Ep435: Kim Kristiansen – Consider the Relevance of What You Devote Yourself To

Andrew Stotz 00:02
Hello fellow risk takers and welcome to my worst investment ever stories of loss to keep you winning. In our community we know that to win in investing, you must take risk but to win big, you've got to reduce it. To join our community go to my worst investment ever.com and receive the following five free benefits first, you get the risk reduction checklist I've created from the lessons I've learned from all my guests. Second, you get my weekly email to help you increase your investment return. Third, you get a 25% discount on all a Stotz Academy courses. Fourth, you get access to our Facebook community to get to know guests and fellow listeners. And finally you get my curated list of the Top 10 episodes fellow risk takers. This is your worst podcast host Andrew Stotz from a Stotz Academy, and I'm here with featured guest, Kim Christiansen Kim, are you ready to rock. And let me introduce you to the audience in one second. So ladies and gentlemen, Kim Christiansen is a family physician from Denmark, with more than 30 years of clinical experience. He research pain medicine. He's a peer reviewer for medical journals and a former Ted med research scholar. He is a host at the podcast precision evidence. He and his co hosts go beyond the abstracts of clinical research papers looking for clinical relevance and precision of the evidence and discuss how to read, analyze and look for pitfalls when reading about results from clinical trials. Finally, he is a co founder of significant a company building a system and method to analyze clinical research for precision, relevance and meaningfulness based on a grading system. My goodness, this is so necessary in this world these days, Kim, take a minute and fill in for their tidbits about your life.

Kim Kristiansen 01:59
Yeah, thank you very much. And thank you for having me. And well. I like being a physician. It's an interesting job, no day, no, not even an hour being like the previous one. I like that it's an evolving business where new things come up every day. And then we have to find new ways to treat new diseases and things we thought we did the best way we find new ways to do so it's really, really interesting field to work with. And, of course, the human relationship, above all. Besides that, I'm a husband, I'm a dad, I'm a proud granddad and I'm a passionate runner.

Andrew Stotz 02:37
Hmm. How often do you run every second day? Wow. Wow. Two years. So you've been running from the beginning like Forrest Gump? Hmm, exactly. It's keep running. I'm not tired yet, like for us. And and you know, some people say that, well, if you run, it could be bad for your joints. But you've been doing it for a long time. From a medical person's perspective, would you say that running is a pretty healthy thing to be doing on a consistent basis. If

Kim Kristiansen 03:09
you take care, you have to of course be aware of I mean, some people are born to run. So then I guess I'm one of them. And then that makes it of course, easier. And you have to listen to your body and take care of your feelings are saying so. So yes. And starting early. Yes, that makes it probably a bit easier if you are aware of your how your body respond to what you're doing.

Andrew Stotz 03:35
Like, you know, I before we get into the question, I had some experience with the medical profession over the last five years, and that was when my father called me to tell me that, you know, my mother had a stroke. And basically, he asked me to come home and help and within so I came home from Bangkok flew back to North Carolina, where my parents were my mom was in a rehab hospital. And my dad and I, you know, I basically went to see my mom every day and you know, spend time and try to learn what was going on, went through all of her medications and all that stuff. And then, after about five days, my dad and I were out on the golf course one day, and I was watching me hit balls, which I'm actually not much of a golfer but I thought let's go do this because I know he loved that. And I even have a picture that he took of me swinging on that morning. Then we went down to coffee. And then we went to have lunch. And then I said Dad, I'll see you later. I'm going to the rehab hospital, spend the afternoon with mom and then put her to bed. And he said, I'll see you when you get back on. When I get back. When I got back. My dad had had a massive hemorrhage. And I found him on a chair. And basically I called the emergency services and they got him into emergency and then we got him to the hospital. And then every day for about 12 days, I was shuttling between my dad in intensive care and my mother at the rehab hospital and after about four Over 13 days my dad passed away. And yeah, and, you know, I learned a lot. And I had, I was forced to try to understand what was going on. You know, I don't feel sad about losing my dad, because I had him all my life. He was a great dad, he was a great wife. He was a great father. And, you know, and he went quickly in it, you know, I mean, the truth is, is that, I hope I go that way, too, and just happens. And he was with his son, and he's with his daughter, my sister came and you know, yeah. So, you know, and I think what I learned too, is death is a part of life. But what I also found Was it my mother was just overloaded with drugs. And I spent time researching them being a financial analyst. I know nothing really about medication. So I read everything I could about each one of these drugs. I tried to read about nutrition. And I sat down with a doctor and I said, Look, you know, I think that some of the side effects that she's having are, you know, causing her to need other drugs and all that. And the gym is a cascade of drugs. Yeah. And when I talked to that doctor, he said, Well, first of all, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't give that drug. That's another doctor, you got to talk to that neurologists. And okay, so she's been on that one for four years now. And I gotta go talk to that guy. And then I just found that unraveling, that was really hard. And then that doctor really came down hard on me. And I'm like, Look, I know, my mom has better potential than this. And I just feel like she's being drugged. And eventually, the only solution I had was, I brought my mom to Thailand. Five years ago, I brought her she was taking 10 different medicines, and I slowly, I monitored her health through to a Fitbit device, and through three times a day, blood pressure, heart rate. And slowly, I got her off of different medicines. And I used a lot of good books and knowledge about nutrition, you know, something like beet root as an example, that would in decrease blood pressure. And now my mom's only on one medication, which is related to her thyroid, and it's been really healthy, and brain fog has gone away. I lost trust in doctors.

Kim Kristiansen 07:05
And I started realizing that a lot of them also don't read a lot of this research. And you know, maybe it's part of the challenge. And of course, it's not just reading it, it's also finding relevance in it, which is important. That's

Andrew Stotz 07:18
the word that I really appreciate that you said, you know, in your bio, about the relevance. Yeah. And I just also kind of experienced that, in particularly in Asia here. These guys, many of the doctors look up to the US system, they're being told what drugs to do. There's also a lot of restrictions that are coming down on doctors and hospitals, z, if you don't, if you do not give this medication, you're going to be open to some other risk. So it's like they can't not give the medication these days. And it just, it's, it's interesting. And so that's part of why I'm interested to have you here, because I appreciate what you're doing. And I want the listener to to

Kim Kristiansen 08:02
turn up, I believe that your story with your mother is really interesting. Again, we have to be careful with one story. I mean, this is just your story. But the fact that you actually approach the doctor and chairman's, what was going on, is of course, a way to protect your mother take care of your mother and being a caregiver.

Andrew Stotz 08:22
Yeah. And in fact, you're already raising up one potential fallacy when we take one specific incident. And then that's why I mentioned it is so general, I have to be very careful with that. Of course. Exactly. So ladies and gentlemen, don't go do that. No, don't go do that. But that's an experience that I had. And it's another experience. Definitely. And let me just for the listeners out there, can you just give a brief explanation of what they could expect if they listened into your podcast?

Kim Kristiansen 08:53
Well, it's about two we are discussing things about clinical relevance, how to find it, and what you need to look for. And I'll talk a bit about that in a minute. What you need to look for, and how you can find it. And we have different ways to look at that we do get specific papers, we have been looking at some of the COVID-19 vaccine papers, of course, it I mean, it's been all over the news, it was obvious to look at that. And also methods and what you can do and what you can ask for it's for anyone interested in clinical research, whether you are healthcare professionals or caregiver and patient, whatever.

Andrew Stotz 09:33
So ladies and gentlemen, listen up, I really recommend that you do and what I'll have all the links in the show notes so that anybody that wants to follow you and listen to what you're doing, they can Well, that's a great intro, and I really appreciate what you're doing. And now it's time to share your worst investment evidence since no one goes into their worst investment thinking it will be. Tell us a bit about the circumstance leading up to then tell us your story.

Kim Kristiansen 09:59
Oh, thank you. Andrew Yang listening to you, by the way, great podcast and, and thinking about the question you're asking. It came to me that we actually are investing a lot of different resources, money, obviously, I haven't kind of discussed this with my accountant for previous to this episode, but also attention, you know, time, interest, even patients feeling and I believe that there's much more. And my worst investment is going across many, many of these. We've been talking about being a physician and as a physician, you both have to and of course want to follow up with new information and discoveries, at least in your field of medicine and was related to your daily work. Most, but not all, medical research is papers are listed on bit line or the corresponding EU. Medline is some online platforms. And with a new paper added every 22nd, day and night, yes, that's right, every 22nd it's obviously impossible for anyone to keep up. Luckily, this is across all facilities and including basic research. So the reading list for the individual healthcare professional, is shorter, but it's still a long one. And if you look at papers about COVID-19, which is essential for all of us, or at least most of us, I was looking into how frequent a new article was published during the last year, and it was every four to five minute. I mean, they are not all relevant. And it's, it's virtually impossible for anyone to keep up with that. And that is why paying interest and spending time reading papers published in a medical journal that turns out to be of no clinical relevance or meaningful to patients. And healthcare is my worst investment. I mean, time is an equally distributed resource, we have 24 hours per day, all of us and once invested, you can't get it back, it's gonna last forever. So as a practicing physician, I frequently read and analyze papers that turns out to be without relevant information for my patient and me. And of course, I hate to spend that time that is my worst investment. And don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good and relevant research papers being published, bringing healthcare forward, but it is still a problem. And of course, it's not just my time, it's also resources, both human and economical as well. And, and by clinical relevance, we talked about it before. But but what I mean with clinically relevant is something a patient can relate to not just something that is considered significant based on a statistical calculation, which is about the statistical calculation is about the risk of finding the outcomes by a chance. And this is, of course, important, but we also need to look at the meaningfulness and in the findings, put some common sense to it, if you will. And as an example, we can all relate to kind of reduction in pain in this database statistically significant without being big enough for something a human can feel. And we actually see that in pretty often in studies. And or with another study type, we call the randomized control trial or RCT, where a group is getting the treatment we are investigating, and another group is getting another kind of treatment or placebo. And the difference in the outcomes and these statistically significant but too small to be of any relevance at all. That's what we need to challenge. And so sad to say, but it's even more complicated. And medical paper is not answering the research question we really want to know is treatment a better than treatment B, but it is an idsa, only an analysis of data relating to that specific population included in the trial, and how the trial was set up and run. That is why it is that group, that study group, and how the trial was run and set up is of crucial importance for the relevance and the meaningfulness of the findings. So we need to look at our lead. And if you're not in the medical field, you will probably suppose that all published research is relevant and meaningful. But that's not so not even if published in a high ranking journal, you know, the best and the rest. And furthermore, most readers only reads and you mentioned that before the abstract or perhaps only a conclusion or recap, and have no chance of knowing if the findings are indeed relevant at the point of care. So that's why we started the podcast precision evidence to focus on clinical relevance. And as you mentioned, we go beyond the abstracts of the medical papers, we'll look at how to analyze, evaluate, discuss how to help and improve research being clinically relevant, and much more. And we have also created some tools for the listeners to help find clinically relevant information. I mean, this is not just important for healthcare professionals and patients, but for payers for journalists, for politicians, and many others. And I believe for anyone who might be a patient or a caregiver in the future and that's all of us. So at Precision evidence which yourself as the medical research bs detective, that is bs from a science of

Andrew Stotz 15:09
you know, one question I have about this is that, you know, if you go back in time and you listen to stories about, let's say cities in America, and one city has a huge fire, and they asked for the fire trucks to come from another city, they come and find out well, their valves don't fit. The threads on their hoses don't fit the fire hydrants from the other city. And many years ago, during that time, they decided, Well, why don't we standardize the fire hydrants across the country? And then they will. It used to be that railroads were different sizes. And then they said, Why don't we standardize railroads? '' What is happening about standardizing clinical research? Is there something already going on with that? Or is it just like, impossible to do that?

Kim Kristiansen 15:56
We all individuals, it's difficult to standardize? No, but what but what we are, one of the points we're making in precision evidence, and I'd like to bring forward here as well, is that we want researchers to, to, when they are evaluating the the outcomes relate to clinical relevance in some point, and preferably, by doing so before starting the data collection. So when we have the resource, this is what we will see as clinically relevant, helping the readers, the patients, whoever will be reading to this research, see if it is clinically relevant. And then if you have that you have the focus on the clinical relevance. And you can, you can see if your firehose can connect with, with what comes out there. And thereby, this is relevant for me, you have to, of course, this, the fact about the statistical significance is this big, hence, it is important, but it's not the only thing that's important, it's equally important to know if this makes sense for the patient.

Andrew Stotz 16:57
I had an experience I had experienced when I was doing my PhD, which I went to do a PhD in finance in China, when I was 47. And I knew exactly what I wanted to write on and all that. So I was pretty, you know, I, I was pretty, I enjoyed, let's say, but I met a lot of young men and women that were there that were, you know, trying to figure out what they were going to write on. And I also also felt like, at the age of 26, to go do a PhD and do some sort of academic research and try to figure out what to do. I mean, many people are just following whatever their supervisors are saying or whatever. But you know, then you also find that, you know, you want to do something that's relevant, but also not been touched. And that's not easy to find. And so you ended up finding that there was a lot of people that would say, they would talk about, let's say, the illiquidity of small stocks in the Nigerian stock market, as an example, a very small stock market, and a very tiny pocket of the smart stock market. And in that case, you can say that was original research. But I think that hits to what you're talking about is the relevance. But you know, how relevant is that to the body of research on the stock market? As an example? Is that what you mean by relevance?

Kim Kristiansen 18:13
Exactly? Can you relate to not just the outcomes, but also to the way the study was set up? Who could you be your patient be in that study at all? Why were some people excluded from the study? There might be a good reason for that. It could be safety, which courses is important, but my was people with depression or diabetes, or whatever exclude from that. Not necessarily, to be suspicious, but just consider why you can you come up with a reason why. But to make it more easy to make more, it's easier to get the result or desired outcome you want to get the statistical significance. It might be it could be for some very good medical reason, would you have to consider why. So maybe you can kind of summarize why you should go down to the inclusion and exclusion criteria every time. And that's what we talk about precision evidence appreciation of, of the findings of precision for the individual patient, and thereby the clinical relevance.

Andrew Stotz 19:16
So maybe you can just talk to us about the lessons that you've learned from this. Let's call it I like the word that you use at the beginning, I wrote it down the allocation of your resources, right. Yeah. So tell us what did you What have you learned from this particularly thinking about a young young man or woman, a young doctor, a young researcher person that really does want to make sure that they're not losing that time? What What have you learned,

Kim Kristiansen 19:41
I have learned that I have to be careful about how I spend my time I have developed some methods to screen abstracts and that's what we are also having in the precision evidence, screen for clinical relevance, so I don't have to waste my time reading something that's out of my interest and Which I cannot relate to. We don't know, actually, we do not know how much research that is clinically relevant. Of course, that's, as I mentioned before, we'll come back down to the individual. But from a more broad perspective, we don't know that system at around half of it. And some in 2000, I believe was 2009. There was a study published based on a model that said that 15%, only 15% of resources spent on clinical research provide relevant information. And they were including studies that never was published. And things like social equity, we do not know because we then had to read all the papers, and evaluate him and then make the calculation. And while we're doing that, a lot of research would have been published as well. So we'll never know that. But it's important to be aware before reading the paper, what is considered relevant based on what you can expect from the information. And also be suspicious when you're presenting with information, being in the news or Medical News, when you get, I mean, the physicians, healthcare professionals get a lot of information, you know, headlines and recaps and stuff, stuff like that. And hopefully have, always would it would a link and if it's not, why not? Why couldn't I go see the paper right away. But if be suspicious, and look up for the details, and have a method to do that, for clinical relevance. That's, that's, indeed what I have learned and do based on this. And I read a lot of papers and a lot of going into the math and analyzing it.

Andrew Stotz 21:32
And you obviously enjoy that which is excited do I do? So let me summarize. Some things I take away, I wrote down two things as you were speaking, and you know, we, as you said, we all have the same 24 hours, you have a certain amount of resource resources, but what you know, I've gone out and every time I go to speak in front of audiences, I ask people, and I want the listeners to think about the answer to this question right now, I want you to think about when you go to work and your typical work day, how many hours are you really productive, you may be at work eight hours, you may be at work 10 hours, you may have some travel time, but how many hours? Are you really productive? Well, the answer that question that I get is two to four hours. And then the next thing that I say is that some people will claim that it's six or eight hours, but the fact is, is that the brain's capacity to maintain a high level of intensity just doesn't exist to that number of hours we do exhaust are for those people that can't stop eating at night like myself, we all have ego depletion or willpower depletion. And so the end result of that is that we have a certain amount and, and, and then if you think about that, we don't actually have 24 hours a day, we really have four hours of what I would call concentrative, creative, powerful time. And so when you talk about the idea of kind of losing resources, losing that allocation, you know, every day, I think about those four hours, and when I started my own business many years ago, basically all I did is I started waking up at about four in the morning, and I just went to work in my office at home at 5am. And from 5am until 9am. I got those four hours. And I didn't take any calls. I didn't take any emails, I only and I plan the night before, what am I going to work on, I still do that today. And every single morning, that's what I do. So I just want to highlight to the listener, that, you know what Kim's talking about is really about the allocation of your resources. And that limited amount of real creative, powerful energy. The second thing that I yeah, the second thing I wrote down is that having been an analyst all my career as a financial analyst, basically, particularly as a head of research, I would be a strategist and I would write every week, I would have a report that I would put out at the end of the week, and I'd send it out to all the clients. And I'd start off the week really excited, I'm going to look at this and that and then you know, start doing my research and then and then and then it starts to go off track. And then I start to realize that is a dead end. I'm looking at some numbers, I thought there was going to be some relationship, but there is no relationship. It's a dead end. And now I've got to rethink it. And I've got to go through it. And I would say that, as a financial analyst, I would say that maybe 6040 to 60% of my time is pursuing dead ends, where you think you have a hypothesis of what you're going to find and what you find is something very different. And you may find it just have no interest or have no value to you. You know sometimes you find that it is a value. And that's where I've also come to realize the dead ends are part of the research process. And so you just kind of reminded me that, yes, we have to be efficient in allocating our time. But when we're in the field of research, we have to know that we have to go down these blind alleys and investigate a bit, you can never completely get rid of that. So those are two things that I took away. Is there anything you would add to that?

Kim Kristiansen 25:19
No, I totally agree. And, of course, we have to have these results. If we're not having the I mean, we have to cross the borders to find what's relevant and what's meaningful. We have to look at that. And what I feel missing is the focus on the relevance of the outcomes, or the research in total?

Andrew Stotz 25:38
Yeah. And, you know, one of the things that I've noticed also these days is it's hard. I mean, I think the framework of the scientific method and critical thinking and spotting fallacies, you know, you immediately spotted a potential fallacy that I'm going to talk to the audience about what I did with my mom, in a very specific case that you can't necessarily generalize about. But I'm just curious, from your perspective, what do you think about how important it is? And what's happening with the world these days? Are we getting better, we're getting worse at applying the scientific method and not being fooled by you know, all kinds of stuff.

Kim Kristiansen 26:14
I think there's an increasing focus on on the relevance but by by the tsunami of medical research, it's difficult and entity dependence where you look at it, if you're looking to the media, it's healthcare, there's good stuff in the media, especially if you can put the word COVID in somewhere into that, or perhaps something about food or even coffee, then then you're probably good to be a headline or clickbait or something like that.

26:41
You have no.

Kim Kristiansen 26:43
Coffee, we just toasting here now coffee.

Andrew Stotz 26:46
For those that are listening, we does think coffee. Yeah, that's great.

Kim Kristiansen 26:50
So that is good stuff. No, what I believe is that, that we are somehow getting better, but the way the online community can share information, good and bad, is being a problem somehow. Because you How can you know if they if you can trust that source? How can you know if you can, I mean, if you look at press releases, try to look at a press release something you pick a piece of pick up somewhere in the blog, or whatever in the media. And Google a phrase from that. And in quotation mark, and you will see it over and over and over again, being the same sentence quoted exact same to exact the same selling you that the press release, whether it's from a pharmaceutical company from academia, whatever it's from, had been published and distributed without passing the brain of anyone on that trial.

Andrew Stotz 27:45
Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And that's so we see that in the stock market, too, or companies release. And they're always going to release positive information about how their earnings are going to rise and whatever. And then you just see that they're feeding the propaganda into the media, and I always have to tell young analysts that I'm training, you know, pee careful, this is written by the company, and they're trying to get you to feel positive about buying their particular stock. Yeah, yeah. It's the same. Yeah, yeah. And the so let me ask you thinking about a young man or woman who's kind of starting out, and they liked what you're doing, and they want to do that, and what, what action what one action would you recommend our listeners take to avoid suffering the same fate?

Kim Kristiansen 28:35
Making making the analysis and force yourself to sync up the usefulness of the findings not just believing that it's correct, because it was in whatever journal it was in but but that, that you need to relate to is this relevant for what I'm seeing? And of course, it's an ongoing process that, by the way, never stops? Because you will always everyday learn something new, make it meet a new challenge, some way some other ways to combine things? And see if instead of just doing just stop and think, is this relevant, this meaningful and discuss it with the patient? Is this what you want? Is this is what we're the road we're taking? And is research behind all this build in a way that is relatable from my perspective, as a physician, whatever healthcare professional you are, and of course, for the patient. And, and from healthcare in general. Yeah,

Andrew Stotz 29:30
yeah. The other thing I you know, it makes me think also about digging down below the headlines because we're so inundated with headlines. When COVID happen. What I did is in Thailand, I went into the news and they were giving out information on each of the persons that died in the beginning. And we only had 20 people and for 16 months, we've had a total of about 100 people. Now it's accelerated but still relative to a population of 70 million. So I decided to Just get the data for each one of those funny, and they provided a lot of data and I could calculate the average age. And I could say, okay, that's pretty old, I'd say, you know, that's my mom's age. So I need to think about that. But it's not really my age. And then I looked at comorbidities, and I started calculating, okay, what was the average comorbidity and I found that, you know, the average person in that group had, let's say, you know, three to five. Now, a group of 20 is not a great representation. But then they stopped publishing the data. So I couldn't do it anymore at that level. And I couldn't find it anymore. But the point that I think is valuable is just to stop and ask some questions and do some calculations as simple thing that I did to you know, I mean, I'm not a, I have no medical experience at all. But I do love to explore data. And I just looked at, I did a ranking of countries by taking, you know, World Health Organization's rankings of obesity, and of heart disease, and the degree of hypertension and all that. And then I ranked countries by their what I would call a healthiness. And then I looked at their COVID death rates. And what I found was a, you know, a clear enough relationship that I could say, okay, maybe Thailand is really low body fat, and not that, not that many disease. And maybe that could explain why we had less deaths. And then that helped me to kind of think things through. So I really want to encourage people to just dig in with in this world where there's this flood of news articles coming out. In fact, if you just go one step, lower down, you know, when you look down, you'll find that there is some data, there is some stuff that you can try to, you know, understand more deeply.

Kim Kristiansen 31:45
And what you did there was actually creating a hypothesis, you had this idea is, is this correlated, which is not the same as the causality between it, so you have to make further investment investigations to look into that.

Andrew Stotz 32:00
Definitely. And I was just kind of, I would say, as I said, in the beginning, I don't have any medical experience. So I was just kind of playing around with data and just, I wasn't under the scrutiny of someone like you. But there's limits, right? When you look at it, you may say, Yeah, well, you see something that, you know, that looks like it's related, but in fact, it's not related at all. And it is a way to start that process. And also, one of the things that I've learned over the last year is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. And, you know, you identified the word hypothesis, meaning, and I think about a hypothesis is just an idea of an explanation about something. And this is, you know, my hypothesis is my explanation of what I think it could be. Let's investigate that. But that's very different from a theory, where we have a lot of support that has begun to really support that theory, where that hypothesis moves to that next stage, I

Kim Kristiansen 33:00
guess, would describe the research that the research set up the model for how we're going to deal with that, then we have a theory about the causality between those two.

Andrew Stotz 33:09
Yeah, so lots of lessons. Alright, last question. What is your number one goal for the next 12 months

Kim Kristiansen 33:16
to increase the awareness of clinical relevance? The medical community's a conservative one, and of course, it will take some time, but one step at a time. So definitely to increase that awareness and make it better for healthcare professional for patients for healthcare in general.

Andrew Stotz 33:35
And tell the listeners the best place to go to follow you. And just to stay in touch with

Kim Kristiansen 33:40
what you're doing is obviously the podcast precision dividends, which you can find wherever you're listening to, to podcasts and follow it there. Otherwise, they are website precision test. evidence.com. And you can find me on Twitter, and you can find me on LinkedIn, I believe you will put some links in the show notes, and I'll be more than happy to connect.

Andrew Stotz 33:59
Perfect. Well, listeners. Yep, go ahead.

Kim Kristiansen 34:02
Yeah. And I'll be glad if you mentioned you have this podcast as well.

Andrew Stotz 34:05
Yeah. Just mentioned that you heard him on the podcast, so he knows you're not a spammer. No, that's not what I'm afraid I haven't done it yet. All right, listeners. There you have it. Another story of laws to keep you winning. My number one goal for the next 12 months is to help you my listener, reduce risk and increase return in your life. To achieve this. I've created our community and my worst investment ever.com and I look forward to seeing you there. As we conclude, Kim, I want to thank you again for coming on the show. And on behalf of a Stotz Academy, I hereby award you alumni status for turning your worst investment ever into your best teaching moment. Do you have any parting words for the audience?

Kim Kristiansen 34:47
First of all, thank you for having me and for that. There's a lot of good clinical research out there and we have to remember that and have not said that you should be suspicious but curious and ask questions about the meaningful relevance of the outcomes and if nothing else, please remember that from from this podcast. Don't go with individual stories. Be careful with what you see in the news and follow precision evidence podcast.

Andrew Stotz 35:12
Fantastic and that's a wrap on another great story to help us create, grow and protect our well fellow risk takers. This is your worst podcast hose Andrew Stotz saying. I'll see you on the upside.