Explore every episode of the podcast Breaking Innovation Paralysis

Dr. Anu Rebbapragada has spent over two decades translating diagnostic innovation into clinically trusted, commercially viable services — as a clinical microbiologist and high-complexity lab director, a national leader across Canadian diagnostic lab networks, a MedTech executive at a Fortune 500 global diagnostics company, and a strategic advisor to entrepreneurial ventures. She holds a PhD in microbiology and molecular genetics, has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers, sits on Canada's first national AI-in-clinical-decision-support standards committee (CAN/DGSI 138), and completed Harvard Medical School's executive program on AI implementation in healthcare.

In this conversation, Anu walks through what she calls "pilot purgatory" — the graveyard where excellent Canadian diagnostic research dies before it ever reaches routine practice. She unpacks why the problem isn't the science: it's a fragmented, thirteen-jurisdiction reimbursement patchwork where the identical test on the identical platform pays out differently province to province, a regulatory pathway with no equivalent to the U.S. lab-developed-test route, and what she terms "institutional inertia" — staff so stretched sustaining outdated, paper-based workflows that they have neither the bandwidth nor the incentive to adopt something new. She traces one case in detail: a McMaster-spun-out molecular test for endometriosis, clinically promising, structurally boxed in by the very system meant to bring it to patients.

The conversation turns to what Anu calls a kind of collective amnesia: Canada proved during COVID that rapid, responsible diagnostic innovation at scale is possible — home collection, point-of-care testing, virtual portals, all stood up fast and safely — only to revert to sluggish, pre-pandemic defaults once the pressure lifted. She and Natalie dig into the binary nature of Canadian healthcare (public system or private workaround, with little in between), the "postal code lottery" of provincial fragmentation, and why she believes the missing ingredient isn't more pilots or more publications but public awareness and grassroots advocacy — health consumers demanding better tests exist, rather than assuming the status quo is the ceiling.

This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.

If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.

🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.

 🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact 

📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter

#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #Diagnostics #HealthTech #InnovationPolicy #HealthcareReform

Dr. Andrew Maxwell has spent three decades studying how people inside institutions actually make innovation decisions, from his early years at ABB through a PhD examining investor judgment to his current role as a professor of technology and entrepreneurship at York University's Lassonde School of Engineering. He's the founder of the BEST program, author of the Innovation Doctor series on Substack, and runs Avatar Innovations, working across academic health centres, federal research funders, and the incubator ecosystem meant to carry ideas from lab to market.

In this conversation, Andrew walks through why culture sits underneath everything else in his five-driver framework — culture, capability, incentives, institutions, and technology — and why so many of Canada's innovation failures get mislabelled as technical problems when they're actually cultural ones: assumptions nobody wants to challenge, and a default tendency to keep doing what we did yesterday. He calls this his "laws of innovation inertia," a direct parallel to Newton's laws — bodies at rest stay at rest unless something forces them to move.

We get into why research funders like NSERC and CIHR were never mandated to produce productivity or adoption outcomes in the first place, only publications and advancing knowledge, and why that mismatch quietly shapes what gets built and what gets shelved. Andrew built TechConnect at York specifically to close that gap, training researchers to ask what a user actually needs rather than just optimizing a technical spec. He also makes the case that the skillset required to discover something and the skillset required to persuade someone to adopt it are fundamentally different, and that most incubators aren't structured to bridge that particular chasm.

The conversation turns to funding itself: Andrew's contrarian take that venture capital's milestone-based, real-options structure is actually more disciplined than government research funding, which hands out money with far less accountability. He introduces the idea of a "farm team," regions and companies that quietly accept talent will outgrow them and leave, and Natalie pushes back with the question underneath it all: is Canada a farm team, or does it not know what it is yet. Andrew is candid that he doesn't have a clean answer, and that may be part of the problem.

This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.

If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.

🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.

🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact

📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter

#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #YorkUniversity #InnovationPolicy #TechTransfer

David Carter has spent 13 years as CEO of Innovation Factory, Hamilton's regional innovation centre, helping founders in tech, digital health, and advanced manufacturing bring their ideas to market. Before that, he built and scaled his own software company and worked as a CTO, experience that still shapes how he thinks about product growth and what it actually takes to scale. He's also a co-founder of the Synapse Life Science Consortium, linking Hamilton's life sciences ecosystem across McMaster, Hamilton Health Sciences, and St. Joseph's Healthcare, and sits on boards spanning digital health and national innovation networks.In this conversation, David walks through the tangle of institutions a Canadian founder has to navigate between lab bench and fundable company, and why that tangle matters less than people assume. There's real overlap between industry liaison offices like McMaster's Milo, campus-led accelerators like the Forge, and regional innovation centres like his own, but David makes the case that it's survivable: "there's no wrong door," and founders get routed to the right resource no matter where they walk in first.We get into how research gets stuck, not because Canadian researchers lack fundable ideas, but because many simply don't know what to do with them or where to take them, leaving genuinely brilliant work shelved once a PhD wraps and the researcher moves on. David explains the handoff chain from university tech-transfer offices to campus incubators to regional innovation centres, and why nobody at any stage is trying to "hog the glory" from the startups themselves.David also raises a question Canada still can't answer: once public money goes into a company, does anyone track what happened to it? He makes the case for real accountability tied to non-dilutive funding, not to punish failure, but to actually learn from it, and admits candidly that even he doesn't know whether early government support was the thing that got a company like Shopify through a bad day, or just something everyone piles credit onto after the fact. He's optimistic all the same: a new generation of founders who grew up with the internet, paired with the disruptive force of AI, feels to him like another point of inflection, the kind he last saw in the mid-90s.This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: ⁠https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #Hamilton #McMasterUniversity #StartupCanada #TechTransfer

Walter Robinson is a bilingual public affairs executive with 30 years of policy, legislative, and regulatory experience at every level of Canadian government — from federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, where his testimony helped shape the Romanow Commission, to Chief of Staff at Ottawa City Hall, to VP roles at Innovative Medicines Canada and senior pharma leadership at Purdue. Alongside that, he's built a parallel career in rare disease and cancer advocacy: founding board member of SecondStreet.org, former board member of the Ottawa Hospital, past chair of the Ottawa Cancer Foundation, and advisory committee member with the Lundin Cancer Fund's Glioblastoma Research Program. Based in Montreal, Walter now runs his own AI and healthcare consultancy.

In this conversation, Walter walks through why Canada builds world-class upstream research — strongest recent example, a $443-million national AI strategy that funded three institutes and over 100 research chairs — and still can't get that work across the finish line into commercialized, Canadian-owned companies.

We get into why he sees the gap as structural rather than cultural: constitutional divisions between federal and provincial jurisdiction, an academic system built on publish-or-perish rather than commercialize-or-perish, and the absence of anything like the U.S. Bay-Dole Act, which gave American universities one consistent national rulebook for moving IP out of the lab in 1980. Canada, he argues, never built that predictability, and the result is a patchwork of hybrid ownership models and career bureaucrats running tech transfer offices instead of people with venture backgrounds.

Walter also gives a postmortem on Bills C-27 and C-72, both of which died on the order paper, and explains how the Carney government is resequencing that same legislative ground through Bill S-5 — sending it to the Senate first to get around federal-provincial jurisdictional fights by framing health data as economic union, not health policy. He's cautiously optimistic about the sequencing, with one caveat: government funding bodies still run on 12-to-18-month cycles while AI capability is moving weekly, and he warns that some of today's AI health investments could become "the next round of corporate welfare headlines" in five years if there's no accountability built in.

We also dig into Canada's slipping share of global clinical trials — down from 6% to 4% in five years, roughly $2.5 billion and 20,000 jobs — and why the country is strong at Phase 1 and 2 trials but stalls at Phase 3 and 4, exactly the stages where AI-driven recruitment, retention, and pharmacovigilance could help close the gap. Walter closes with a personal note: as a patient across three generations of clinical research himself, he makes the case that treating life sciences as a matter of national sovereignty isn't abstract policy — it's how Canada gets on the winning team.

This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.

If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.

🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.

🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact

📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter

#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #HealthSovereignty #LifeSciences #ClinicalTrials #PublicPolicy #TechTransfer

Dr. Nadine Tatton is a University of Toronto-trained neuroscientist who has spent her career at the intersection of neurodegenerative disease research and drug development. She helped grow the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration's research funding from $250,000 to $6 million, plus another $10 million in partnered programs, later supported strategy at Alector, and most recently served as executive director of the Critical Path for Alzheimer's Disease Consortium. She left Canada nearly two decades ago to build that career in the US, and she's watching from the outside for a way back in.Nadine opens with a theory none of this show's earlier guests have raised: that Canadian risk aversion isn't just a funding problem, it's a cultural inheritance from Victorian Britain, where boasting about achievement was considered ungentlemanly, and where "amateur" outranked "professional" as the higher compliment. She traces a straight line from that 19th-century mindset to a very current Canadian instinct to celebrate coming in second, and argues that instinct, more than any single policy, shapes everything downstream: what gets funded, what gets said out loud, and who eventually leaves.She and Natalie trace how that plays out concretely: identical tech roles paying tens of thousands of dollars less in Canada than the equivalent US position once stock, bonuses, and total compensation are factored in, Canadian startups typically taking years longer than their US counterparts to reach the same funding stage, and founders describing having to navigate six to eight different taxes just to get a company off the ground, only to be taxed again on any profit they manage to generate. Nadine also walks through why so many Canadian-founded companies incorporate in Delaware rather than at home: it's simply easier, and it's advice tech transfer offices themselves routinely give.Drawing on her years building a nonprofit research funding engine in the US, including a single $40 million donation that permanently secured an organization's future, Nadine contrasts the scale and business sophistication of American disease-advocacy fundraising with what's realistically achievable in Canada, and revisits the Connaught Labs story: 65 years spent developing and manufacturing insulin and diphtheria treatments domestically, sold off in stages through the '70s and '80s, and a capability Canada has never rebuilt since.The conversation closes on two notes of genuine optimism: Nadine sees the current disruption in US research funding as an opening for Canada to attract displaced scientific talent, and she argues Canada has leaned on a single trading partner for too long when it has the global trust and reputation to diversify into much broader partnerships. And when asked directly what role she'd want if she returned, her answer is blunt: not inside government. She wants the freedom to say what she actually thinks.This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact

📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: ⁠https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #Neuroscience #DrugDevelopment #BrainDrain #LifeSciences

Amos Adler has spent nearly two decades as founder and CEO of MEMOTEXT Corp, a digital patient engagement platform built to drive medication adherence through personalized, evidence-based messaging. He later co-founded A4i, a joint venture with CAMH supporting people living with schizophrenia through digital engagement, and is now building MTXT.ai, aimed at compressing the years-long gap between a validated research idea and an actual deployable health product.In this conversation, Amos traces how MEMOTEXT evolved from a single content-delivery engine, what would later be called a just-in-time adaptive intervention, into the toolkit behind dozens of patient engagement applications, and why he treats every accelerator, grant, and partnership as a long-term play rather than a quick win: in his world, next week is effectively five years away, and validation takes years no matter how good the idea is.We get into a genuinely counterintuitive finding from his own experience: Canadian IP terms for academic principal investigators are actually more favorable than American ones, yet Canadian founders still struggle to execute at the same speed, largely because the U.S. runs the equivalent of twenty separate CIHRs to Canada's one, with a customer base to match. Amos is blunt about where Canadian incubators and accelerators fall short: too many are staffed by people who've never built anything themselves, too many measure success by dollars raised rather than revenue or customer traction, and too few are willing to cut a startup loose when it isn't working. He contrasts that with Creative Destruction Labs' model, where if no mentor raises their hand for you, you're out, and argues that exact kind of accountability, letting bad ideas die instead of keeping them on life support indefinitely, is what's missing from Canadian innovation culture. The result, in his words, is a landscape full of zombie companies: neither funded enough to scale nor allowed to fail.He's equally direct about founders themselves. Many of the academic entrepreneurs he's worked with, including people literally curing cancer, have never been taught the basics of selling, and treat business development as beneath the science, when it's the only thing that actually gets an idea to a patient. Revenue, in his view, solves problems no amount of grant writing ever will.The conversation closes on the familiar resource pattern this show keeps circling back to, extended into new territory: Canada exports its raw materials, its ideas, its IP, its highly subsidized and highly educated people, then buys the finished product back at a markup, whether that's a car, a can of aluminum we already produced, or a drug developed here and commercialized somewhere else. Amos offers one genuine point of optimism: researchers displaced by recent U.S. funding cuts are starting to land in Canada, and he argues that's exactly the kind of investment Canada should be scaling aggressively, if the country can find the will to plan ten and twenty years out instead of defaulting to consensus and stability.This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact

📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: ⁠https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #DigitalHealth #HealthTech #Entrepreneurship #MentalHealth

Dr. Gerry Wright has spent 33 years at McMaster University, and this year his lab had an extraordinary run: four new antibiotic candidates, including lariocidin, a discovery published in Nature that targets a vulnerability no antibiotic on the market currently exploits. He's also spent two decades on the other side of the table, reviewing grants for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and he's lived the commercialization gap firsthand, having founded and lost a company built on a single compound.In this conversation, Gerry walks through why discovery, the part Canada is genuinely excellent at, is the easy part, and why turning a Nature-published finding into an actual drug is close to impossible here. Getting a drug to market costs north of a billion dollars; Canada's entire federal health research budget doesn't come close. There's substantial funding for discovery, and essentially none for development, so promising science stalls at exactly the point where other countries start investing seriously.We get into how CIHR's own grant review process works from the inside: panels evaluating roughly 50 proposals at a time, funding success rates now hovering near 10%, down from 20-25% two decades ago, and why that scarcity quietly pushes reviewers toward safe, incremental proposals over genuinely novel ones, even when nobody intends it that way. Gerry explains why a well-intentioned new program meant to fund riskier science ended up building an entirely separate bureaucracy instead of reinforcing the systems that already work, and why the loss of five-year renewable funding matters more than it sounds, since it's what lets a lab actually retain skilled staff long-term.He makes the case for something Canada doesn't have: a version of the U.S. NIH's SBIR program, competitive, non-dilutive funding specifically for companies, not academics, that has underwritten a large share of American drug, vaccine, and diagnostics development for decades. We talk about why Canadian pension funds and banks stay parked in resource industries while U.S. capital treats biotech risk the way it treats a bet in Vegas, and why antibiotics specifically are one of the hardest sells in the entire pharmaceutical industry: curing a disease outright is, perversely, worse business than managing a chronic one.Gerry also talks candidly about what happened to his first company, built around a single compound discovered in his lab and published on the cover of Nature, that no Canadian investor would fund. It became a Delaware-incorporated company backed by NIH resources and Boston investors, and ultimately failed when an unexpected liability turned up late in development, the same risk every drug faces, just absorbed entirely by people outside Canada. He explains what he's doing differently this time: keeping the assets in Canada, diversifying beyond a single compound and beyond antibiotics into cancer targets, and raising non-dilutive funding from the UK and EU because that kind of support still doesn't exist domestically.Along the way: the insulin callback that keeps surfacing in this series (we don't manufacture it here anymore either), a former PhD student who had to launch his antibiotic-resistance-monitoring company out of New York because Canadian hospitals don't have the competitive incentive structure to pay for it, and Gerry's blunt read on the country's research culture: we don't lack brains, we don't lack ambition, we just export both.🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact

📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: ⁠https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #DrugDiscovery #LifeSciences #AntimicrobialResistance #McMasterUniversity

Marc-Antoine Benglia has spent three decades studying why some innovation ecosystems outperform others, starting with graduate research in 1993 comparing Silicon Valley, Cambridge, and Sophia Antipolis using an expanded version of Porter's Diamond framework. He's since built and sold two companies out of Ottawa, Hemera (acquired by Jupiter Media) and Axentra Corporation, whose spinoff Kwilt was acquired by Western Digital. He now leads Innovacité, La Cité's applied research and innovation centre in Ottawa.In this conversation, Marc-Antoine traces what actually made Silicon Valley outpace every other tech hub he studied: not just capital, but demand (early army contracts), a culture of entrepreneurship the rest of the world doesn't share, and a full supporting ecosystem of lawyers, accountants, and suppliers who understand how to build and finance a startup. He contrasts that with France's more centralized, government-and-big-company-driven model, and Cambridge's hybrid of the two.He then walks through his own founding story: building Hemera in the late '90s inside a genuinely well-organized Quebec funding pipeline (government-backed personal loans, then FTQ, then Caisse de Dépôt, then SGF, each organization handing off the entrepreneur to the next stage) and discovering, a decade later with Axentra, that this staged infrastructure no longer existed anywhere in Canada. Unable to find a Canadian VC willing to lead a round, he had to raise from Deutsche Telekom's Silicon Valley arm instead. When Axentra spun off Kwilt, he rented an office in California and spent two weeks a month there just to make the company look local enough to sell. One of his own investors later told him he'd have closed the deal five times faster if he'd actually moved the business there permanently, a decision he now considers his biggest mistake.From his time working inside Western Digital after the Kwilt acquisition, he shares what he'd tell his younger founder self about learning innovation from inside a major corporation, and why he now advises young entrepreneurs to seek out headquarters roles at big players like Google, not a Canadian subsidiary, before starting their own company, because investors read that pedigree as instant credibility.We also get into why Canadian universities retaining IP quietly kills spinouts before they start, why he's fighting a losing battle paying top AI and biotech researchers a fraction of what Google or comparable US employers offer under union-constrained pay scales, and what China's deliberate, committed strategy on electric vehicle batteries reveals about the cost of Canada's inertia, using the North Vault battery plant delays and Canada's decade-long refinery permitting timelines as concrete examples of the same paralysis playing out in energy and manufacturing, not just tech.The conversation closes on the resource analogy running through the whole discussion: Canada sells its raw materials, its ideas, its PhDs, and its people cheap, then buys the finished product back at several times the price, whether that's a car, a cure, or a company.This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact

📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: ⁠https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #Entrepreneurship #LifeSciences #TechEcosystem #SiliconValley

Welcome to the premiere episode of Breaking Innovation Paralysis, where we dive into the urgent need for change within Canada's health innovation ecosystem.

A Bold Vision for Canada

Natalie Yeadon opens the series with a powerful proposal from Dr. Kevin Smith, president and CEO of Toronto's University Health Network. He envisions Canada as the top destination for taking scientific discoveries to market. Yet, as Yeadon points out, Canada has a troubling history of failing to capitalize on its own innovations, citing the sad irony that while we take pride in discovering insulin, we import almost all of it today.

"We sell the cheap ingredients... to foreign companies, and then we spend billions of dollars buying back the finished cake."— Natalie Yeadon

This cycle highlights a deeper issue: Canada doesn't have an innovation deficit; it suffers from an institutional courage gap. Yeadon reflects on her experiences in clinical settings and the pharmaceutical industry, emphasizing that the real challenge lies in overcoming the fear of taking risks within our systems.

The Three Biases of Innovation Paralysis

Yeadon identifies three behavioral biases that contribute to this paralysis:

1. Inertia: The tendency to stick to familiar methods, often at the expense of better, more efficient solutions.
2. Diffusion of Responsibility: A fragmented system where accountability is unclear, leading to inaction.
3. Bidirectional Risk Aversion: A culture that prioritizes avoiding blame over fostering innovation.

These biases create a climate where innovation struggles to thrive, and as Yeadon argues, we must confront them head-on to foster a more dynamic healthcare environment.

A Call to Action

Yeadon's company, Augmentios, is conducting a comprehensive audit of Canada's health innovation pipeline, examining everything from university labs to patient care. The goal is to dismantle the psychological barriers that stifle innovation and implement actionable strategies to create a more effective healthcare system.

"We're here to conduct a systematic, room-by-room audit of the entire Canadian health innovation pipeline."— Natalie Yeadon

Through tools like pre-mortems, decision journaling, and safe-to-fail simulations, Augmentios seeks to empower healthcare leaders and innovators to embrace risk and creativity.

Join the Movement

As we continue to explore these critical themes throughout the season, we invite you to reflect on your own experiences within the healthcare system. If you have insights or stories to share, connect with us. Together, we can cultivate the institutional courage necessary to unlock Canada's full potential in health innovation.

For more insights, visit Augmentios.com and stay tuned for upcoming episodes!