Men’s Health Seminar: Key Moments & Takeaways

This Monday (10/11), we had the pleasure to welcome some experts, students and professionals for an evening of open discussion and reflection on our Women’s Health Seminar. From self-care and balance to empowerment and mental health, the session delivered valuable insights and authentic stories. We hope this inspires you to take care of yourselves and maintain a balance between your work, study and well-being.

The panelists

Prof. Lisa Butler

Professor and researcher at the University of Adelaide and SAiGENCI (SAHMRI).

Over 20 years of experience studying prostate cancer biology and treatment.

Chairs the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia’s Research Advisory Committee.

Works nationally to support and fund impactful prostate cancer research.

Will McDonald

TV journalist at 9News Adelaide.

Diagnosed with prostate cancer at 42, discovered after MRI for hip pain.

Became a public advocate, sharing his story to raise awareness about early detection.

Motivated to help others avoid being unaware of prostate cancer risks, especially younger men.

Grant Freeman

Founder, Chairperson and Former President of MiTSA

Diagnosed with prostate cancer in his 30s.

Shifted career focus after diagnosis, from Psychological Science to AI/Machine Learning.

Currently conducting AI/ML-based cancer research at SAiGENCI under Dr. Lisa Butler.

Interested in using technology to analyze DNA and advance cancer understanding.

• Why Men Don’t Talk About Health (Stigma and Awareness)

  Karen:

  So, to begin the discussion, I have an open question for the panel. Men are often hesitant to talk about health issues, especially things like prostate cancer. Do you think something holds them back — and if so, how can we overcome that stigma?

  Will:

  I think that hesitation comes from a long-standing stereotype. And I’ll come at this purely from a prostate cancer point of view. Let’s look at other cancers — breast cancer has a national screening program, bowel cancer has a screening program, lung cancer now has a screening program, and cervical cancer has one too. Prostate cancer, which is actually the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia — 29,000 men each year, 4,000 deaths — doesn’t have one.

  So it becomes a chicken-and-egg scenario. Men don’t talk about it because they haven’t been taught to talk about it. We haven’t educated them that it’s something they should be aware of. And I say that as someone who’s educated, who works in media, and who still didn’t know much about it until it happened to me. So yes — I think the silence comes down to lack of education and awareness. And then there are also the myths.

  Lisa:

  Exactly. There are some big myths about prostate cancer that still circulate.

  Will:

  Right — the biggest one is that getting tested means you have to go through a physical exam. People still think you have to get, you know, the finger up there. But it’s not like that anymore. The main test is a simple blood test — the PSA test. And that’s the problem — we haven’t told people well enough.

  Lisa:

  I completely agree. It’s very hard to expect people to take charge of their health when the system doesn’t make it easy. Right now, the official guidelines basically say, “Have a conversation with your doctor.” But in a 15-minute GP appointment, you’ve got a million things to ask — you’re not going to remember to bring up everything.

  We shouldn’t just leave it all to men to figure out. There should be stronger systems in place — more structured screening and awareness — so that it’s not entirely on the individual to know what to do.

  Grant:

  Right, don’t stress too much at your age, but be informed. People sometimes look at my case and think, “Oh, he got prostate cancer in his 30s.” But when I was talking to Will a few weeks ago, we realized that when he was diagnosed in his early 40s, he probably already had it developing in his 30s — it just wasn’t detected until later.

  So the question really becomes — when should you start checking? That’s something Lisa’s research is deeply involved in.

  But for younger men, the thing to watch for isn’t prostate cancer — it’s actually testicular cancer, which usually occurs in your 20s. That’s a much younger man’s disease. You just need to be aware — check yourself in the shower for any lumps or bumps, that kind of thing.

  For prostate cancer, though, the general guideline is:

  • If you have a family history, get checked in your 40s.
  • If not, start in your 50s.

  Karen:

  That’s helpful to clarify. Grant, you were diagnosed very young, right? What led you to get checked?

  Grant:

  Honestly? Luck. Pure luck. My physiotherapist wrote a letter to my GP about some pain I was having. If that letter hadn’t been written, I probably wouldn’t have been tested — and my cancer might have progressed to a much later stage.

  So yeah, it was complete chance that saved me. That’s why awareness matters — because for most men in their 30s, prostate cancer is rare, but not impossible. So don’t panic, but don’t ignore symptoms either. In my case, I had persistent, bad lower back pain. That was my only symptom.
• Coping with Diagnosis and Mental Health After Cancer

  Karen:

  So we’ve talked about awareness and the importance of early testing. But many people, like you, Will, discover it unexpectedly — often with no symptoms at all. When something like this suddenly appears in your life, how do you deal with it? Mentally, emotionally — from a support perspective — what helped you through?

  Will:

  “Tough” is the only word that really fits. When you get diagnosed with something serious — stage four cancer, in my case — you go into shock. I thought I was too young, too healthy. Cancer was the last thing on my mind. When I first heard the words “You have prostate cancer,” I honestly thought it must have been a mistake. I assumed it was arthritis or something minor.

  But once that initial shock wears off, you realize you have to start coping. For me, that meant talking to people. I don’t have a massive circle of friends, but the ones I do have are good ones — people I can open up to. Talking helped me a lot more than bottling it up ever would have.

  Lisa:

  That’s so important — just being able to talk. When you’re facing something that devastating, keeping it all inside only makes it worse. Even if you don’t want to share it with the whole world right away, confiding in a few people really helps.

  Karen:

  That’s such a good point. And I guess that’s one of the reasons events like this matter — meeting others who’ve been through it or understand it. Connecting with people who “get it” can make such a difference, right?

  Lisa:

  Absolutely. Community and conversation are huge parts of recovery.

  Karen:

  Grant, you were very young when you went through all this. What was it like for you — especially from a mental health point of view?

  Grant:

  Honestly, for me, the hardest part wasn’t the cancer itself — it was everything that came after. I had surgery — a radical prostatectomy, which removes the prostate completely. That cured the cancer, thankfully. But what people don’t talk enough about are the consequences that follow.

  Before the operation, I was laser-focused on getting fit — swimming, training, trying to be in peak condition so I’d recover well. But after the surgery… the reality hit hard. My surgeon did explain some of the side effects — things like erectile dysfunction, infertility, loss of ejaculation. But until you actually experience those things, you can’t really grasp what it means.

  It’s life-altering, especially when you’re in your 30s. For older men in their 60s or 70s, it might not hit as hard — because those changes can be gradual anyway. But when you go from being fully active and healthy to suddenly dealing with all that — it’s a shock to your identity. It affected my mental health deeply.

  Karen:

  That must have been a massive adjustment — not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically too. Did it change how you saw yourself or how you interacted with others?

  Lisa:

  Yes, there must have been a big shift in how you felt within yourself — and how you projected yourself to the world, right?

  Grant:

  Exactly. It completely changed how I saw myself. I actually wrote a blog about it, which a lot of people read — about something I called medical asexuality. It was about facing the reality that my body just didn’t function the same way anymore, and I had to come to terms with that. It took time — a lot of time — to accept it.

  Eventually, I reached a point where I could say, “Okay, maybe this is where I’m at for now.” I’ve accepted it — and I’ve also tried to reframe it: I survived cancer, and now I have the opportunity to contribute back through my studies and research. Even though I lost something, I can give back in a way that matters.

  Will:

  That’s really powerful, mate. Honestly.
• Breakthrough Research and Advances in Treatment

  Karen:

  You mentioned “giving back.” So how do you both — through your experiences and your work — try to contribute to the fight against prostate cancer? Especially you, Lisa — your research background is extraordinary. Could you share a bit about the breakthroughs you’ve seen recently, and about what’s happening at SAHMRI and SAiGENCI?

  Lisa:

  Sure. If I talk broadly to start with, something that’s really interesting about prostate cancer is how little its main treatment changed for about 60 years. For decades, the standard therapy was testosterone suppression — what we call androgen deprivation therapy. Originally that was done surgically, then later medically, but the principle was the same: reduce the male hormones that prostate cancer cells depend on.

  The problem is that while this can control the disease for a time, it’s rarely curative. Eventually, most cancers adapt. They find ways to survive even without testosterone — and that’s when the disease becomes advanced and harder to treat.

  In recent years, though, we’ve made big progress. Newer drugs have been developed that can either strengthen the initial hormone blockade or target the cancer after it becomes resistant. For a long time, chemotherapy didn’t work very well for prostate cancer because the cells divide slowly. But now we have a whole range of next-generation therapies that are changing outcomes.

  One of the biggest breakthroughs has been a radio-ligand therapy called lutetium-PSMA. It uses a special antibody that homes in on prostate cancer cells wherever they are in the body. It carries a tiny radioactive payload that destroys those cells on contact — even if they’ve spread to other organs or bones. That’s been a genuine game-changer in terms of improving survival and quality of life.

  We still don’t have a perfect cure, but men now have more options — multiple drugs they can cycle through — and that’s something we couldn’t say even a decade ago.

  Karen:

  That’s incredible. And your work has also been focusing on early detection and understanding tumor biology, right?

  Lisa:

  Exactly. My interest now is shifting back to the start of the disease — when it’s first detected — so we can predict which cancers will become aggressive. For the last 15 years, my team has been running a biobank here in Adelaide. We collect most of the prostates removed from men during surgery, store the tissue samples, and follow up on each patient’s outcome.

  So we can now track which men did well and which didn’t — and then go back and analyze the biological differences that might explain that. High-grade, high-volume cancers tend to do poorly; very low-grade cancers often stay quiet for years. But most men fall somewhere in the middle — the grey zone — where it’s hard to tell how aggressive the cancer will be.

  That’s where our research is focused: developing molecular tests that can help predict how a cancer will behave and how it should be treated.

  Karen:

  That’s fascinating. I watched one of your videos where you mentioned measuring lipids in tumor cells and in patients’ blood to predict therapy response. How did that idea come about?

  Lisa:

  It actually stemmed from the hormone connection I mentioned earlier. We were looking for ways to target prostate cancer without shutting down testosterone throughout the entire body — because that global suppression causes awful side effects. Hormones like testosterone influence fat metabolism in the body — that’s where lipids come in.

  We realized that certain lipids in cancer cells are very sensitive to hormone levels, and they might serve as a kind of fingerprint for how the tumor is behaving. So, rather than using a “sledgehammer” approach to eliminate all hormones, we started focusing on the specific lipid-related pathways that the cancer cells rely on. By tracking those lipid changes in tumor tissue and blood, we can potentially identify which patients will respond best to certain drugs.

  Karen:

  So, in a way, these lipids act as biomarkers for prostate cancer?

  Lisa:

  Exactly — that’s the right term. They’re biomarkers. We’re now working with colleagues interstate to measure these lipid profiles through blood tests. We can already turn those results around within a week, and they could help guide whether someone should receive a particular metabolic therapy in addition to standard treatment.

  It’s still early, but it’s moving toward clinical application — and that’s exciting.

  Karen:

  That’s remarkable — and I read that these trials are expanding into the U.S. as well as South Australia. That must be really rewarding to see your work moving from the lab into real-world use.

  Lisa:

  Yes, that’s right. We’ve partnered with several international teams. And what’s especially promising is that some of these metabolic targets already have approved drugs — not originally for cancer, but for conditions like diabetes and heart disease. That means we can repurpose existing drugs rather than starting from scratch, which saves time. Developing a new drug from the ground up can take 15–20 years before it’s approved.

  So in the meantime, we’re focusing on targeting the same pathways with medicines that are already FDA-approved. It’s a smart way to get results to patients faster.

  Will:

  That’s one of the big frustrations I have as an ambassador for the Prostate Cancer Foundation. I go around speaking at events and forums, and one of the things I tell people — especially those in government and policy — is to hurry up.

  We have brilliant researchers like Lisa doing world-class work, but there’s a whole layer of bureaucracy that slows everything down — approvals, funding, ethics, endless steps. We know a lot of what needs to be done. We just need to remove some of those roadblocks. That’s what I push for in my role at the PCFA — faster translation of research into treatments.

  Lisa:

  And it is getting better. The system used to move at a glacial pace, but there’s been real progress in the past few years.

  Will:

  Absolutely. I mean, I looked it up recently — the concept of testosterone suppression in prostate cancer was first discovered 84 years ago. And yet, when I was diagnosed, that was still the first thing they did. Eighty-four years later, it’s still the baseline treatment. That’s wild.

  I’m now on a newer, second-line drug that was only released about five years ago, which is proof that things are moving faster. But still — it takes too long. Cancer adapts quickly, and we need to be quicker.

  Grant:

  Exactly. And I think one of the big reasons we still rely so much on surgery is because it’s viewed as the “platinum standard.” If the cancer is localized, surgery — a prostatectomy — is often the first recommendation. But it’s incredibly invasive. What Lisa’s working on is so important because the goal is to reduce the need for those surgeries altogether. Ideally, one day, surgery would only be done when absolutely necessary.

  Lisa:

  Yes, that’s the vision. Some cancers would never progress aggressively anyway, so if we can predict which ones those are, we can avoid overtreatment.

  Grant:

  Exactly. I remember asking my urologist afterward, “Did I make the right decision?” Because I was so young, they told me yes — surgery was the best option. But you still wonder, what if? Maybe it would have stayed dormant, maybe not. That uncertainty stays with you.

  Lisa:

  That’s completely understandable. And that’s why more accurate diagnostic tools are so important — they allow men and doctors to make decisions with confidence.

  Will:

  And it also helps tackle the stigma, right? Because one reason some men avoid getting tested is fear of the treatment. They think, “If I get diagnosed, they’ll take everything out.” That mindset comes from when everyone who got prostate cancer automatically had surgery — whether they needed it or not. That’s changing now. You can get a PSA test, then an MRI, then a biopsy — and only intervene if it’s necessary.

  Lisa:

  Exactly. MRIs have improved so much that men often need fewer biopsies now. And more men with low-risk disease can simply be monitored under what we call active surveillance. That means watching carefully for signs of progression rather than rushing into surgery. It’s a much more balanced, personalized approach.

  Karen:

  That’s an important shift. And it connects perfectly to the next part of our discussion — how we can prevent prostate cancer or at least detect it early, especially for those with a family history.
• Prevention, Family History, and Genetic Risk

  Karen:

  That brings us to another important area — prevention and early awareness. We’ve talked about testing and treatment, but what about preventative measures? For instance, family history plays a big role in risk. Apart from knowing your family background, are there other steps people can take to look after their health and lower their risk?

  Will:

  Well, since most of you here are quite young, I’d say you don’t need to start worrying about prostate cancer right now. But you should know your family history. If your father, brother, uncle, or grandfather had prostate cancer — pay attention. Family history is the number one factor.

  But beyond that, I’d say: don’t be afraid to go to the doctor. Seriously — ignorance isn’t bliss. It’s the opposite. Information is power, and things are improving every year. If something feels off, don’t ignore it. Get it checked early. Early detection makes all the difference — not just for cancer, for almost anything.

  Lisa:

  Yes, absolutely. And I’d add that many symptoms people worry about aren’t even cancer. For example, men who start getting up at night to go to the toilet often panic and think it’s prostate cancer. But in many cases, it’s something benign — like benign prostatic hyperplasia, which just means the prostate is enlarged but not cancerous. As men age, that’s very common.

  So the key point is: don’t assume the worst, but also don’t avoid getting checked. Sometimes even things like infections can cause elevated PSA levels. A doctor can sort that out quickly with a simple test.

  For men approaching their 30s and 40s, it’s a good idea to start thinking about family history and, if applicable, get a baseline PSA test. If you have a strong family history — that’s where it becomes more serious.

  Certain genetic mutations, like BRCA1 and BRCA2, are well known for increasing breast and ovarian cancer risk in women — but they also raise prostate cancer risk in men, particularly BRCA2. It’s still rare, maybe 5% of all prostate cancers, but it’s real. Men in families with BRCA mutations are now being screened earlier, just like the women in those families have been for years.

  Will:

  That hits close to home for me. I don’t have a BRCA mutation, but I do have another one — a rare gene called HOXB13. It’s associated with aggressive prostate cancer appearing at younger ages. I didn’t know about it until after my diagnosis.

  But now my family knows — my brother, my son. He’ll be aware of it when he’s older, and that knowledge gives us power. That’s the thing — once you know, you can act early. It’s scary, but it’s empowering.

  Lisa:

  Yes, that’s a really good example. HOXB13 is rare, but it’s one of those clear genetic markers we’ve identified for early-onset prostate cancer. And Will’s right — information is power. Knowing your genetic background allows you and your family to make informed decisions.
• Is Early Genetic Testing Worth It?

  Karen:

  That raises an interesting question — do you think it’s worthwhile for people to get genetic testing early in life, just to know? Or could that information cause unnecessary anxiety — or even financial issues, like with insurance?

  Lisa:

  That’s actually a really complex issue. Right now, widespread genetic testing isn’t routinely recommended for everyone. There are still concerns about insurance discrimination and the economics of genomic screening.

  At the moment, it’s usually offered when a pattern of cancer is seen within a family — for example, if multiple relatives had early or aggressive prostate or breast cancers. So I’d say yes, genetic testing is powerful, but it’s most appropriate when there’s a clear family history — not necessarily for the general population just yet.

  Grant:

  Lisa, what about those commercial tests — like 23andMe or Ancestry kits? They claim to test for health markers too. Are those useful in this context?

  Lisa:

  That’s a great question. Those direct-to-consumer tests can provide some information, but they’re limited. I was talking recently to one of our oncology researchers at SAiGENCI — Dr. Mark — about this.

  He mentioned that for advanced prostate cancer, genomic panels are now done routinely to look for specific mutations. That surprised me — I thought it was only for family-linked cases. But apparently, in advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, it’s now common to screen tumors for genetic changes that could guide targeted therapies.

  For example, if a patient has certain DNA repair mutations, they might respond well to drugs called PARP inhibitors. So genetic information is increasingly influencing treatment — but that’s in the medical setting, not through commercial mail-in kits.

  Will:

  In my case, genetic testing was recommended because of my age and my dad’s history. Those two factors raised a flag that something hereditary might be going on — and they were right. My brother hasn’t been tested yet, but he probably will be.

  The problem is, the laws around insurance discrimination still haven’t fully caught up. At the moment, insurance companies technically can’t discriminate based on genetic results under current guidelines — but there’s no solid legislation backing that up yet. It’s more of a policy guideline than a law, and that makes people nervous. We really need the government to make it legally binding that insurers cannot use genetic test results against you.

  Lisa:

  Yes — exactly. There’s been talk of legislative reform, but it hasn’t fully gone through yet. That’s why many people are hesitant — especially younger people thinking long-term about life insurance. Once those protections are formalized, we’ll likely see more people choosing to get tested without fear of financial repercussions.

  Karen:

  That’s something most people don’t even think about — how health, genetics, and finances can all become intertwined.

  Lisa:

  It’s true. At a recent international oncology conference, one of the sessions was literally titled “The Financial Toxicity of Cancer.” It’s a growing area of concern.

  Even in countries with good healthcare systems, people can face serious financial strain due to medical costs, lost income, and insurance barriers. We’re lucky in Australia to have universal healthcare, but there are still treatments and trials that aren’t yet covered.

  Some of the newer therapies cost enormous amounts, and not everyone can access them. Compared to the U.S., we’re in a better position, but affordability and equity are still major issues here too.
• From Lab to Clinic: How Long Do New Discoveries Take?

  Karen:

  That’s really eye-opening. And speaking of access and timelines — how long does it usually take for a new discovery, like your lipid biomarker research, to move from the lab to actual clinical use?

  Lisa:

  That depends a lot on what kind of development we’re talking about. For new drugs, it can take anywhere from 10 to 20 years. There’s a long process of safety testing, clinical trials, regulatory review, and so on. And, of course, pharmaceutical companies consider whether the market size justifies the cost — which can slow things further.

  On the other hand, diagnostic tests — like the lipid-based biomarkers we’re working on — can reach clinical use much faster. One of my colleagues likes to use what we call “The Dubbo Test.” The idea is: if a test can be done just as easily in a small rural town like Dubbo as in Sydney or Adelaide, then it’s practical and ready for rollout. If a diagnostic test meets that standard, it could be implemented within a decade. So tests can often move much faster than drugs.

  Will:

  And there’s another layer to that — money. Because prostate cancer affects so many men, pharmaceutical companies know there’s profit to be made. Some big American drug firms have even started skipping straight to Phase 3 trials to get ahead of competitors. So yes, it’s a bit sad that money talks, but at least it pushes development forward faster than before.

  Lisa:

  True — the industry’s financial motivation can be frustrating, but it also funds progress. And with the right balance of regulation and funding, that momentum can be harnessed for good.

  Karen:

  That’s encouraging to hear. It feels like progress is finally accelerating — and hopefully, as you said, we’ll keep moving earlier and earlier in detection and intervention.
• Broader Testing, Cancer Biology, and Cross-Disease Insights

  Grant:

  I actually have a question about the testing you mentioned earlier, Lisa. Are these kinds of blood-based tests specific only to prostate cancer, or can they also detect other cancers? For instance, if I go to my GP and have a blood sample taken — could that same test potentially reveal other cancers as well?

  Lisa:

  That’s a really good question. The current tests we use for prostate cancer — particularly the PSA test — are very specific to prostate disease. When I say “specific,” I mean it detects changes in prostate activity, but not necessarily only cancer. Elevated PSA levels can also occur due to inflammation or benign enlargement. But no, it wouldn’t tell you if you had another type of cancer. Each cancer type tends to have its own unique markers. So, for example, there’s no single blood test that can detect all cancers at once — at least not yet. Researchers are working on “multi-cancer detection” panels, but they’re still experimental.

  Will:

  When I was first diagnosed, after the MRI showed the lesions, they took a lot of blood tests. PSA was the main one — that’s the indicator for prostate activity. But they also ran other bloodwork just to rule out different diseases, like bone or blood cancers, since the pain I had could’ve been related to those too. Then I had a chest X-ray to check my lungs for any signs of spread. So, even though the prostate cancer showed up clearly, they wanted to make sure there wasn’t something else happening alongside it.

  Lisa:

  Exactly — and that’s good clinical practice. But again, while blood tests can be powerful, they’re only one part of the picture. PSA levels can be influenced by many factors, which is why MRIs, biopsies, and imaging are often used together for accuracy.

  Will:

  Right. It’s not just one test and you’re done — it’s a process.

  Lisa:

  Yes. It’s similar to the routine panels you might get during an annual health check — things like cholesterol, glucose, and liver enzymes. They all give clues, but no single line on a blood panel tells the whole story. The PSA test just adds another data point — one that specifically reflects prostate function.

  Grant:

  That makes sense. And I remember learning something interesting when I went through my diagnosis: every type of cancer tends to spread to its own “favorite” places. For example, prostate cancer usually spreads to bone, while melanoma tends to go to the brain. Do we know why that is?

  Lisa:

  Yes, that’s a fascinating area of research. Different cancers have specific “metastatic tropisms,” meaning they prefer certain organs. Prostate cancer most often spreads to bone. Breast cancer tends to spread to bone and liver. Melanoma, as you mentioned, often goes to the brain. We group some of these cancers together as hormone-dependent cancers — prostate cancer relies on androgens, while breast cancer relies on estrogens. They share some biological pathways, which is why both often metastasize to bone.

  Grant:

  Yeah, I remember that vividly during my own testing. After my diagnosis, one of the first things the doctors did was send me for a bone scan — to make sure it hadn’t spread. That was nerve-wracking. Waiting for those results, wondering if something had shown up — that’s an experience I’ll never forget. Luckily, nothing had spread. But for that whole time, I couldn’t help thinking, “If they find something, that’s it.”

  Lisa:

  Yes, that waiting period is one of the hardest parts. And that’s why early detection is so critical — the earlier we find it, the less likely it’s spread.

  Karen:

  It’s interesting how distinct each cancer behaves — and how that shapes both testing and treatment. Unfortunately, we’re running close to time, but before we wrap up, I know both you, Lisa, and Will, serve on the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia’s advisory board. Could you tell us briefly about what’s happening there — and how people can contribute or get involved?

  Lisa:

  Sure. The PCFA is dedicated to improving awareness, funding research, and supporting men living with prostate cancer and their families. This month — until November 20 — we’re running a national fundraising campaign. There’s a Giving Day on the 20th, where all donations will be doubled by matching sponsors.

  Will:

  Yes — that’s right. On November 20, all donations are matched dollar-for-dollar by sponsors. It’s one of the biggest fundraising events of the year for the foundation.

  Karen:

  That’s fantastic. And I believe MITSA even donated to the cause back in September, raising over $1,300 for the Long Run campaign. It’s wonderful to see how both research institutions and communities are stepping up to raise awareness.

Here's a quick look at the beautiful and unforgettable moments from the event:

Thank you Karen for facilitating and the event team for organising and setting up the event. We would also like to express out gratitude to Grant and the panelists for their insights and everyone who joined us to make the event so impactful. Your participation made the seminar truly special and we look forward to having you at our future events!