AIDS advocacy
- Former NCI official’s nonprofit seeks to tell the stories of cancer patients
This episode was transcribed using transcription services. It has been reviewed by our editorial staff, but the transcript may be imperfect.
The following is a transcript of this week’s In the Headlines, a weekly series on The Cancer Letter Podcast:
Jacquelyn Cobb: This week on the Cancer Letter Podcast…
Peter Garrett: I was in my 20s in the 1980s, and I think that when HIV/AIDS happened, it was really unique because, first of all, it was so mysterious at first. Nobody knew what was going on. They didn’t know if it was an infectious thing, if it was a cancer related to poppers, or some sort of environmental thing. So, it was really scary. And what I remember is just an overwhelming sense of fear and constant anxiety.
Paul Goldberg: You’re listening to The Cancer Letter Podcast. The Cancer Letter is a weekly independent magazine covering oncology since 1973. I’m your host, Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter.
Jacquelyn Cobb: And I’m your host, Jacquelyn Cobb, associate editor of The Cancer Letter. We’ll be bringing you the latest stories, groundbreaking research, and critical conversations shaping oncology.
Paul Goldberg: So, let’s get going.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Hey, Paul. How are you?
Paul Goldberg: Hi, Jacquelyn. How are you? I’m here in Vermont.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yes, yes. We have the bookshelf background again. Thank goodness, I love it. It relaxes my eyes just seeing it. I love that background.
Paul Goldberg: Yeah. Well, thank you. Yeah, it makes me look smarter than I am.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Someone was telling us at the awards dinner last week that if you have a hundred books in the home, that’s a great predictor of childhood success or something. What was it? Do you remember the stat?
Paul Goldberg: That sounds like Katie.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yeah, I think so. What was the stat? Do you remember? Something like that.
Paul Goldberg: My question is, do coloring books count?
Jacquelyn Cobb: That’s a good question. We’ve got to look at the studies. We’re going to have to look back. We’re going to have to become experts in early childhood development and social science too.
Paul Goldberg: I know.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Well, that’s where we’ll leave it then, I guess. I’ll walk us through last week’s headlines. The cover story was pretty crazy. I wrote it. I definitely have a lot to say, sort of on the story behind the story for story one. A lot of stories in that sentence, but I’ll wait to do that because we’re going to be talking about that for a lot of the meat of this podcast. But the general gist was that there is a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget that basically would introduce increased politicization into the peer review and grant federal funding process. And it really, to quote our headline, aims at the heart of the US research enterprise. And our headline says scientists are fighting back. That is definitely true. The whole story is really just a collection of people being like, “Hey, we got to stop this.”
So it was definitely a really cool story to write as a reporter. Our second story was Paul wrote our second story about the House Bill giving NCI about $7.4, or it gave NCI $7.4 billion for fiscal year 2027, which is $110 million above the current budget. So obviously this is still in the process of being legislated, but it’s generally just a rejection of, again, the sort of more conservative slashing of… Or what was it, Paul? It’s flat funding.
Paul Goldberg: Potentially, it’s Trump specifically. It’s not conservative because it’s conservatives any way you look at it.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Oh no, I’m not saying conservative politically. I just mean conservative, like fiscally conservative.
Paul Goldberg: I don’t even know if it’s fiscally conservative. Oh my God, we can start an argument right now. Right here. No, it’s actually it’s the OMB vision for or Trump’s vision. Trump’s OMB’s vision for what NIH was going to do was get about a 10% cut, and instead, the House is giving them a little bit more money than what they currently have.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yeah, $110 million. Thank you, Paul, for saving me, and then I might have to ask you to do it again. Our third story was a follow-up story about Wafik El-Deiry and the Senate testimony that he sort of initiated with Senator Ron Johnson. And the news after last week’s hearing was that it came out that El-Deiry actually had an offer to run the NCI Frederick Lab, which is a huge, very prestigious, and powerful might not be the right word, but it’s in charge of a lot of really important initiatives at the lab. So El-Deiry had a job offer at NCI Frederick Lab before the hearing, and then after the hearing, that offer was rescinded. So we can maybe touch base on that one, but I feel like that’s kind of the gist of that story. And then our last sort of story besides our sponsored article was the Trials and Tribulations Guest Editorial Piece by Peter F. Garrett, founder and Executive Director of Patient Action for Cancer Research.
And also, he was former director of external affairs at the National Cancer Institute, NCI. So that was a really lovely story. He kind of told more of a personal anecdote, that really the whole first half of that story, when I was reading it, I got chills. It’s sort of his personal perspective, being a health communicator and a young gay man during the AIDS crisis. So really beautiful and also just his sort of thesis for our oncology readers, of course, is that the way that the health communicators during the AIDS/HIV crisis sort of appealed to the ethos of the American public and therefore all of the research funding and et cetera, et cetera, is really rooted in seeing the patients as humans and as full humans with stories and friends and families and things like that. So it was really beautiful. Definitely recommend reading it. Like I said, it gave me face chills. I got chills on my face.
Paul Goldberg: It was about the Quilt. Yeah.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yes, yes, yes, exactly.
Paul Goldberg: A quilt that’s just genius is an idea for patient action. And he’s trying to… It inspired a lot of cancer advocacy as well.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yeah.
Paul Goldberg: Specifically, the breast cancer movement comes straight out of there.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Well, if you want to kind of chat about that, I don’t know if I know that.
Paul Goldberg: Yeah, let’s get to that because there’s so much to talk about, and we’ll just destroy everybody’s day, assuming because we’ll go on for hours and hours.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Love that. Yeah. That’s the danger of having both of us on the podcast.
Paul Goldberg: I’ll be grumpy for hours. Why don’t we start with your story, Dr. Cobb?
Jacquelyn Cobb: Dr. Cobb, no, not a doctor. We’re on air here. We can’t be… I’m not a doctor officially, but yes, that story was crazy just to sort of zoom out and like I said, the story behind the story, in a way, was that you had written the news story about this OMB rule so two weeks ago, right after it came out. It was a B story. It wasn’t the cover necessarily, but it was this really big, important B story that was like… And I feel like, Paul, not to wax too poetic here, but I feel like that is really this type of effect from the Trump administration is the type of thing that we as the Cancer Letter are really tuned into. That’s sort of our realm is basically being on the lookout for overpoliticization of science. You know what I mean?
I feel like as they were flooding the zone, and that extends so far beyond just oncology and biomedical research, there’s immigration issues and wars. There are things that are happening that are very much outside of our purview. But in terms of our little world, that definitely still has real-world impact. I feel like this is one of the biggest sort of red flags that have come up since Trump got elected. Again, maybe I’ll just hedge that and say the flooding of the-
Paul Goldberg: If you want to go back, you go back to how the government used to pay for science and how that evolved, the whole system. The key moment is World War II. So when the United States started, the government started sponsoring massive amounts of science in order to win the war. Some of it goes to the malaria project. A lot of actually what happens in oncology afterwards goes back to that because the problem with malaria was that the drug for malaria, quinine, was made in Germany by a German company rather out of raw materials that were produced on an island that was controlled by Japan. So there you go, and then there was some synthesized material, and the GIs didn’t like taking it, and therefore many died of malaria. So it goes back to that. A lot of cancer research comes out of there, too. But I mean, this is a bit of a detour, but maybe not, because it really is going back to the very beginnings of, if you’re paying for science, you better damn make sure that the science is good.
It’s actually science as opposed to the kind of science that isn’t going to work. Bullshit doesn’t cure cancer. We tried. We know that even with all of the safeguards. It’s like one of the few things you absolutely clearly know. Well, there are many things now more and more that you know about it is bullshit, does not cure cancer, and this is getting into a realm where politics steps in, and some political goals that are non-scientific, and science doesn’t really have any regard for that. So it’s not money well spent, but the question is going to be whether A, that gets enacted in its current form. It very well could be. If it does, what will Congress do? It’s not going to be addressed on the appropriations bill because just the timeframe isn’t right, but something else might happen, and I cannot imagine. I cannot imagine that this great country would enact something like that.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yeah. And I think that’s the thing, and this is what I called you last weekend or last week, Paul, and I was like, “Hey, I’m writing this story, and I don’t want to be catastrophist.” And sorry, just to go back to how I came about this story was that I was sort of just gathering the leftovers, almost was what I was doing when I started writing this. What ended up being the cover was for your story about the ruling the previous week, Paul. So Stand Up for Science, which is a new science advocacy organization that kind of was birthed after Trump got elected in response to his policies and they hosted this meeting that was Carolyn Bertozzi, the Nobel Laureate of Chemistry in 2022, I believe one of them spoke at this event, Timothy Snyder, the author of On Tyranny, which is a book about the historical lessons of the rise of authoritarian leaders in the past.
I’m not saying anything, I’m a journalist, I’m just reporting, but the quotes as I was reading through them and it was like I was getting them from Bertozzi, Snyder, and then ACS was putting it out and then this group of basically, and I’m not super familiar with this group, it was good for me to learn about it, but the one that you sent me, Paul, about basically these almost policy advocacy think tanky type organizations that help bridge academia and federal funding and help sort of that bureaucratic process. They basically interpreted the 412 page OMB document that is incredibly confusing and just long and to say like, “Hey, this is actually happening.” And it was just so cute. I think not to… I mean, this is a podcast, so this is more of the personal side of it, but I thought I was going to be a scientist and so I got up to the master’s level, and I realized that wasn’t for me.
So, I have this arrested sneak peek of what the scientific world would be as a scientist. And then I went over to science journalism, where I’m now watching it from the outside more. And from my perspective, and again, I just laid out exactly what my perspective is, it seems to me that scientists tend to… Obviously, there are very political scientists, but they tend to try to just stick really within their silos, do their science, do their work, and to get a huge group of them to rally like this just really flags to me that this is something really to be paying attention to.
And then, sorry, one last thing, Paul, just to wrap up my little spiel here is that to actually give listeners the concrete sort of information after the Stand Up for Science event and after Paul’s reporting and obviously other reporting about this when it happened, when I wrote my story, there were 16,000 comments on the federal register rule, like the proposed rule of people from the lay public, MDs, PhDs all responding really incredibly and they were really good comments. And again, I’m definitely a science entry into this world. Government is not where my brain… My brain doesn’t understand politics in the same way it understands science, but it really felt like, wow, okay, this is scientists doing their homework.
Paul Goldberg: Here’s my proposal. Why don’t we look at the comments and actually do some amplification of those comments? That’s one thing. The second thing, and this is something that we should not forget, is that think of all the things that were supposed to be happening and that did not happen, and we’re all standing upright. We are all vertical still.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. True, true, true.
Paul Goldberg: So this is a policy issue, and that is all it is. You start thinking about it as a kind of, I don’t know, Hitler, Stalin crap.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yeah, no, no.
Paul Goldberg: You get confused because science was also in the wrong place when Stalin was exterminating geneticists, he was also exterminating economists. He was also exterminating anyone who had anything to do with cybernetics, i.e., computer science data. So all this is direct. Don’t go there. Let’s just go where we are, and I’m not thinking you are going there, none of us should go there.
Jacquelyn Cobb: And I think that’s part of why the story was so lovely, was that I felt a little bit inspired by it, honestly. I have a lawyer friend who she’ll tear up and be like, “I just love democracy.” And I never understood it until I was writing this story where I was like… Like you’re saying, of course, the fear and the worst-case scenario is sort of the catastrophizing that you’re saying don’t go there. But the beauty of it is that you do have these 16,000 scientists being like, “Absolutely not. No, we are in…” And so it was quite rousing, I guess is the word I’m looking for. It ended up being quite an empowering story.
And the Stand Up for Science event said, I apologize if I’m getting her name wrong, it’s Courtney, Delawalla, I believe, who was the founder of Stand Up for Science. She explained that these public comments are sort of the basis for any potential legal action in the future. So ideally, OMB sees this flood of comments, whatever, but the plan, the scientists are not giving up, is my point.
Paul Goldberg: No, nobody’s going to give up.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yes, yes, exactly.
Paul Goldberg: Nobody is going to give up. And that brings us to the next story, which is the administration’s vision versus congressional vision for cancer research and for science, and for NIH funding. And here again, the worst-case scenario, now we know, is that NIH is going to get about $110 million more, which is the House version, and NCI is getting about $110 million more. And it’s all because there’s some rejiggering of… And I’m not sure I truly fully understand how the money inside NIH was reconfigured in that bill, but it also really is hardly worth the trouble to find out because Senate bill is what’s going to matter, and then eventually whatever comes out of reconciliation, so one can spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the budgetary assumptions were.
That’s just not worth it. So we reported things as they were as we understood them as best we understood them, and it’s life. So now we know the worst-case scenario is $110 million more, which is not the end of the world. I mean, again, look at where we were versus where the OMB thought we should be and where we are rather. So we’re cool. We’re cool. We’re going to get through it.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Knock on wood for my little [inaudible 00:19:24]-
Paul Goldberg: It’s interesting. Senate is probably going to do better.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yeah, that’s great. I’d love to hear that.
Paul Goldberg: Yeah. Also, we have no idea how the midterms are going to go, but yeah, these are connected stories. Let’s not get stuck on appropriations because appropriations is one of the more boring things in life, even though-
Jacquelyn Cobb: Even though it’s super important.
Paul Goldberg: It’s very important, but yeah, it seems to be under control.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Yes, yes. Well, the last story we have to talk about is Wafik and the Frederick Lab. I know that we’ve definitely talked a decent amount about Wafik El-Deiry and sort of how the Senate hearing went, and we definitely, I feel like, covered that last week, but did you want to talk at all about the Frederick Lab and maybe give some… Because I don’t know that our… I’m sure we’ve talked about it on a podcast, but definitely not for a while. So maybe a little bit of a primer on the Frederick Lab too.
Paul Goldberg: Yeah. Frederick Lab is one of the largest contracts in the US health programs. It’s enormous. It can go into billions of dollars, and the number is correct in the story. Was it $90 billion if all the extensions occur to the maximum and for a generation since the 1990s, again, my numbers are correct. I stand by-
Jacquelyn Cobb: 1987, yes.
Paul Goldberg: 1987. It’s been in the hands of SAIC, which is now known as Leidos, and it was recompeted, and the award came through in the last day of the Biden administration and Leidos lost it and lost it to the University of California regents, and this is all done totally in secret.
It was quite a bit of work for me to figure out what in the world was going on, and it took me months to get it…
No, didn’t take me months, but it took us a few weeks to get it out, and we cite the story, but then there were challenges. I don’t even know what the challenges were because this whole process is totally opaque, and it does sound to me like the Leidos is still operating, Frederick, based on the fact that there are subcontracts being issued by Leidos. I have no other basis for saying it.
Leidos is very cryptic in how they answer questions, or NIH is even more cryptic about how they answer questions, but I guess what is important is what that place did and what it does. RAS Initiative is part of what Frederick contract does. And this is not intramural research, mind you, this is a contractor for NCI, and it’s the only national laboratory that engages in cancer research, or the rest of them are nuclear stuff, Department of Energy. They also did a huge amount of COVID work.
They did a huge amount of Ebola and Zika virus. And, in fact, was it 2016, correct me if I’m wrong, that they did delayed recompetition of the grant because of the Zika, Ebola, and Moonshot? I mean, this is important work. I had no idea what was going on in terms of replacing the president of Leidos by Frederick and NCI Frederick PI, and I had no idea that Wafik El-Deiry was being considered. Now the previous PI and president was Ethan Dmitrovsky, who’s no longer there. I can’t figure out… I do believe that what’s happening now is that they are recompeting it and that it’s between Leidos and University of California again. So a process like that should take two years or so, because this is a monster.
So it’s interesting that Dr. El-Deiry was there testifying about the spike protein and how it lingers in the tumors and showing slides of sarcomas and I guess with other cancers, various cancers that show up right in the injection sites and he’s in on the panel with folks that one should not be… Necessarily would be… I would not be on that panel, let’s put it this way, even if I knew what I was… Generally, when somebody says to you that I’m absolutely certain that members of the royal family got their cancers because they got COVID vaccines, I would generally not want to be on the panel with them.
But Dr. El-Deiry was there as the star witness talking about… But there it is, and God knows it’s not over yet. But they withdrew the offer to Dr. El-Deiry, which is it’s no small job to have pulled back. I mean, there were some other issues apparently, but it is a contract that, and here I’m absolutely certain that there are three things that have to happen before that job would begin, right? One of them, Leidos, would have to get the contract. Two, you have to pass the clearance. I assume that wouldn’t be a problem for most people who are that high up in the field and three NCI as the client has to okay it.
So, for whatever reason, they withdrew this thing the next day after the Senate hearing that we covered.
So, the other thing I wanted to mention is that Peter Garrett, whose piece, his commentary we wrote about, we published rather, is available right now. So why don’t we get him? Chiming in from Northwest Washington is Peter Garrett, whose editorial, guest editorial we published, and welcome to the Cancer Letter weekly podcast, Dr. Garrett.
Peter Garrett: Cool. All right. Well, I was in my 20s in the 1980s, and I think that when HIV/AIDS happened, it was really unique because, first of all, it was so mysterious at first. Nobody knew what was going on. They didn’t know if it was an infectious thing, if it was a cancer related to poppers, or some sort of environmental thing. So it was really scary, and what I remember is just an overwhelming sense of fear and constant anxiety. I had met a couple of men surreptitiously, like the gentleman who I talked about who was in the Quilt, but I remember when I met Ken, I was 25 and he was 31, and Ken, by the way, is my husband, who we’ve been together coming up on 40 years, and he’d been out for a while and I had been really closeted. So he knew a lot of people, and they became my instant friends.
All of a sudden I knew all these great people who worked on the hill and all the… But they then were also dying. And so it was just this very scary feeling that you never knew what a phone call was going to be. Phone calls, I remember, being kind of terrifying. These would’ve been landline phones, obviously, because it just seemed like bad news was coming in, and so forget about doctor’s appointments. Nobody did those. Of course, in your 20s, you don’t have to either, then you didn’t have to. But right now, everybody’s getting hay fever and allergies. That terrified you if you had a sore throat, colds, anything with a fever, you just assumed you had HIV/AIDS. It was really, really scary. I found myself at the epicenter of something that was happening very quickly to a certain population but was really being talked about broadly, and that very much framed the way I think about disease in general.
Healthcare is a misnomer because healthcare assumes you’re healthy or should assume you’re healthy, but this is really about a pandemic, a disease like cancer that, unlike cancer, which has been around forever, was all of a sudden there, but like cancer in many ways, it had a stigma. And I think that stigma associated with disease is something that is part of what you have to think about when you’re talking with patients about what they’ve experienced in their cancer journey.
Paul Goldberg: Yeah, there is a very strong connection between the politics of AIDS, HIV/AIDS, and the politics of cancer. I saw it coming in through the breast cancer advocacy world, which is what we all sort of know about. But right now, at this time, do projects at the time when the government is kind of uncertain, I mean, there are parts of the government that are pro-research and funding research, and there are parts of the government that say, “Eh, not really.” What is the role of patients? What should the role of patients be at this time?
Peter Garrett: Well, it’s interesting you bring up breast cancer because I was doing a lot of HIV/AIDS volunteering for the Quilt and those kinds of things, but then I got a job working with the National Cancer Institute on Breast Cancer, and I met a lot of breast cancer patients very quickly. And so I was sort of doing both things at the same time. And what I saw was a lot of ways patients and the breast cancer people were emulating some of what the HIV/AIDS people were doing, meaning they were going to talk out. Forget stigma, this is something that happens to people. It doesn’t just happen to some small group of people. It happens more broadly across society, and it’s everyone’s issue because you just don’t know. And so I think that in the case of cancer, patients who are informed, who understand that since 1975 and certainly, even since the ’90s, we’ve made so much progress, and it’s only because we have invested in it in lots of different ways, including in the federal government, that taxpayers have supported this really important research that makes everything possible.
Paul Goldberg: Well, what is the similarity or difference, perhaps between the Quilt that you write about and what you’re doing now, which is a group called Pacer?
Peter Garrett: I think the similarity is that it’s about individuals and it’s about people coming to the table and realizing that their story, should they decide to tell it, has a lot of power. Whether they tell it to their neighbor or their church community or their local reporter or the New York Times or whomever or a member of Congress, I think it’s all powerful because it just reminds us that this is not just about science. Science is cool, but this is about being healthier. And if you get sick, it’s about being very grateful that you have a possibility of, or even perhaps you had a possibility of getting well. It doesn’t always happen, but it’s certainly all part of the thing. We’re all in this together.
Paul Goldberg: I’m wondering if there’s room for a cancer quilt, or maybe it should be a virtual cancer quilt.
Peter Garrett: Well, I think that would be great. The one thing that I feel very strongly is that, and what we’re trying to do is to have something happen organically. I also in my career have done advertising and what have you. I don’t think the best ad creatives could really come up with what we need. I think it needs to come from people who we’re talking to and talking to other people and come up with an idea that does put this on the map because I agree with you. Something like a quilt would be great.
Paul Goldberg: Or you are collecting stories of patients, and they should be maybe there’s room for a virtual quilt.
Peter Garrett: Sure. Yeah.
Paul Goldberg: All right. Well, thank you for writing that piece. Very inspirational, really for me to see it, and it’s very timely. Thank you very much.
Peter Garrett: Thank you. And I did want to say thanks to PICI because they really did a great job with that Hill event, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunology or Immunotherapy.
Paul Goldberg: Cool.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Wonderful. Well, thank you so much, Peter. It was such a pleasure and such a treat to have you all of a sudden on the podcast, and it was cool to hear your perspective again. So, thank you and listeners, I will talk to you next week.
Paul Goldberg: We’ll all be here, God willing.
Jacquelyn Cobb: Paul… Thank you for joining us on the Cancer Letter Podcast, where we explore the stories shaping the future of oncology. For more in-depth reporting and analysis, visit us at cancerletter.com. With over 200 site license subscriptions, you may already have access through your workplace. If you found this episode valuable, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and share. Together, we’ll keep the conversation going.
Paul Goldberg: Until next time, stay informed, stay engaged, and thank you for listening.
