Sponsored: After COVID-19, are we better prepared for the next pandemic?

Dr Julie Gerberdeine. I got to know Dr Gerberdeine when she was head of the c d C. She really knows her stuff. We also work closely together on calling cancer awareness back in the day. As a company with a long legacy of research and infectious disease, Murk has been in the thick of the COVID crisis, mobilizing its scientific expertise to help address the pandemic. So in this conversation, Dr Gerberdine and I look at the pandemics lasting impact on public health and how we can better prepare for

the next one. I wanted to ask you on a personal level, as we approach the summer of how are you feeling cautiously optimistic. Yeah, I I believe in the value of the vaccines, and I think we're going to see pockets of really high protection. But I think we're also going to see occasional hot spots. And that's the

thing that scares me the most. I know that it's hard to even speculate about this, Dr gerbertine, but how concerned are you about a variant that will not be susceptible to the vaccine, Because honestly, that's what I think about, and I'm sure that's probably one of the reasons you're

cautiously optimistic exactly right. You know, we have the virus and the variants versus the vaccine and vigilance, and these variants are pretty addictable surprises, but we've been seeing them emerge even before we put the virus under vaccine pressure, or we hope in the future more anti viral pressure.

So given the way that this particular family of viruses operates, I think we have to be prepared for ongoing evolution, somewhat like we see ongoing evolution of the influenza viruses each year, and that means that we need to prepare ourselves for the possibility that we would need to have a two point o version of vaccine that would keep

up with the changes in the virus. Of course, that will be complicated, and in order to really understand that, we have to have much better global surveillance of where the virus is and where it's going and how it's evolving. And we're not there yet, so we've got a lot of work to do. Is that preparation underway even as

we speak, there are a lot of efforts underway. The scale of the monitoring of the virus variants has exploded in the last couple of months, and that's a good thing, but of course it's not reaching everywhere in the world. Even in the best of circumstances, we still have large gaps and large time delays in our ability to see

what's happening. So in a situation like that, often what is done is you rely on what we call sentinel sites, so strategic places where we do intensive sampling to try to get a feeling for what's going on on a broader population basis, and that kind of surveillance is really was helping us track this virus across the world. Let me ask you sort of a dumb question but if a variant is discovered and we find that it is not susceptible to the current vaccines, how quickly can another

vaccine be developed to deal with that? But you know, that's the good news about some of the vaccines that we have right now, the m R and A vaccines in particular, it's barely easy to adjust the RNA that is in them. So already both Baiser and Maderna are testing the next generation of vaccines, and I think the news is promising that we're likely to see um the

ability to keep up with the coronavirus. Of course, the faster we bring it under control now in the largest number of places, the less that new vaccine will be needed, and hopefully it could be delayed. So we still want to concentrate on getting as many people as possible vaccinated right now and not undoing the good work that our

vigilance up to this point has accomplished. But I you know, you can imagine a scenario between vaccines and then anti virals where we convert what has been a tragedy around the world into something that does seem more like influenza manageable. Certainly don't want to get it if we can avoid it, but nevertheless, it's not something that shuts down the economy or causes the kind of economic and humanitarian crisis that

we're experiencing right now. From what you've seen so far, do you think that we'll have to get a booster every year? You know, the term booster is used in two ways. It's used first of all, for the possibility that the immunity from the vaccine might not lost last very long, so you would need a booster dose to keep your immunity as high as possible. But then there's also this issue of variants, and that would require a slightly different vaccine to be used, So both things could

be be true. Right now, we don't know how long the vaccines will provide protection, even if the virus didn't change at all, simply because they're new and we haven't had a chance to follow people long enough to answer that question. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're going to need to see uh, what I would

call two point all vaccines. We may actually get to the point where the content of the vaccine also balls, so that we will be able to create longer lasting community with a single vaccine or a broadening of the immune effect that would cover more than one variant or have the ability to be more universally protected for this family of coronavirus is. So those are the things will

aim for down the road. But I think in this pandemic the best thing that's happened is science has been on our side in terms of the speed with which we were able to roll out in the vaccine and to have it have such high efficacy is nothing short of miraculous. When you heard that the vaccine was rolling out so quickly, Uh, were you astonished? And was there

any part of you? Dr Gerberdine that was worried? Well before we even we're thinking about how fast would it take to get a vaccine, we're watching what really looked like very early and worrisome signs of person to person transmission.

And then when you started hearing these anecdotes about perhaps asymptomatic transmission, I was extremely worried because this is almost the you know, syndrome X kind of exercise that we've so long prepared for, where you have something that's silently spread, that moves very efficiently from person to person and can cause really deadly disease. So I was extremely alarmed by this situation, and I think many of my colleagues in

the public health system were equally concerned. You don't want to jump out in front of something like that and create unnecessary alarm, But at the same time, the signals were there, and having trained in this area of my whole life, I was on the alert, and I was obviously very disappointed to find out that those concerns were

well founded. But what about Was there any part of you that was worried about the vaccine being produced so quickly that, um, you know, I think a lot of people were so thrilled about it, but I think simultaneously there was a lot of worry in the general public. Well, gosh, that's sort of quick, and maybe it won't work because

it was developed so quickly. You know. There's a couple of things that a lot of people haven't really been I'm told, and that is that the work on this class of vaccines and this family of viruses had been going on for a long time before this particular coronavirus emerged.

We've seen two other coronavirus is the Stars in two thousand and three and the Mirrors that has been percolating along in the Middle East for quite some time, so work on coronavirus vaccines have been going on in the background, and a lot of the important steps of developing a vaccine had already been accomplished. That's part of the reason why we're able to jump on this so quickly and more or less sub atitude in the specifics of this coronavirus into the platforms in the backbone of the work

that had already been done. But I don't think that story was really completely told, and so people have the impression that we had nothing and then all of a sudden we had a fully formed vaccine, and that does seem very fast, and I think the emphasis on how quickly we could get people vaccinated did make people worry

about the safety. Now, one of the things that I'm proud of the pharmaceutical industry for is that we stood strong with the f d A and said, we want person of all clarity on what the requirements for approval are, but also we will not take safety shortcuts. And we all step forward and signed a pledge to that effect that even though we knew how important it was to

get an authorized vaccine as quickly as possible. We pledged no safety shortcuts, and we wanted to make sure that when the pandemic vaccines went through the regulatory of a process that they were subject to the same high standard that we use for all of the other vaccines that we've made. And I feel really proud of that, and

that gives me a lot of confidence. It doesn't mean that there isn't a side effect or that there couldn't be a problem down the road, but we're using high standards and we're watching and reporting what we do see. Is it disconcerting that one in three Americans say they will not get vaccinated according to a recent poll. You know, vaccine hesitancy was a problem a year before this pandemic even was known. Um w h O cited Vaccine hesitancy is when the top ten health challenges in the world

in two thousand and nineteen. So it's a problem in our society. Part of the problem is just broad mistrust in science. Part of the problem is mistrust in the people who are providing information and making those kinds of recommendations. And then there's a whole host of other reasons that may nothing to do with vaccines but have to do with the social context in which people make their health decisions and their trust of government or trust of the

health system more broadly. So it's been a very important problem for a long time. Now you bring a pandemic into it, and then you bring forward something new and new approaches to vaccinology that people haven't been familiar with, so it's understandable that there would be some spectrum of hesitancy. Um. You know, we've been vaccine a lot of people now. I think almost two billion doses of vaccine have been administered around the world, so we know a lot more

now than we did in January. I think that's helping some people feel like, Okay, you know, we've watched, we've learned, Um, I'm ready. But there still is a sizeable proportion of our population who, for whatever reason, doesn't feel that vaccine is the right decision for them. And I am worried about that because I think our hopes of herd immunity UM being achieved are dwindling if we don't get a high enough coverage of our population to really quench those

last um, those last arms that aren't protected. So I really worry that we're going to have pandemic fatigue, and that as we head into a situation where it looks very promising in the short run, if we're not vigilant, and if we go too far in terms of opening up, our society will be right back where we started. We'll take a quick break, but when we come back, what exactly is herd immunity and why is it so critical? That's right after this, Why is her immunity so important?

I know, and maybe you could explain it to an eighth grader what herd immunity is and what percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated and why it's so critical and in stay being off kind of an up uptick in the numbers. You know, when you think about how viruses moved, they moved from someone who has it to someone who doesn't. But if the person that you're in contact with is immune to the virus, it's a

dead end for them. So the more dead ends there are in a community, the less likely it is that any infected person will be able to transmit the virus. Now, you don't have to have a hundred percent coverage in order for that to happen, but the amount that is necessary really depends on how infectious the virus is. Let's say you're dealing with measles. Measles is much more transmissible

even than stars COVID two. So for measles, in order to make sure that a case of measles does not spread out into the small population of uninfected people, you have to have at least of people vaccinated, and some people would say the number needs to be much higher

than that because measles is so transmissible. Um some other infectious diseases are much less transmissible, and you don't need such high coverage in order to find the dead ends because even if you came in contact with someone who wasn't immune, they still might not have a chance of getting it from you because it just isn't that easy

to catch. So where we are with ours KOPE two is first of what, we don't know exactly how much population protection we need, but we know we're not there yet and that's obvious just by looking at the ongoing spread of cases. Unfortunately, that immunity, given the world we live in, can't just be one community or one state or one nation. We have to really be thinking about how do we protect the world, and that's a challenge

we've never saw for before. So it's daunting, and I think we recognize that it's going to take us a long time to get there. In the US, what percentage ideally would you like to see to achieve her immunity, understanding that we're not really quite sure of the exact number yet, you know, for the United States as a whole. Again,

I'm just taking a guest here. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that, but at least sev I think at least sevent And I say that knowing that even in a vaccinated population, there will still be people who are pretty vigilant. So you're kind of adding masks and other measures that some of us will be less likely to give up anytime soon, so that we'll have some surround sound of protection which also contributes to the

dead end of transmission that I was talking about earlier. Um, but you know, that number could be higher than we need. It could also mean that the number needs to be

much higher to really bring this under containment. And I also worry because we've seen that the stars the two virus can move into animal populations, for example, minx and ferrets other animals, so there could be a reservoir where the virus hides out away from the human population, but could spill back over again um into unprotected people, or a variant of the virus could spill back over. So I don't think we're in a position where we can

think about eradicating this virus. UM. We certainly should aim to contain it, and if we're really lucky, we can eliminate it from large partial parts of the population, but lots of work to go between where we are now at that point. Some Black Americans are hesitant, as you well know, to get the vaccine. Uh. There has been a dark chapter in medical history with the Tuskegee experiment, for example, and some of the medical procedures that were

tested on enslaved women. Uh and people in general. Have we done enough to reach out to the black community to allay their fears of this vaccine. No, we haven't done enough, And I'm not sure what it will take to really regain that kind of trust and medical science the government agencies that participated in that experiment so many

decades ago. UM. But it's real and it's generational that mistrust is transmitted from one generation to another, but is compounded by all of the other things that create health disparities in our society and these days political disparities in our society. So UM, we have to think about that in the broader issue of health equity and social justice, because these things all work in kind of an integrated way to influence people's broad trust in their government and

in their government decision makers. So I wish we could do more. I think one of the things that I believe is that it's not really about giving people more facts or figures. It's about recognizing the true feelings and perspectives they have, and it's about helping the people who they do trust be good messengers and communicators about how

the decision can be made. What information is helpful, Listening to people's worries and concerns and really validating them, um, not trying to talk them out of their concerns, but rather recognizing this is their reality, and we want to be helpful. We want to give the right information, but that information is probably best coming from people that they

already trust, and usually that's not the government. And to bring more people of color into the medical community so the individuals they're interfacing with, uh look more like them and can appreciate sort of where they're coming from. Yeah,

that I think that's really important. One of the things that kind of behind the scenes that's happened UM in the course of the vaccine development and in my company we're working on an anti viral or stars KVI two, and that is that we are really doubling down and trying to do exactly what you said, work with the medical leaders from the communities of color, but also UM preferentially work harder to enroll and encourage people in those

communities to participate in the clinical trials, but also to understand their value and the importance of broadening the diversity of what we're doing. So if you look at the statistics about who participated in the vaccine trials, it looks very different than the clinical trials that we normally conducts.

I think there's been some real important learning there. Hopefully we can build on that going forward when we come back a c after covid, are we actually better protected for this coming age of pandemics that's right after this and the continuing battle Dr Gerberdine against uh COVID nineteen. NIH director Francis Collins has stressed the importance of developing

new drug therapies. Dr Fauci has said this is the age of pandemics, so COVID nineteen or some iteration of it is likely to be with us for a very long time. Tell me a little bit about the work MRK is doing to address those concerns. Thank you for putting this in the long term context, Katie, because you know, I am a firm believer that this isn't a one off thing that just happened to us, this pandemic. I

truly believe that we will see this happen again. Emergence is part of the cultural and global milieu that we live in. All of our travel, our connectivity with animals, urbanization, climate change, all of these things have created a cauldron where infectious diseases are going to emerge and spread much more quickly than they did a hundred years ago. So

that's our reality. And if you're a part of the biopharmaceutical industry in that reality, it's part of your responsibility to figure out how are we going to adjust our portfolio in our platform so that we continue to be able to help with the most pressing human health problems that emerge. So, yes, we're all thinking about biosecurity in a very different framework. I also think that our government needs to think differently about how we approach these things.

This isn't just a public health problem. This is a national security problem in every country because it creates destabilization, social rest, economic hardship. It's a it's a nightmare, and we have to be willing to plan for and invest in a very different order of magnitude and how we

approach the problem. So, for example, right now, our model is trying to figure out where something has emerged, try to contain it there, and if that doesn't work, then go into all of the things that we're doing right now with vigilance and vaccines, etcetera, etcetera. What would it be like if instead of waiting until something happens and then trying to jump on it, we actually win upstream and thought about, now, how can we understand and predict

where something like this will happen. We're the most likely places for a new virus to emerge, what families of viruses are most likely to emerge? Can we create with our science today much more early stage vaccines and anti virals in the freezer so that if one of these pathogens or families of pathogens do start to cause a problem, we can act faster and be really much more prepared than we were for this one. So that's really a frameshift.

And we've talked about this before, We've talked about this broadly for a long period of time. I'm hoping that this pandemic is so bad that finally we will really get serious about how we invest in biosecurity. Never again should we have to deal with the kind of crisis

that we have today. Do you see things moving in that direction, that kind of preparedness, because of course there's been so many people finger pointing that we were unprepared for this pandemic, and I'm curious if a you agree with that and be if you think now things will change and the infrastructure and the resources required to track these emerging viruses will be put in place. That is a really hard question, Katie. I would love to say, yes,

we've learned our lesson. The conversation that I have with our senators and members of Congress really indicate to me that they're deeply concerned and they're willing to invest in the crisis resolution. But I've been here and done this before. In fact, I co chair the c S I S Commission on Global Health Security, and our report that came out before the pandemic started was entitled from Crisis to Complacency.

We have to end the cycle. So when something happens, we have an emergency response, we get emergency resources, we do an after action review, we list all the things we need to do to be better prepared. But when the crisis goes away, all of that investment goes away and we go back to kind of our complacent state.

So I am working as hard as I can to be an ambassador for a true UH strategic change in how we concentrate on long term biosecurity preparedness so that we can be much better prepared than we were for this for this event. Does Subiden administration seem receptive to that?

You know, my reading of what I'm hearing from the President as well as from the administration officials is absolutely his advocacy for UM, the support for the vaccine program, investing heavily to try to accelerate immunization and so forth. So I think, in terms of managing where we are today, really good signals. But the hard part will be again as we move more into the economic recovery phase. Will we have the investments, Will we have support from the administration,

but will we also have some bilateral, bipartisan support. UM to really recognize that we need to think about this in the same way we think about our Department of Defense budget. We invest We hope that some of these tools that we invest in we never have to use, but if we do, we have them. And in the case of biosecurity, we're not talking about warships or fighter planes. We're talking about vaccines, anti virals, in a modernized surveillance system.

And I think that's certainly something that everyone could get behind if they really understood that. UM. We have to maintain the same kind of pasture on this that we do when we're thinking about our national defense. And it's not just the US. We've also learned that one country can't do this, a set of allies can't do this. We need to be much more globally engaged because we

are all in this together. You. Of course, we're the head of the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control UH a while ago, and it seems like the c d C kind of had a lot of issues. I think it's safe to say, dealing with this pandemic, and I'm curious to get your view on what happened. Where do you think the c d C UH, which you once ran UH succeeded and failed when it came to dealing with this pandemic and what were the lessons learned. Let me start with some of the successes that haven't really

been recognized or discussed. UM. The support that CDC has given at the state and local level is extraordinary. The number of CDC experts who have been deployed to communities to be helpful with things like communization programs and so forth behind the scenes. That that work is still going on. UM countless web postings, guidance documents, etcetera, etcetera. So a lot of really outstanding public health work is supported at the CDC, and I think they should take some pride

in that. But having said that, I think there's three issues, UM that need to be looked at. When is some actual performance problems and we know that early in the pandemic, when there was problems getting reliable testing at the time when we probably really needed it the most. So I'm going too you know the why of that. But I think acknowledging that and making that a priority for correction and remediation, obviously, as I'm sure on the front burner

of everyone at the agency. The second issue really has to do with the fact that the crisis and complacency cycle I mentioned earlier results in the CDC's budget for preparedness being woefully undersupported in the years when we're not in the middle of a crisis, and so they rev up in the in the outbreak situation. But you know, you can't hire people on a one time budget. You have to have sustained investment to keep people working and

to really build that preparedness. So there are structural issues with the way the CDC has spunded that really have to be addressed. And then finally, I think there is politics, and I wasn't there. I don't know all the pushes

and pulls on that. But from the outside looking in, UM, I know the competency of the scientists at the CDC, and I was not seeing them, I was not hearing from them, and I was listening to other people, often people with much less public health experience or public health knowledge, UM, and that scared me more than anything. So I do think that the politicalization of the science and some of the allegations that have come forward about altering documents and

so on and so forth. Those are very serious issues and they need to be fully investigated and remediated if they proved to be accurate. Is there a way to prevent that from happening again in terms of who the CDC answers to and the power of say a president over it as an institution. You know, the truth is that we have been exploring, in a lot of ways, um, the traditional model of trusting that people will behave in a certain way or follow sort of a certain paradigm

of engagement scientifically or otherwise. We we've just followed kind of that pattern, and what we've learned is that isn't enough. We need to have much longer guard rails and probably some structural changes um that do need to be considered. And I hope that when the after action review of this entire pandemic is accomplished, that people will get really serious about these underlying financial and structural issues. UM. We need to look at other models for how our scientific

agencies operate. UM. And I'm you know, at the administration of our government is political administration. Always has been, always will be. But our science agencies also need to be able to bring truth to those settings in ways that help inform If you don't have a good science, you

won't ever have good policy along those lines. It's been reassuring for me as an American citizen to see faith in science has been at least somewhat restored, because I was really worried and concerned about people who were really mistrusting science and facts and information. Are you heartened by the fact that people seem to beach fusting science more? At least it's it's on the increase that level of trust after declining honestly for quite some time. Yeah, I am.

I am heartened. Um, And I think it's just, um, we're so fortunate that science has been on our side and in the context of what needed to be, not not just in terms of vaccines and immuno logics and anti virals, but also more broadly in terms of our ability to get information and share information and so forth.

So that surely should help people understand the importance of having a robust biopharmaceutical industry or a robust health technology capability at the same time underpinning confidence in science is scientific literacy. And one of the things that worries me is when science is complicated, or when communicators make it

seem really complicated. Um, people aren't able to follow it, and so with they get confused, or if they hear too scientists arguing with each other in a public environment, they don't know who to believe, and because it is technically fairly complicated, they just sort of resort too, Well,

I'm not a scientist, I can't figure this out. I'm going to listen to my peers, who usually aren't scientists, and so you end up in an echo chamber where you're listening to people who might not have the right information. And then you, you know, have to believe something, so you tend to participate in that and it becomes truth.

So in the confidence in science moment that we're in, I think we're at the same time experiencing a lot of disinformation and a lot of misinformation about vaccines and the pandemic and the causes of it and so on and so forth. So it's it's sort of this unusual moment in time where we have extremes on both sides of the picture. Um. So those people like you who

are really good at communicating science to non scientists. Are just so important in the context of this to really um not just site facts and figures, but to really get out there and put things into context so people can kind of step back and say, oh, yeah, that is kind of a miracle that we have these vaccines, and it is kind of a miracle that the senior citizens in the United States are seeing a dramatic decline in death from this pandemic because of those vaccines. So

that's something we should not lose sight of. Do you think people's impressions of pharmaceutical companies have also changed as a result of the pandemic? And what do you think has been a shift in mindset for big companies like merk or J and J or you know a host of others that visor for example, that are working really

tirelessly to try to keep Americans protected. Now we say, you know, behind the doors of Mark, this is our finest moment, because this is a situation where the whole biopharmaceutical industry and the academic scientists and governments and a lot of other people have just really collaborated in a way that didn't just happen because we're worried about the pandemic. It happened because it's consonant with our proven This is

why we do what we do. We love to solve important human health problems, and we've never faced one's quite this challenging. So it really brings out the best of the innovation that the industries can create. But it also brings out the best in each one of us who

really actually care deeply about what our contribution is. And I think when you kind of marry those two things together, you end up with the spirit of urgency, amazing collaboration, sharing of resources that we probably would never have considered under normal times. You know that Murk is manufacturing the vaccine that J and j invented. Um, we we didn't have to do that, but we thought it was the

right thing to do. We're experts at vaccine manufacturing. Jane Jay has a lot of capability there too, but they didn't have scale. So if we could help, that was something that we could contribute. And I think that spirit has permeated our entire ecosystem. Uh, you know, it's it's easy to do that in the context of a crisis, but some of that's going to last. And I think the idea that we can actually be part of the solution instead of perceived as the problem in our health system.

That's something that we can carry forward and I hope build a reframing of not just our invitation, but of the value that we can bring to people in their health. It is a it is a mission of passion, but it's also not over yet. One last question. I don't want to end this on a on a sad note, but there are a lot of people who are not getting cancer screenings or did not get cancer screenings during this period of time. Murk of course, Uh, manufacturers a

number of cancer fighting drugs as well. Um, how concerned are you about people pausing they're critically important cancer screenings, um, and which may result in tens of thousands of additional cases of cancer. And what advice would you have for people listening to this? You know, I saw a statistic this morning that in between March and June and three month period, four hundred and twenty thousand people miss their expected cancer screenings. So just think about how that has

been multiplied over the course of this pandemic. And we know in cancer that early diagnosis is the single most important thing you can do to save lives and make treatment much less complicated. So I predict that when we start measuring the true impact of the pandemic, yes, we will have the COVID related deaths, and maybe some unreported COVID deaths are included in that number. But we're going to see excess more stality from cancer diagnosed late um

and requiring much more complicated treatment. We're going to see excess mortality down the road. We're already seeing as excess mortality from cardiovascular disease and diabetes that's poorly controlled because people aren't taking advantage of their health system during these times of social distancing and fear. UM, we're missing immunizations UM. The w h O recognizes that perhaps eighty million children around the world have had impairment of their normal childhood

immunization programs. That's a tragedy waiting to happen. And I always say I think measles is the canary in the coal mine because you have to have such a high level of coverage from measles. So when you see measles, it means the immunization infrastructure has really broken down. And

we know that's the case. So the medical consequences of COVID obviously are much greater than by itself, and I just cannot encourage everybody UM strongly enough to be an ambassador for returning to care, but particularly for cancer screening, for management of chronic diseases, and for immunization for people

of all ages, and as an ambassador yourself. And I will never forget the current effect because I was the CDC director when you really destigmatize the importance of colonoscopy, what that meant in terms of early diagnosis of so many people who would have otherwise not known that they had cancer and could participate in early treatment. So let's all try to be ambassadors for returning to care and get back on track, UM, for our well being and

our health maintenance. At the same time that we're being careful and vigilant about this virus. Well, I'm all about that, So UM, I think I want to urge everyone to please contact their doctors and if they miss cancer screenings, now is the time to schedule them, UM, and don't put it off any longer. It's perfectly safe to go there and so so critically important. Dr Julie Gerberdine, It's always such a pleasure to talk to you. I think

you're a great communicator. Honestly, I think you are able to take a lot of complicated medical issues and explain them in a way that that's easily digestible and um, that's not easy to do, but I feel like you always do it. So thank you, so much, Thank you, Katie. Coming from you, that means a lot. Thank you. This episode of Next Question with Katie Kirk is brought to you by Mark as part of its partnership with Katie Kurk Media. Next Question with Katie Kirk is a production

of I Heart Media and Katie Kurk Media. The executive producers are Me, Katie Kuric, and Courtney Litz. The sup revising producers Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements, Adriana Fasio, and Emily Pinto. The show is edited and mixed by Derrek Clements. For more information about today's episode, or to sign up for my morning newsletter, wake Up Call, go to Katie correct dot com. You can also find me at Katie Currect on Instagram and all my social media channels.

For more podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast or wherever you listen to your favorite shows,