Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

What if AI could help doctors recognize when a patient is beginning to deteriorate? At the third annual TIME100 AI Impact Dinner in San Francisco, Suchi Saria, founder of Bayesian Health, shared the personal story behind her work. In 2017, Saria lost her nephew to sepsis. She had already... spent years studying whether routinely collected clinical data could reveal when patients were beginning to deteriorate, but when her own family needed that science, she realized it had not yet become a system that could be used in care. Today, Bayesian Health’s system analyzes clinical notes, lab results, clinical history and vital signs for shifts that suggest a patient may be at risk for an adverse medical event. Read more about Suchi Saria’s mission here:show more

TIME

18,527,622 subscribers

45,899 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Health & Wellness Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

4 Comments

V4g480nd3 days ago

Another scamming pajeet

Tex 🇺🇸🌱4 days ago

What if AI can solve world hunger

KEMAL GULER4 days ago

This is where AI can make a real difference in healthcare. Detecting subtle warning signs before a patient visibly deteriorates could give doctors valuable time to intervene.

Johnny Cornell3 days ago

Well dipshits, you have managed to ignore 950,000,000 children to death.

Related Videos

At the third annual TIME100 AI Impact Dinner in San Francisco, Danielle Boyer reflected on the “seven generations teaching” her grandmother shared with her, a lesson about considering what every decision leaves behind. She called on those building artificial intelligence to think about the impact their decisions could have on the next seven generations, and to consider not only what is possible, but what should be possible. Read more about Danielle Boyer’s perspective on AI here:

At the third annual TIME100 AI Impact Dinner in San Francisco, Danielle Boyer reflected on the “seven generations teaching” her grandmother shared with her, a lesson about considering what every decision leaves behind. She called on those building artificial intelligence to think about the impact their decisions could have on the next seven generations, and to consider not only what is possible, but what should be possible. Read more about Danielle Boyer’s perspective on AI here:

TIME

52,629 views • 4 days ago

It was literally a back-of-the-envelope idea. Dr. Nima Nassiri had pulled out an envelope to scribble notes on how a bladder transplant could be accomplished in a living person—a surgery that had yet to be performed successfully. About four years later, on May 4, 2025, Nassiri—now 37 and an assistant clinical professor of urology at the University of California, Los Angeles—performed a bladder transplant on a 41-year-old father of four. The procedure, a world first, was a tremendous success. See the full list of last year's notable health breakthroughs and scientists behind them here:

It was literally a back-of-the-envelope idea. Dr. Nima Nassiri had pulled out an envelope to scribble notes on how a bladder transplant could be accomplished in a living person—a surgery that had yet to be performed successfully. About four years later, on May 4, 2025, Nassiri—now 37 and an assistant clinical professor of urology at the University of California, Los Angeles—performed a bladder transplant on a 41-year-old father of four. The procedure, a world first, was a tremendous success. See the full list of last year's notable health breakthroughs and scientists behind them here:

TIME

31,703 views • 7 months ago

Spoiler warning 🚨 In season two of 'The Pitt', a new attending physician is determined to improve efficiencies at the hospital. She tells her skeptical staff that new AI systems can cut down their time spent on charting by 80%, allowing them to spend more time both at the bedside and at home. But in episode six, doctors discover that the AI tool has made up false details about a patient and confused “urology” for “neurology.” Like many of the show’s themes, this storyline mirrors real-life debates happening in hospitals across the country. Tech correspondent Andrew Chow explains how AI is already being used by medical professionals, how they feel about it. Read more here:

Spoiler warning 🚨 In season two of 'The Pitt', a new attending physician is determined to improve efficiencies at the hospital. She tells her skeptical staff that new AI systems can cut down their time spent on charting by 80%, allowing them to spend more time both at the bedside and at home. But in episode six, doctors discover that the AI tool has made up false details about a patient and confused “urology” for “neurology.” Like many of the show’s themes, this storyline mirrors real-life debates happening in hospitals across the country. Tech correspondent Andrew Chow explains how AI is already being used by medical professionals, how they feel about it. Read more here:

TIME

44,335 views • 6 months ago

In our recent broadcast Nathan Goodyear, MD, MD(H) said something that really resonated with me. He said that somewhere in the process of drug development, we've lost the humanity of the patient and the potential of what it means to be a physician to serve the patient. He's right. And I've seen it firsthand for a long time now. Technology and clinical innovation are moving faster than ever, but the regulatory process hasn't kept pace. Patients have access to more information than at any point in history, yet they can't access treatments that could help them because the approval pipeline is still functioning decades behind the science. At Williams Cancer Institute , we've lived this challenge. Cancer is complex. It often requires multiple drugs working together. But the FDA has traditionally required single-drug approval, which means a drug that may not show strong results on its own, but could be transformative in combination, never gets its chance. We've been working to change that. We now have a four-drug combination in clinical trials, and the FDA is beginning to open up to combination approaches. But it's been a long road. Dr. Goodyear put it well: we need to innovate on the regulatory side to match the innovation happening on the clinical side. How do we get treatments to patients faster while maintaining safety? Because the cost of a life can't be measured in dollars, timelines, or quarterly earnings. It's measured in relationships, in time with family, in the chance to keep living.

In our recent broadcast Nathan Goodyear, MD, MD(H) said something that really resonated with me. He said that somewhere in the process of drug development, we've lost the humanity of the patient and the potential of what it means to be a physician to serve the patient. He's right. And I've seen it firsthand for a long time now. Technology and clinical innovation are moving faster than ever, but the regulatory process hasn't kept pace. Patients have access to more information than at any point in history, yet they can't access treatments that could help them because the approval pipeline is still functioning decades behind the science. At Williams Cancer Institute , we've lived this challenge. Cancer is complex. It often requires multiple drugs working together. But the FDA has traditionally required single-drug approval, which means a drug that may not show strong results on its own, but could be transformative in combination, never gets its chance. We've been working to change that. We now have a four-drug combination in clinical trials, and the FDA is beginning to open up to combination approaches. But it's been a long road. Dr. Goodyear put it well: we need to innovate on the regulatory side to match the innovation happening on the clinical side. How do we get treatments to patients faster while maintaining safety? Because the cost of a life can't be measured in dollars, timelines, or quarterly earnings. It's measured in relationships, in time with family, in the chance to keep living.

Jason R. Williams, MD, DABR

21,307 views • 6 months ago

Kendra Lust revealed a story about her nosy neighbour who had asked her for what she does for a living even though she already knew what she does and she had replied confidently that she does Advlt film cause it affords a very good life for her family and that she has a business on the side and she had asked "what about you" she revealed that the neighbors Jaw dropped. In her opinion when you own it and sat it what can people say, she says she is going to say it because she is not ashamed of it. She revealed that the same night the neighbour had divulged a lot of information about her life and her previous marriage. "Sometimes when you become vulnerable or you make yourself vulnerable, people are more inclined to talk with you"

Sensitive content

Kendra Lust revealed a story about her nosy neighbour who had asked her for what she does for a living even though she already knew what she does and she had replied confidently that she does Advlt film cause it affords a very good life for her family and that she has a business on the side and she had asked "what about you" she revealed that the neighbors Jaw dropped. In her opinion when you own it and sat it what can people say, she says she is going to say it because she is not ashamed of it. She revealed that the same night the neighbour had divulged a lot of information about her life and her previous marriage. "Sometimes when you become vulnerable or you make yourself vulnerable, people are more inclined to talk with you"

𝙔𝙖gi

57,742 views • 1 month ago

The Probiotic Paradox: What Big Pharma & the FDA Don’t Want You to Know Dr. Sabine Hazan, a leading gastroenterologist & clinical trial expert, reveals a critical gap in medicine: The probiotic industry knows bifidobacterium loss is linked to cancer & aging. Yet, they can’t say probiotics may improve longevity or severe disease. Why? The FDA demands clinical trials—even when the science is clear. Doctors are caught in a regulatory trap. Even well-meaning physicians risk FDA backlash for discussing real-world results. But here’s the problem: "If we only approve drugs with a 20% success rate, what happens to the other 80%?" —Dr. Hazan Her work proves innovation can’t stop at FDA approval. When her team used ivermectin/doxycycline/zinc for COVID, ZERO patients died—despite placebo groups crashing. Yet, without billion-dollar trials, such breakthroughs stay in the shadows. The truth? Medicine must evolve beyond red tape. Social media is now a lifeline for sharing unfiltered data & empowering doctors to think beyond the 20%. Follow Dr. Sabine Hazan as she challenges the system—one clinical trial at a time.

The Probiotic Paradox: What Big Pharma & the FDA Don’t Want You to Know Dr. Sabine Hazan, a leading gastroenterologist & clinical trial expert, reveals a critical gap in medicine: The probiotic industry knows bifidobacterium loss is linked to cancer & aging. Yet, they can’t say probiotics may improve longevity or severe disease. Why? The FDA demands clinical trials—even when the science is clear. Doctors are caught in a regulatory trap. Even well-meaning physicians risk FDA backlash for discussing real-world results. But here’s the problem: "If we only approve drugs with a 20% success rate, what happens to the other 80%?" —Dr. Hazan Her work proves innovation can’t stop at FDA approval. When her team used ivermectin/doxycycline/zinc for COVID, ZERO patients died—despite placebo groups crashing. Yet, without billion-dollar trials, such breakthroughs stay in the shadows. The truth? Medicine must evolve beyond red tape. Social media is now a lifeline for sharing unfiltered data & empowering doctors to think beyond the 20%. Follow Dr. Sabine Hazan as she challenges the system—one clinical trial at a time.

Camus

40,574 views • 1 year ago

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

Wall Street Apes

115,712 views • 1 year ago

2026: A patient reached out to me yesterday to let me know about a concerning interaction with a hospital system. The patient was scheduled for a therapeutic procedure, in advance of surgery. Arrangements were made and the patient paid their estimated portion of the cost. Then they received a call from the facility asking them whether they still had the same insurance. When the patient confirmed that nothing had changed, they received a warning from the facility that the estimate no longer applied and costs could go up…significantly. Why? Because the hospital system is renegotiating with the insurance company. Not because the clinical situation changed, not because the procedure became more complex…just because the patient is caught in the middle of a business negotiation without an advocate. So they called me. And I’m telling all of you. So we can help one another by insisting that patients come first. Always.

2026: A patient reached out to me yesterday to let me know about a concerning interaction with a hospital system. The patient was scheduled for a therapeutic procedure, in advance of surgery. Arrangements were made and the patient paid their estimated portion of the cost. Then they received a call from the facility asking them whether they still had the same insurance. When the patient confirmed that nothing had changed, they received a warning from the facility that the estimate no longer applied and costs could go up…significantly. Why? Because the hospital system is renegotiating with the insurance company. Not because the clinical situation changed, not because the procedure became more complex…just because the patient is caught in the middle of a business negotiation without an advocate. So they called me. And I’m telling all of you. So we can help one another by insisting that patients come first. Always.

Elisabeth Potter MD

55,057 views • 8 months ago

For nearly a decade, Minnesota resident and colon cancer patient Emma Dimmery fought with every tool medicine made available to her. "I was at a point where it was starting to look bleak," she says. Here, she speaks to the challenges of navigating bureaucracy in the health care system:

For nearly a decade, Minnesota resident and colon cancer patient Emma Dimmery fought with every tool medicine made available to her. "I was at a point where it was starting to look bleak," she says. Here, she speaks to the challenges of navigating bureaucracy in the health care system:

TIME

42,298 views • 4 months ago

#山根涼羽 Zunchan was clarifying something she said in her seitansai speech that seems to have been misunderstood after only a certain part was clipped and shared online. What she meant was never that AKB was “better” than KLP, or that she was criticizing KLP, Malaysia, or the people around her there. She explained that she is genuinely grateful for the environment she had in KLP, and at the same time, her experience in Malaysia made her realize how many things in AKB she had previously taken for granted. With KLP, they were essentially building a 48 Group and its idol culture from the ground up in a place where that system and environment were not already established. There were a lot of fun experiences, but naturally there were also difficult things that came with having to create something from scratch. Because she went through that experience, when she returned to AKB, she became more aware of all the things that were already established and prepared for the members there, and it made her feel grateful for the AKB environment as well. She specifically emphasized that this was NOT about saying one place was better than the other. She said that both places were wonderful to her, both were places she loved, and that was what she had wanted to convey. She also mentioned that some Malaysian fans had misunderstood what she meant, and clarified that she never intended for her words to be used to attack anyone. So I hope people can listen to what she is actually saying here rather than judging her based only on a clipped portion of her speech. Her point was about gaining a new appreciation for both environments through her experiences in each of them, not putting one down to praise the other.

#山根涼羽 Zunchan was clarifying something she said in her seitansai speech that seems to have been misunderstood after only a certain part was clipped and shared online. What she meant was never that AKB was “better” than KLP, or that she was criticizing KLP, Malaysia, or the people around her there. She explained that she is genuinely grateful for the environment she had in KLP, and at the same time, her experience in Malaysia made her realize how many things in AKB she had previously taken for granted. With KLP, they were essentially building a 48 Group and its idol culture from the ground up in a place where that system and environment were not already established. There were a lot of fun experiences, but naturally there were also difficult things that came with having to create something from scratch. Because she went through that experience, when she returned to AKB, she became more aware of all the things that were already established and prepared for the members there, and it made her feel grateful for the AKB environment as well. She specifically emphasized that this was NOT about saying one place was better than the other. She said that both places were wonderful to her, both were places she loved, and that was what she had wanted to convey. She also mentioned that some Malaysian fans had misunderstood what she meant, and clarified that she never intended for her words to be used to attack anyone. So I hope people can listen to what she is actually saying here rather than judging her based only on a clipped portion of her speech. Her point was about gaining a new appreciation for both environments through her experiences in each of them, not putting one down to praise the other.

Tina 🍉

17,578 views • 23 days ago

Nicole Shanahan warns of an “extinction” level risk if AI-developed mRNA vaccines are rushed into use. “What we need for the mRNA platform right now is a moratorium. It's not ready for human use.” “It delivers an inconsistent result in individuals.” “In order for our population to grow, to be strong, to be fully able-bodied, and for our human economy to thrive, we do need a moratorium on the mRNA for the time being.” “AI is a computer system. Human health is not.” “There's so many that could have been shared in yesterday's conference that are really excellent uses of AI… I heard a few that were kind of out there and if deployed too quickly could lead to an extinction event.”

Nicole Shanahan warns of an “extinction” level risk if AI-developed mRNA vaccines are rushed into use. “What we need for the mRNA platform right now is a moratorium. It's not ready for human use.” “It delivers an inconsistent result in individuals.” “In order for our population to grow, to be strong, to be fully able-bodied, and for our human economy to thrive, we do need a moratorium on the mRNA for the time being.” “AI is a computer system. Human health is not.” “There's so many that could have been shared in yesterday's conference that are really excellent uses of AI… I heard a few that were kind of out there and if deployed too quickly could lead to an extinction event.”

End Tribalism in Politics

572,312 views • 1 year ago

"The only way to get justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callen was to get her the help that she desperately needed." It's a grim irony if you think about it. Clancy’s plan was contingent on the fact that she already had help. Her husband worked from home in the basement, supported her financially, and would pick up food or anything else she asked for. She used that reliability to get him out of the basement and then proceeded to kill her three kids...in the basement. But she also had the doctors, the meds, an inpatient psych admission. She even went to a specialized ER at Women & Infant's Hospital, which offers specialty care for postpartum issues. She had contact with a crisis/suicide hotline, which she used on two occasions in the weeks before. She had access to everything psychiatric medicine had to offer, both inpatient and outpatient. She also had a nanny to help with the kids. She had a supportive family that cared enough to go along with her to appointments. Did the jurors ever ask what more help she could have received? They likely did and reached the same conclusion any reasonable person would. The fact that they were still willing to let her off makes their decisions all the more horrifying.

"The only way to get justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callen was to get her the help that she desperately needed." It's a grim irony if you think about it. Clancy’s plan was contingent on the fact that she already had help. Her husband worked from home in the basement, supported her financially, and would pick up food or anything else she asked for. She used that reliability to get him out of the basement and then proceeded to kill her three kids...in the basement. But she also had the doctors, the meds, an inpatient psych admission. She even went to a specialized ER at Women & Infant's Hospital, which offers specialty care for postpartum issues. She had contact with a crisis/suicide hotline, which she used on two occasions in the weeks before. She had access to everything psychiatric medicine had to offer, both inpatient and outpatient. She also had a nanny to help with the kids. She had a supportive family that cared enough to go along with her to appointments. Did the jurors ever ask what more help she could have received? They likely did and reached the same conclusion any reasonable person would. The fact that they were still willing to let her off makes their decisions all the more horrifying.

Eithan Haim MD

36,056 views • 11 days ago

Look like I've said in the past I'm a Trump supporter and a conservative/Republican but we all need to stop bitching about #MTG using the system that benefits her when the government had this put in place for decades! She used a system that allowed her to do insider trading allowed her to keep all of her benefits when leaving the government its the same thing Trump told Hillary on the debate floor back in 2015 if you want me to pay taxes change the tax codes I look at it this way she burned bridges now she getting out and she is taking whats hers so dont be pissed with her be pissed at our government for not changing it to allow this to happen!

Look like I've said in the past I'm a Trump supporter and a conservative/Republican but we all need to stop bitching about #MTG using the system that benefits her when the government had this put in place for decades! She used a system that allowed her to do insider trading allowed her to keep all of her benefits when leaving the government its the same thing Trump told Hillary on the debate floor back in 2015 if you want me to pay taxes change the tax codes I look at it this way she burned bridges now she getting out and she is taking whats hers so dont be pissed with her be pissed at our government for not changing it to allow this to happen!

1mZerOCool🍎🎸🤘

24,244 views • 10 months ago

“The worst they can say is no.” Rachel Zegler says she doesn’t believe in trying to fit someone else’s mold. Instead, she wants to show them what the mold could be. After a fulfilling year of filmmaking, Zegler says her mission was to work with women and Latinos, and she’s excited for the doors those projects can open, not just for her, but for the people she made them with. Read more about TIME’s 2026 Latino Leaders here:

“The worst they can say is no.” Rachel Zegler says she doesn’t believe in trying to fit someone else’s mold. Instead, she wants to show them what the mold could be. After a fulfilling year of filmmaking, Zegler says her mission was to work with women and Latinos, and she’s excited for the doors those projects can open, not just for her, but for the people she made them with. Read more about TIME’s 2026 Latino Leaders here:

TIME

151,146 views • 4 days ago

It is vital that what happened to my daughter Paloma is properly and independently investigated, not only for her sake but because the clinicians involved continue to work in frontline, high-risk roles including anaesthesia, intensive care, air ambulance medicine, and medical training. Where sworn evidence, drug charts, observation data, and imaging raise serious questions about excessive dosing of paralysing agents, failure to recognise classic signs of adrenaline-related pulmonary oedema, and delays or inconsistencies in clinical decision-making, the issue is no longer private or historical. It becomes a matter of public safety. Patients are entitled to expect that doctors administering powerful drugs such as adrenaline and rocuronium understand their effects, recognise deterioration when it occurs, and act promptly to correct it. If those standards were not met here, and if that has not been transparently examined, then the public may remain at risk. This is why scrutiny, accountability, and full investigation are not optional, and why this matter is plainly in the public interest.

It is vital that what happened to my daughter Paloma is properly and independently investigated, not only for her sake but because the clinicians involved continue to work in frontline, high-risk roles including anaesthesia, intensive care, air ambulance medicine, and medical training. Where sworn evidence, drug charts, observation data, and imaging raise serious questions about excessive dosing of paralysing agents, failure to recognise classic signs of adrenaline-related pulmonary oedema, and delays or inconsistencies in clinical decision-making, the issue is no longer private or historical. It becomes a matter of public safety. Patients are entitled to expect that doctors administering powerful drugs such as adrenaline and rocuronium understand their effects, recognise deterioration when it occurs, and act promptly to correct it. If those standards were not met here, and if that has not been transparently examined, then the public may remain at risk. This is why scrutiny, accountability, and full investigation are not optional, and why this matter is plainly in the public interest.

Kate Shemirani

24,117 views • 7 months ago