Personalizing cancer treatments significantly improve outcome success

Study is first in the world to show that using molecular testing to customize cancer treatments based on a patient’s tumor DNA is safe, effective and achievable

University of California - San Diego

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Jason Sicklick, MD, who led the study, is a professor of surgery and pharmacology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and surgical oncologist at UC San Diego Health.

view more 

Credit: UC San Diego Health

Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine have led the first clinical trial in the world to show that cancer drug treatments can be safely and effectively personalized based on the unique DNA of a patient’s tumor.

The study results, published in the January 8, 2026 online edition of Journal of Clinical Oncology found that individualizing multi-drug treatments to each patient’s specific tumor mutations using molecular testing can significantly enhance treatment success.

“Every patient and every cancer is unique, and so should how we treat for them,” said Jason Sicklick, MD, senior author of the study, professor of surgery and pharmacology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and surgical oncologist at UC San Diego Health. “Our findings demonstrate that precision oncology at the individual level is achievable. When every patient’s treatment is guided by their tumor’s distinctive DNA, we can treat cancer with better accuracy.”

The clinical trial, known as Investigation of Profile-Related Evidence Determining Individualized Cancer Therapy (I-PREDICT), used advanced genomic sequencing to identify the genomic changes driving each person’s cancer. Clinicians then developed personalized treatment plans using FDA-approved drugs, with doses carefully adjusted for each patient to precisely target those molecular alterations — the opposite of a one-size-fits-all approach.

Among a cohort of 210 patients with advanced cancers that were treated, nearly 95% had distinct tumor DNA profiles — no two cancers were alike. This led to 157 different treatment regimens, including 103 new drug pairings that had never been tested together before. Patients whose therapies were most closely matched to their tumor mutations experienced better treatment results, improving their chances for response and survival. Importantly, those who received new drug combinations did not experience more severe side effects than patients receiving standard therapies.

The study also found that starting new drug mixes at lower doses and carefully increasing them over time kept treatments safe, even with therapies that had never been used together before.

“The I-PREDICT study shows what’s possible when we let a patient’s biology guide their treatment,” said Shumei Kato, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine and medical oncologist at UC San Diego Health. “By using biomarkers to select drugs and adjust doses, we can design combinations that precisely target the drivers of each person’s cancer.”

“Innovative clinical trial design is a central part of what we do at Moores Cancer Center,” said Diane Simeone, MD, director of Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health. “This study reflects the strength of our multi-disciplinary team-based approach, combining scientific leadership, clinical trial expertise and the infrastructure needed to bring discoveries directly to patients. It’s a powerful example of how we’re shaping the future of precision oncology and placing the patient at the center of every decision.”

Both Sicklick and Kato are members of UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, which served as a key partner in supporting the clinical trial.

Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health is the region’s only National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. They are consistently ranked among the top 50 in the nation for cancer care by U.S. News & World Report.

Sicklick, who is also co-leader of the structural and functional genomics program at Moores Cancer Center, adds that this research marks a turning point for cancer treatment. 

“Instead of a one-size-fits-all, we’re moving toward one-size-fits-one,” said Sicklick.

The research builds upon earlier findings published in Nature Medicine (2019) and Genome Medicine (2022) that analyzed subsets of the I-PREDICT cohort. The new publication expands this work, including more patients and longer follow-up, while offering detailed guidance on how other organizations can replicate precision cancer care strategies.

This study lays the groundwork for a future randomized trial designed to confirm the benefits of this personalized precision oncology approach.

Additional co-authors of the study include Daisuke Nishizaki, Hirotaka Miyashita, Ryosuke Okamura, Michael E. Hahn, Mina Nikanjam, Paul T. Fanta, David E. Piccioni, Hitendra Patel, Ramez N. Eskander, Rana R. McKay, Jeffrey S. Ross, J. Jack Lee, Scott M. Lippman, Shumei Kato, and Razelle Kurzrock, MD, all at UC San Diego.

Funding support for the study came, in part, from Foundation Medicine, the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Foundation, Jon Strong, and the National Institutes of Health (P30 CA023100).

# # #

---

Journal

Journal of Clinical Oncology

DOI

10.1200/JCO-25-01453 

COI Statement

Sicklick serves as a consultant for BlossomHill, CureMatch, Deciphera, GSK, Kura, Kureha, and Springworkds; received speakers’ fees from SpingWorks; owns stock in CureMatch and Personalis; and is founder of Oncureon. Jeffery Ross is an employee of Foundation Medicine and an equity holder of Roche Holdings, as well as a consultant and equity holder in Tango Therapeutics and Celsius Therapeutics. Ramez Eskander serves as a consult or advisor to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Immunogen, Gilead, Lilly, GSK, Clovis Oncology, CARIS Life Sciences, Natrea, Nuvectis, PMV Pharmaceutical, Faeth Therapeutics, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Myraid, Seagen, Onconova, GOG Foundation, and Clearity Foundation. Rana McKay serves as a consult or advisor to Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Myovant Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seagen, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ambrx, Arcus Biosciences, Sumitomo Pharma Oncology, and Esiai; as well as receives institutional research funding from Bayer, Tempus, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncternal Therapeutics, and Artera.

 DEI/CRT

Food insecurity and incident cardiovascular disease among Black and White US individuals

JAMA Cardiology

Facebook

XLinkedIn
MessageWhatsAppEmail

About The Study:

 In this prospective cohort study among participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, food insecurity was associated with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) even after adjustment for socioeconomic factors, suggesting that food insecurity may be an important social deprivation measure in clinical assessment of CVD risk. Whether interventions to reduce food insecurity programs can potentially alleviate CVD should be further studied. 

Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Jenny Jia, MD, MSc, email jenny.jia@northwestern.edu.

To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/

(doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0109)

Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflicts of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.

#  #  #

Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article This link will be live at the embargo time https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0109?guestAccessKey=29128803-5125-4973-82d3-b85485ee115d&utm_source=for_the_media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=031225

---

Journal

JAMA Cardiology

Food insecurity today, heart disease tomorrow?

Study is the first to show food insecurity raises risk of heart disease over time

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Northwestern University

Facebook

\XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessag

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Study compares those with food insecurity to food-secure individuals over 20 year

• Food insecurity is associated with a 41% increased risk of heart disease over time

• Findings suggest food security screening as a key tool to prevent heart disease

CHICAGO --- Struggling to afford food today could mean heart problems tomorrow. Young adults experiencing food insecurity have a 41% greater risk of developing heart disease in midlife, even after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study. Food insecurity — struggling to get enough nutritious food to stay healthy — affects one in eight households in the U.S. each year. 

“We’ve known that food insecurity and heart disease often go hand in hand, but this study shows, for the first time, that food insecurity comes first,” said Dr. Jenny Jia, an instructor of general internal medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a Northwestern Medicine internist. “That makes it a clear target for prevention — if we address food insecurity early, we may be able to reduce the burden of heart disease later.”

The study will be published on Wednesday (March 12) in JAMA Cardiology.

How the study was conducted

Jia and her colleagues analyzed data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, a long-term cohort study that has followed Black and white U.S. adults since the mid-1980s. The scientists identified participants who reported food insecurity in 2000-2001, when they were in their early 30s to mid-40s, and compared their health outcomes over the next 20 years to those who were food secure.

Among the 3,616 study participants, those experiencing food insecurity were 41% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease than their food-secure counterparts. Over the study period, 11% of food-insecure individuals developed heart disease, compared to 6% of those with adequate food access.

“For a long time, there was this chicken-or-the-egg question — does food insecurity cause heart disease, or does heart disease make food insecurity worse because of the high cost of healthcare?” Jia said. “By following people over two decades, we were able to show that food insecurity, on its own, significantly increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease.”

At baseline, participants with food insecurity were more likely to identify as Black and had lower educational attainment than those who were food secure.

Screening for food insecurity

Jia says the findings highlight the need for healthcare providers to be savvy in how to best screen for food insecurity and connect patients with community resources.

She says primary care settings, such as with internists, pediatricians and family doctors, are ideal for screening for food insecurity, “because there tends to be a lot of trust between primary care providers and patients.”

Jia also stresses that food security screenings could extend to emergency rooms and specialties like cardiology, and can be done by nurses, medical assistants or even patients themselves filling out forms.

“The more we screen for it, the better,” Jia said, adding that “we need better strategies to help people once they screen positive. Do we connect them to social workers who can refer them to existing community programs? Should healthcare systems develop their own interventions? These are the next big questions.”

Next steps

Jia and her team plan to continue tracking this group to understand the long-term effects of food insecurity. “It’s surprising to see heart disease in this group, which doesn’t include those 65 or older,” Jia said. “As they near 80, we plan to revisit the study to explore the evolving link to heart disease.”

The CARDIA study was conducted and supported by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (75N92023D00002 and 75N92023D00005), Northwestern University (75N92023D00004), the University of Minnesota (75N92023D00006) and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute (75N92023D00003). Dr. Jia is supported by grant K23HL173655 from the NHLBI. Dr. Kandula (another study author) is supported by grant K24HL155897 from the NHLBI.

---

Journal

JAMA Cardiology

DOI

10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0109 

Article Title

Food Insecurity and Incident Cardiovascular Disease Among Black and White US Individuals, 2000-2020

Article Publication Date

12-Mar-2025

Researchers identify molecular differences in pancreatic cancer of Black and white patients

Findings reinforce the need for diverse racial makeup in clinical trials

News Release 12-Mar-2025

Henry Ford Health

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Ling Huang, Ph.D. performs research work at the Henry Ford Health Pancreatic Cancer Center in Detroit. 

view more 

Credit: Photo courtesy of Henry Ford Health

DETROIT – Researchers have discovered race-associated molecular differences in tumors that may impact the way patients with pancreatic cancer respond to immunotherapies. The findings, which were recently published in the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Journal, reinforce the need to include racially diverse participants in clinical studies. 

Immunotherapies are a type of cancer treatment that uses the body’s own immune system to fight cancer. Black or African American patients have a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, compared with other racial groups. 

In the article appearing in the AACR Journal, researchers at the Henry Ford Health Pancreatic Cancer Center, found that Black patients showed a higher prevalence of PD-L1 overexpression, a marker often linked with aggressive cancer behavior and a key target for immunotherapy treatments. Additionally, Black patients showed higher frequencies of TP53 mutations and KRASG12R mutations compared to White patients. Those genes affect how quickly cancer grows and the body’s ability to fight cancer.

“This finding strongly supports that in clinical trials across the country, we need to enroll patients from different racial groups to reflect the racial makeup in the U.S. and to more accurately represent tumor molecular changes,” said lead researcher Ling Huang, Ph.D. 

In a separate analysis of recent clinical trials testing immunotherapies for pancreatic cancer, the researchers found that Black patients and other minorities were underrepresented in most clinical trials.

“It is also important to ensure people of different racial background have equal access to cancer care, especially precision medicine,” Dr. Huang said. 

PD-L1 is like a shield that some cells wear. Normally, it tells the immune system’s T cells (which kill harmful cells) not to attack. Cancer cells can hijack this signal, wearing PD-L1 as armor to protect themselves from being destroyed by the immune system. When cancer cells have a lot of this PD-L1 shield, it’s harder for the body to fight the cancer, leading to a worse outlook for the patient.

Think of TP53 like a brake pedal in a car that helps stop cancer growth. If something goes wrong with this gene (like mutations), it’s like the brakes are broken, and the car (or cancer) can keep going without control. 

The KRAS gene is often faulty in pancreatic cancer. The KRASG12R is a specific error in this gene. This error makes the KRAS gene stuck in the “on” position, constantly telling cells to grow and divide, which can lead to cancer. This is like flooring the gas pedal of a car, making it accelerate to full speed.

This study shows that, in pancreatic cancer, Black patients tend to have higher levels of the PD-L1 shield on their cancer cells compared to white patients. This could affect how their cancer progresses and responds to treatment.

The research team emphasizes that these molecular features are not necessarily the determinants, but associations, that help understand the complex nature of cancer disparities. 

“We hope that these insights will guide future studies and lead to improved outcomes for all patients, regardless of race,” Dr. Huang said.

Molecular profiles of patient tumors were determined from the Tempus multimodal database, through collaboration between Dr. Huang’s team, Tempus AI, and Henry Ford scientists, Howard Crawford and Albert Levin. Members from Dr. Huang’s team, Saurabh Mandal and Swathi Sridhar also contributed significantly to this project. 

Based in Detroit, where 77% of the population identifies as Black or African American, Henry Ford Health is nationally recognized for its commitment to inclusive research endeavors that address healthcare disparities, develop new treatments, and identify ways to prevent and understand disease.

###

MEDIA CONTACT: mediarelations@hfhs.org

---

Journal

Cancer Research Communications

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Molecular Differences in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas from Black versus White Patients

COI Statement

E.A. Teslow reports personal fees and other support from Tempus AI during the conduct of the study, as well as personal fees and other support from Tempus AI outside the submitted work. M. Huang reports other support from Tempus AI during the conduct of the study. Y. Yu reports receiving a salary from Tempus and stock ownership in Tempus. A.J. Hockenberry reports other support from Tempus AI, Inc. outside the submitted work. M.C. Stoppler reports other support from Tempus AI, Inc. during the conduct of the study. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

'Fiery Emperor Nero': French senator denounces Trump and his 'ketamine-fueled jester'

Elon Musk listens to U.S. President Donald Trump speak in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 11, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

David Badash

THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

March 07, 2025

A speech attacking President Donald Trump and Elon Musk by French Senator Claude Malhuret is going viral.

It comes as the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, in a prime-time address Wednesday urged the citizens of France to discuss extending their nuclear umbrella to Ukraine in the face of what clearly is President Donald Trump’s decision to align with Vladimir Putin and Russia over Ukraine.

Senator Malhuret, who is also a physician and an attorney, is being heralded here in America.

The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser heralded Senator Malhuret’s remarks.

“Powerful speech about Trump’s betrayal of the democratic world,” she wrote. “My question watching this — where is the American version? Why hasn’t US’s own opposition to Trump been able to speak out with such clarity and force? Tempus fugit.”

MSNBC’s Michael Steele, the former RNC Chairman, quoted this from Malhuret’s remarks: “Washington has become the court of Nero: an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers and a buffoon on ketamine tasked with purging the civil service.”

“Regardless the language, the Truth remains the same,” Steele commented. “THIS is worth your time.”

Former Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, Anton Gerashchenko, pointed to this quote from the speech:

“The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia and Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin.”

“Perfectly expressed,” declared The New European, which published the text in English and called it “a powerful speech setting out how the continent must deal with the twin threats from America and Russia.”

The New European reports the speech included these lines:

“The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin, but Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.”

“Never in history has a president of the United States capitulated to the enemy,” and added, “in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor.”


Speaking of Trump, he said, “in the Oval Office, the military service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign.”

“Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost,” Malhuret said. “The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century. Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.”

The speech is of course in French, but there are subtitles.

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Betrayal': Trump’s escalating Russian alignment condemned by critics — praised by Kremlin

Ronald Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2019, Presidential Press and Information Office


David Badash

THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

March 06, 2025


In the week since Donald Trump and JD Vance launched a two-on-one televised attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the American president, his administration, and his allies have escalated actions that undermine—and even endanger—Ukraine and its people on multiple fronts, leading critics to denounced President Trump’s “betrayal.”

Trump and his administration reportedly will be targeting Ukrainian refugees in the U.S., and have already crippled a key military tool vital to Ukraine’s defense, halted weapons shipments, and ordered a top Pentagon agency to suspend operations and planning against Russia’s cyber offensives. Trump’s close allies reportedly are looking to back Zelenskyy’s political opponents in Ukraine. Critics—and even Russian state propagandists—say these moves send an unmistakable signal to the world: the United States has “switched sides” in Vladimir Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine.

“The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently declared, as MSNBC reported Tuesday. “This largely aligns with our vision.”

President Trump “was asked for his reaction after the Kremlin said the White House was largely aligned with Moscow. He didn’t answer — but he didn’t have to,” observed MSNBC’s Steve Benen.

Reuters is reporting that the Trump administration will move to revoke the legal protected status of 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the Russian invasion to come to the United States. These refugees, under a Biden administration program, were required to pay fees, be fully vetted, and have proof of a sponsor and financial means.

“The move, expected as soon as April, would be a stunning reversal of the welcome Ukrainians received under President Joe Biden’s administration,” according to Reuters, which noted that at least some could be put on a fast track to deportation.

While Reuters reports its sources say the plan was in place before President Donald Trump’s and Vice President. JD Vance’s Oval Office blowup, it also comes amid moves that appear to put the Trump administration on the side of Russia and President Vladimir Putin.

Earlier this week, President Trump ordered a suspension of critical intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a move that is “expected to cripple Kyiv’s ability to target Russian forces,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

The Trump administration also “suspended weapons shipments to Ukraine earlier this week,” after the “contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” the Journal reported. Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, “said Trump, after that meeting, had also ‘asked for a pause’ of intelligence sharing.”

For years, the CIA and other U.S. Intelligence agencies “have forged deep ties with Ukrainian counterparts,” according to the Journal. Now, that has changed.

“We have taken a step back and are pausing and reviewing all aspects of this relationship,” Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz told reporters Wednesday.

Trump’s decision to halt intelligence sharing “will cost civilian lives almost immediately, dismayed Ukrainians said Thursday,” NBC News reported. The President’s decision also came as European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “convened a summit in Brussels as they attempt to cope with an upended landscape in which the Trump administration appears to be treating them with hostility while seemingly warming to the Kremlin.”

In another escalation against Ukraine and an apparent move toward Russia, on Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News that the war in Ukraine is “a proxy war between nuclear powers – the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia – and it needs to come to an end.”

Reuters reported that the Kremlin “said on Thursday that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s view that the Ukraine conflict is a proxy war between the United States and Russia is in line with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own assessment.”

On Thursday, Politico Europe exclusively reported that “senior members of Donald Trump’s entourage have held secret discussions with some of Kyiv’s top political opponents to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, just as Washington aligns with Moscow in seeking to lever the Ukrainian president out of his job.”

“The discussions centered on whether Ukraine could hold quick presidential elections. These are being delayed in line with the country’s constitution because Ukraine remains under martial law. Critics of holding elections say they could be chaotic and play into Russia’s hands, with so many potential voters serving on the front lines or living abroad as refugees.”

Politico notes that while the Trump administration denies interfering in Ukraine’s domestic politics, “the behavior of Trump and his officials suggests quite the opposite. Trump has accused Zelenskyy of being a ‘dictator without elections,’ and hinted he would not be ‘around very long’ if he didn’t do a deal with Russia. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has falsely accused Kyiv of canceling the election.”

University of Copenhagen award-winning professor of political science, Marlene Wind, blasted the news.

“This is just appalling. Is Trump secretly planning a coup in Kyiv by replacing @ZelenskyyUa with a pro-Russian politician?” she asked.

Bartłomiej Gajos, a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union, asked: “Is it official US policy to seek regime change in Ukraine? That would be my question to the administration if I were a journalist.”

Meanwhile, critics are also condemning Secretary Rubio’s remarks—with some calling them Russian talking points. And President Trump’s decision to target the nearly quarter-million Ukrainian refugees in the U.S. is also being denounced.

Critics Sound the Alarm

“This is nasty, heartless, un-American and dangerous,” declared veteran and veterans’ activist Paul Rieckhoff. “It’s sending innocent civilians back into a war zone to die. These are women and children and seniors. The latest move to deepen Trump’s betrayal of Ukraine. And American values. He continues to drive the knife deeper into the back of Ukraine. And NATO. Putin is celebrating. And the Statue of Liberty is weeping. Congress must exhaust every option to block this. I’d expect Canada or another good nation to step up to accept these Ukrainians. As America continues to fail and fall. And become more isolated and less safe.”

“Hold on,” said The Wall Street Journal’s chief foreign affairs correspondent Yaroslav Trofimo, “didn’t President Trump just say that half of Ukraine is flattened and that his main motivation is care for innocent Ukrainian lives?”

The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser remarked, “How to see this as anything other than a betrayal of people who fled for their lives? The US welcomed them… and now we’re throwing them out, and switching sides in Putin’s war.”

Last week, Glasser wrote: “the United States of America has switched sides in the war between Russia and Ukraine. The country is no longer on the side of Ukraine.”

Late Thursday morning Glasser posted video of a French lawmaker, calling it a “Powerful speech about Trump’s betrayal of the democratic world.”

“My question watching this — where is the American version?” she asked. “Why hasn’t US’s own opposition to Trump been able to speak out with such clarity and force? Tempus fugit.”

Jesuit priest James Martin, a New York Times best-selling author, and editor-at-large of America magazine, responding to the news Ukrainian refugees may lose protections and be deported, wrote simply: “‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Mt 25).”

Watch the videos above or at this link.