Features
Winnipeg-born and raised Michael Lang is at the forefront of a technological innovation that can help to change the way neurosurgery is performed and how brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s Disease are treated
By BERNIE BELLAN We’ve often heard that one of the main reasons Manitoba lags behind other provinces when it comes to economic development is because there is both a lack of entrepreneurial capital in this province and innovative individuals who are willing to base their operations here.
Thus, it was refreshing to hear of one young man who not only grew up in Winnipeg, but who has also decided to stay here and work to help turn a company which he co-founded into a successful start-up.
That young man’s name is Michael Lang, 37. I first met Michael when he was in a bar mitzvah class at Temple Shalom with my daughter, Shira. Having grown up in River Heights, the son of Ida and Sherman Lang, Michael attended, in order, Ecole Robert H. Smith, River Heights Middle School, and Kelvin High School.
Michael notes that, as a young boy, he and several other students, including Ben Carr, would go to Hebrew teacher Ethel Amihude’s home for Hebrew lessons. As a side note I should mention that the same day I interviewed Michael for this story, I also received a phone call from Ben Carr, who is now the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre. When I mentioned to Ben that I had just got off the phone with his former classmate Michael Lang, Ben said to me that, during the rally held in support of Israel on October 10, at which Ben spoke, he was approached by a woman who said, “I’ll bet you don’t remember me. I taught you Hebrew in my home.” Of course, it was Ethel Amihude – and yes, Ben did recognize her immediately.
Returning to Michael Lang – upon graduating from Kelvin High School, Michael enrolled at the University of Winnipeg to study science, with a particular interest in Physics, which is something he’s always loved, he says. Michael went on to complete his Masters and Ph.D. in Physics at the University of Manitoba, he notes, although his he did much of his research at the University of Winnipeg – “a great experience,” he observes.
I asked him how the Physics Department at the University of Winnipeg would compare with other Physics departments in Canada and the US and, although Michael acknowledges that “it’s a small faculty” – maybe 10 professors in total, they definitely “punch above their weight.”
Now, in order to keep this article at a level that would be understandable to most readers (and to this writer as well), I wanted to avoid asking Michael to go into any great detail about what his area of specialty in Physics was, but – just to give you a taste of what it was that he concentrated upon in his studies, here’s a brief excerpt from his bio on the company website (known as tauMEDIS) that he’s helped to found: “Michael received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Manitoba with work on hyperpolarized 129Xe gas production for high-precision co-magnetometry.”
The key word in that sentence is “magnetometry,” because it helps to explain how Michael’s research in that field eventually led him into the field of magnetic resonance imaging – or, as the acronym of that term is much more familiar to most of us: “MRI.”
By now, getting an MRI performed for a host of medical issues is something a lot of us expect to have done – and not with undue delays – and when we must wait for an MRI to be performed, which was something greatly exacerbated as a result of Covid disruptions to our medical system, it can be excruciatingly trying.
In the spring of 2020 – shortly after the start of the pandemic, Michael was working as a lab technician at the University of Winnipeg, where he maintained that university’s small animal MRI facility. It was then that the Principal Investigator of the lab, Dr. Melanie Martin, introduced Michael to members of a group working on a novel intraoperative MRI system. Michael would soon after join the group as a post-doctoral fellow, helping to lay the groundwork for what became tauMEDIS.
What is tauMEDIS? According to information available on its website, “Originally formed in 2018, and officially founded in 2023 by a group of Canadian scientists and engineers who are passionate about medical imaging, the name TauMEDIS is an acronym for tau Medical Imaging Solutions…” (tau is a letter in the Greek alphabet that “has significance in both magnetic resonance imaging as well as a variety of neurodegenerative diseases.”)
Although there are a host of other companies active in producing MRI systems, tauMEDIS has developed a particular type of technology in a specialized area of magnetic resonance imaging known as iMRI: “Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging” or “iMRI,” for short. iMRI is a “method to acquire updated images of the brain throughout a neurosurgical procedure. Neurosurgeons rely on iMRI technology to obtain accurate images of the brain that guide them in removing brain tumors and treating other conditions such as epilepsy.”
Where tauMEDIS is unique in this highly specialized field though, is in its having developed a method to mobilize a full-sized MRI machine that, not only does not require the patient to be moved from the operating table into another room to have an MRI performed, it optimizes the installation process, allowing for retrofitting in existing operating rooms. (There is another company that makes moving magnet iMRI machines, known as IMRIS, that also allows the patient to remain on the operating table during surgery without having to be moved, but incorporating those particular systems into hospitals usually involves making major changes to the infrastructure of existing operating rooms.) The tauMEDIS system, Michael explains, minimizes renovations, and drastically reduces installation time in existing operating facilities.
“We developed a method to mobilize the MRI on a floor-moving track-based vehicle,” he says. “Essentially it’s a high-precision tank-like device that brings the MRI system to the patient undergoing neurosurgery,” providing the surgical team with updated images of the brain throughout the procedure.
tauMEDIS was just recently incorporated in Manitoba (six months ago). In March of this year its prototype machine received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in the US.
Now, in addition to his role as the company’s Chief Technology Officer, Michael, along with the other principals in the company, have found themselves in the position of having to seek out investment funds for tauMEDIS to commercialize the iMRI system they have developed. The funding would support development of a Winnipeg facility that would begin producing actual systems for sale.
“We just recently had our first showing at the Congress of Neurological Surgeons,” Michael says, “and now we’re in the fund-raising phase.”
I asked him how much money they’re seeking, and he says, “$200,000 to start.” I said to him that doesn’t seem like a lot to ask for and that I wondered whether having this article appear in this paper might not be just what it would take to elicit a positive response from some would-be investors.
Further, Michael notes that the goal of tauMEDIS “is to set up a local facility, combining manufacturing and R&D of tauMEDIS products, all located right here in Manitoba. We hope to attract and develop talent, growing the Winnipeg medical device sector.” (I should also mention that years ago, when I was writing about the Crocus Investment Fund, I noted that one of the first investee companies for Crocus was that very same IMRIS, to which I previously referred. I asked Michael if he knew whatever became of IMRIS back then since, according to Michael, it has now become very successful. As I recall, the Crocus Fund lost its entire investment in IMRIS. According to Michael, the company is now based in Minnesota. What happened after the Crocus debacle I’m not sure – just another example of a company that had a great idea but, for whatever reason, couldn’t succeed in Manitoba – although it did take off when it relocated elsewhere.)
Not only is tauMEDIS seeking capital to begin producing its iMRI systems, it also has other technological innovations in the works – all in the area of medical imaging. As Michael Lang says, his “goal as Chief Technology Officer is to work with physicians around the world to make advances in medical imaging technology and develop novel solutions” that would dramatically improve patient health outcomes.
If you would like to find out more about tauMEDIS, email info@taumedis.com or go to its website: taumedis.ca.
Features
Are Niche and Unconventional Relationships Monopolizing the Dating World?
The question assumes a battle being waged and lost. It assumes that something fringe has crept into the center and pushed everything else aside. But the dating world has never operated as a single system with uniform rules. People have always sorted themselves according to preference, circumstance, and opportunity. What has changed is the visibility of that sorting and the tools available to execute it.
Online dating generated $10.28 billion globally in 2024. By 2033, projections put that figure at $19.33 billion. A market of that size does not serve one type of person or one type of relationship. It serves demand, and demand has always been fragmented. The apps and platforms we see now simply make that fragmentation visible in ways that provoke commentary.
Relationship Preferences
Niche dating platforms now account for nearly 30 percent of the online dating market, and projections suggest they could hold 42 percent of market share by 2028. This growth reflects how people are sorting themselves into categories that fit their actual lives.
Some want a sugar relationship, others seek partners within specific religious or cultural groups, and still others look for connections based on hobbies or lifestyle choices. The old model of casting a wide net has given way to something more targeted.
A YouGov poll found 55 percent of Americans prefer complete monogamy, while 34 percent describe their ideal relationship as something other than monogamous. About 21 percent of unmarried Americans have tried consensual non-monogamy at some point. These numbers do not suggest a takeover. They suggest a population with varied preferences now has platforms that accommodate those preferences openly rather than forcing everyone into the same structure.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy receive substantial attention in media coverage and on social platforms. The actual practice rate sits between 4% and 5% of the American population. That figure has remained relatively stable even as public awareness has increased. Being aware of something and participating in it are separate behaviors.
A 2020 YouGov poll reported that 43% of millennials describe their ideal relationship as non-monogamous. Ideals and actions do not always align. People answer surveys about what sounds appealing in theory. They then make decisions based on their specific circumstances, available partners, and emotional capacity. The gap between stated preference and lived reality is substantial.
Where Young People Are Looking
Gen Z accounts for more than 50% of Hinge users. According to a 2025 survey by The Knot, over 50% of engaged couples met through dating apps. These platforms have become primary infrastructure for forming relationships. They are not replacing traditional dating; they are the context in which traditional dating now occurs.
Younger users encounter more relationship styles on these platforms because the platforms allow for it. Someone seeking a conventional monogamous partnership will still find that option readily available. The presence of other options does not eliminate this possibility. It adds to the menu.
Monopoly Implies Exclusion
The framing of the original question suggests that niche relationships might be crowding out mainstream ones. Monopoly means one entity controls a market to the exclusion of competitors. Nothing in the current data supports that characterization.
Mainstream dating apps serve millions of users seeking conventional relationships. These apps have added features to accommodate other preferences, but their core user base remains people looking for monogamous partnerships. The addition of new categories does not subtract from existing ones. Someone filtering for a specific religion or hobby does not prevent another person from using the same platform without those filters.
What Actually Changed
Two things happened. First, apps built segmentation into their business models because segmentation increases user satisfaction. People find what they want faster when they can specify their preferences. Second, social acceptance expanded for certain relationship types that previously operated in private or faced stigma.
Neither of these developments amounts to a monopoly. They amount to market differentiation and cultural acknowledgment. A person seeking a sugar arrangement and a person seeking marriage can both use apps built for their respective purposes. They are not competing for the same resources.
The Perception Problem
Media coverage tends toward novelty. A story about millions of people using apps to find conventional relationships does not generate engagement. A story about unconventional relationship types generates clicks, comments, and shares. This creates a perception gap between how often something is discussed and how often it actually occurs.
The 4% to 5% practicing polyamory receive disproportionate coverage relative to the 55% who prefer complete monogamy. The coverage is not wrong, but it creates an impression of prevalence that exceeds reality.
Where This Leaves Us
Niche relationships are not monopolizing dating. They are becoming more visible and more accommodated by platforms that benefit from serving specific needs. The majority of people seeking relationships still want conventional arrangements, and they still find them through the same channels.
The dating world is larger than it was before. It contains more explicit options. It allows people to state preferences that once required inference or luck. None of this constitutes a takeover. It constitutes an expansion. The space for one type of relationship did not shrink to make room for another. The total space grew.
Features
Matthew Lazar doing his part to help keep Israelis safe in a time of war
By MYRON LOVE It is well known – or at least it should be – that while Israel puts a high value of protecting the lives of its citizens, the Jewish state’s Islamic enemies celebrate death. The single most glaring difference between the opposing sides can be seen in the differing approach to building bomb shelters to protect their populations.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah have invested untold billions of dollars over the past 20 years in building underground tunnels to protect their fighters while leaving their “civilian” populations exposed to Israeli bombs, not only has Israel built a highly sophisticated anti-missile system but also the leadership has invested heavily in making sure that most Israelis have access to bomb shelters – wherever they are – in war time.
While Israel’s bomb shelter program is comprehensive, there are still gaps – gaps which Dr. Matthew Lazar is doing his bit to help reduce.
The Winnipeg born-and raised pediatrician -who is most likely best known to readers as a former mohel – is the president of Project Life Initiatives – the Canadian branch of Israel-based Operation Lifeshield whose mission is to provide bomb shelters for threatened Israeli communities.
Lazar actually got in on the ground floor – so to speak. It was a cousin of his, Rabbi Shmuel Bowman, Operation Lifeshield’s executive director, who – in 2006 – founded the organization.
“Shmuel was one of a small group of American olim and Israelis who were visiting the Galilee during the second Lebanon war in 2006 and found themselves under rocket attack – along with thousands of others – with no place to go,” recounts Lazar, who has two daughters living in Israel. “They decided to take action. I was one of the people Shmuel approached to become an Operation Lifeshield volunteer.
Since the founding of Lifeshield, Lazar reports, over 1,000 shelters have been deployed in Israel. The number of new shelter orders since October 7, 2023 is 149.
He further notes that while the largest share of Operation Lifeshield’s funding comes from American donors, there has been good support for the organization across Canada as well.
One of the major donors in Winnipeg is the Christian Zionist organization, Christian Friends of Israel (FOI) Canada which, in September, as part of its second annual “Stand With Israel Support” evening – presented Lazar and Operation Lifeshield with a cheque for $30,000 toward construction of a bomb shelter for the Yasmin kindergarten in the Binyamina Regional Council in Northern Israel.
Lazar reports that to date the total number of shelters donated by Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry (globally) is over 100.
Lazar notes that the head office for Project Life Initiatives is – not surprisingly – in Toronto. “We communicate by telephone, text and Zoom,” he says.
He observes that – as he is still a full time pediatrician – he isn’t able to visit Israel nearly as often as he would like to. He manages to go every couple of years and always makes a point of visiting some of Operation Lifeshield’s projects.
(He adds that his wife, Nola, gets to Israel two or three times a year – not only to visit family, but also in her role as president of Mercaz Canada – the Canadian Conservative movement’s Zionist arm.)
“This is something I have been able to do to help safeguard Israelis,” Lazar says of his work for Operation Lifeshield. “This is a wonderful thing we are doing. I am glad to be of help. ”
Features
Patterns of Erasure: Genocide in Nazi Europe and Canada
By LIRON FYNE When we think of the word genocide, our minds often jump to the Holocaust, the mass-scale, systemic government-led murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, whose unprecedented scale and methods led to the very term ‘genocide’ being coined. On January 27th, 2026, we will bow our heads for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 80th year of remembrance.
Less frequently do we connect genocidal intent to the campaign against Indigenous peoples in Canada; the forced displacement, cultural destruction, and systematic killing that sought to erase Indigenous peoples. The genocide conducted by the Nazis and the genocidal intent of the Canadian government, though each unique in scale, motive, and implementation, share many conceptual similarities. Both were driven by ideologies of racial superiority, executed through governmental precision, and justified by the perpetrators as a moral mission.
At their core rests the concept of dehumanization. In Nazi Germany, Jews were viewed as subhuman, contaminated, and a threat to the ‘Aryan’ race. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were represented as obstacles to ‘progress’ and seen as hurdles to a Christian, Eurocentric nation. These ideas, this dehumanization, turned human beings into problems to be solved. Adolf Hitler called it the ‘Jewish question,’ leading to an official policy in 1942 called the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question,’ whereas Canadian officials called it the ‘Indian problem.’ The language is similar, a belief that one group’s existence endangers the destiny of another. The methods of extermination differed in practice and outcome, but the language of intent resembles one another.
The Holocaust’s concentration camps and carefully engineered gas chambers were designed for efficient, industrial-scale killing, resulting in mass murder. The well-organized plan of systematic degradation, deadly riots, brutal camp conditions, and designated killing centres were only a few of the ways the Nazis worked to eliminate the Jews. The Canadian government’s weapons were policy, assimilation and abandonment. Such as the Indian Act, reserves, and residential schools, which were all meant to ‘kill the Indian in the child,’ cutting generations off from their languages, families, and cultures. Thousands of Indigenous children died in residential schools, buried in unmarked graves near schools that called themselves places of learning. Both systems were backed by either religion or ideology; Nazi ideology brought together racist eugenic policies and virulent antisemitism, while Canada’s genocidal intent was supported by Christian Protestantism claiming to save Indigenous souls by erasing their heritage.
The Holocaust was a six-year campaign of complete industrialized extermination, mass murder with a mechanized intent, on a scale that remains historically unique. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes Canada’s indigenous genocide as a cultural one that unfolded over centuries through assimilation and the destruction of indigenous languages and identities. The Holocaust ended with the liberation of the camps and a global recognition of the atrocities committed. However, the generational trauma and dehumanization of antisemitism carry on. For Indigenous peoples in Canada, the effects of the genocidal intent continue to this day, visible in displacement, poverty, and intergenerational trauma. While these histories differ in form and timeline, both are rooted in dehumanization and the belief that some lives are worth less than others.
A disturbing similarity lies in the aftermath: silence and denial. The Holocaust forced the world to confront the atrocity with the vow of ‘Never Again,’ which has now been unearthed and reformed as ‘Never Again is Now,’ after the October 7th, 2023, massacre by Hamas. The largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the denial of the atrocities committed on October 7th, highlight the same Holocaust denial we see rising around the world. In Canada, for decades, the genocidal intent was hidden behind narratives of kindness and social progress. Only in recent years, through survivor testimony for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the discovery of unmarked graves, has the truth gained recognition. But acknowledgment without justice risks repeating the same patterns of erasure.
Comparing these atrocities committed is not about comparing pain or scale; it is about understanding the shared systems that enabled them. Both demonstrate how racism, superiority, and dehumanization can be used to justify the destruction of human beings. Remembering is not enough in Canada. True remembrance demands accountability, land restitution, reparations, and education that confronts Canada’s ongoing colonial legacy. When we say ‘Never Again is Now’, we hold collective action to combat antisemitism in all forms. The same applies to Truth & Reconciliation; it must be more than a slogan; we must apply action to Truth & ReconciliACTION.
Liron Fyne is a 12th-grade student at Gray Academy of Jewish Education in Winnipeg. They are currently a Kenneth Leventhal High School Intern at StandWithUs Canada, a non-profit education organization that combats antisemitism.