Live data from Hacker News

New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

news.keckmedicine.org

101–110 of 167 posts

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#101

"New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients" - current HN title (matches article) I don't like headlines like this because they lack any necessary context. Knowing that a treatment eliminates cancer in 82% of patients isn't data unless we know more or already experts in this field. For all I know the previous treatment was 99% effective but just cost more or something. PR-style headlines very often us…

This is 81% CR in patients who had already had recurrence and progression after front-line treatment, so neither of your concerns about the headline are relevant to the actual story.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#102

To be clear, here is the rest of what the article title should be... > ...for individuals with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer whose cancer had previously resisted treatment

This is relatively common with experimental therapies in trials, and thus shouldn't be interpreted as the final say on its usage.

Part of the reason why is that it's difficult to convince patients or providers to reach for the experimental treatment in trial before the current standard of care. Many first-line treatments began as second/third-line or salvage treatments before experiencing line promotion or (if surgery is involved) neoadjuvant promotion. Keytruda is a good example of this progression in action.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#103
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the recurrence rate after 1 year here is still quite high. Good progress, but not a cure yet.

Bladder cancer has a notoriously high recurrence rate, unfortunately. (I worked for years in NMIBC molecular diagnostics.)

Say more? You've got some domain expertise on this story and I assume an interesting story to tell!

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#104

"New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients" - current HN title (matches article) I don't like headlines like this because they lack any necessary context. Knowing that a treatment eliminates cancer in 82% of patients isn't data unless we know more or already experts in this field. For all I know the previous treatment was 99% effective but just cost more or something. PR-style headlines very often us…

Dumb question: why not rely on the article contents to provide context?

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#105
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the recurrence rate after 1 year here is still quite high. Good progress, but not a cure yet.

Bladder cancer has a notoriously high recurrence rate, unfortunately. (I worked for years in NMIBC molecular diagnostics.)

My dad had his bladder removed. Cancer came back 18 months later and he was gone 4 months after that. It sucks.

Plus, I regret that he had to live with a colostomy bag for that time. His quality of life probably higher if they do the other option (name escapes me).

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#106
post #8

My father currently suffers from bladder cancer, he's currently in palliative care, he's in Ukraine. If there are any medical professionals here, could someone provide an advice - is there any chance to get him access to TAR-200?

You may want to look at this study. Its preapproval expanded access. There is an email and phone numbers for the company which is running the study. Usually the further along the drug trial is they more the loosen the criteria. Wouldn't hurt the ask if its suitable for your father.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06877676?intr=TAR-200&ra...

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck? In the US, free speech is guaranteed in the constitution. Of course people can make waves! The idea that people should just go along with things and not make their voices heard is completely unamerican.

It is expressly limited by the Visa application, process and requirements that are agreed to as part of obtaining a Visa to enter the US.

You keep claiming that. I can't find it in the document you linked. I think you are mistaken.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you didn't answer the question I asked more than once. Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy? There are plenty of limitations to Visa holders. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...

That link isn't very helpful, as it's a huge document. Which section limits the speech of people on visas? From what I can see that entire document is about whether someone can get a visa, not what they are allowed to say once they are in country. Further one section says that visa applicants can't be denied entry for their previous speech if that speech is legal for American citizens.

Below are the key sections of law and regulations that may limit a visa holder's speech:

1. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) - 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3):

- Relevant Provision: This section lists grounds for inadmissibility, including engaging in activities that threaten U.S. national security, such as espionage, terrorism, or other unlawful activities. Speech that is deemed to support or advocate for terrorism or terrorist organizations (e.g., material support under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)) can lead to visa revocation or inadmissibility.

- Impact on Visa Holders: If a visa holder's speech is interpreted as supporting terrorist activities or organizations designated by the U.S. government, they could face deportation or visa denial. For example, publicly expressing support for a designated terrorist group, even in a non-violent context, could trigger scrutiny.

2. Visa Conditions and Status Restrictions:

- Specific Visa Program Rules: Certain visas, like the H-1B, F-1 (student), or J-1 (exchange visitor), come with conditions that indirectly limit speech-related activities. For instance, visa holders must comply with the terms of their visa, such as maintaining employment or enrollment status. Engaging in public speech or activities (e.g., protests or political organizing) that interfere with these conditions could jeopardize their status.

- Example: An F-1 student who engages in unauthorized employment (e.g., paid speaking engagements) or participates in activities that lead to arrest (e.g., during a protest) risks violating their visa terms, which could lead to removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (failure to maintain nonimmigrant status).

3. Espionage and Sedition Laws - 18 U.S.C. § 793–798:

- Relevant Provision: These sections of the U.S. Code criminalize activities like disclosing classified information, espionage, or advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government. While these laws apply to everyone, visa holders face heightened consequences because violations can lead to both criminal penalties and immigration consequences, such as deportation under INA § 237(a)(4) (engaging in activities that endanger public safety or national security).

- Impact on Visa Holders: Speech involving the disclosure of sensitive information or advocating for illegal activities could trigger these provisions, leading to visa revocation or criminal charges.

4. Hate Speech and Incitement - Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and 18 U.S.C. § 2383–2385:

- Legal Standard: The First Amendment allows broad free speech protections, but speech that incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action (per Brandenburg v. Ohio) is not protected. Additionally, federal laws criminalize seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government.

- Impact on Visa Holders: Visa holders engaging in speech that crosses into incitement or sedition could face criminal charges and immigration consequences, including deportation. For example, inflammatory speech at a public event that leads to violence could trigger scrutiny under these laws.

5. Public Charge and Moral Turpitude Grounds - 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) and § 1227(a)(2):

- Relevant Provision: Visa holders convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) can be deemed inadmissible or deportable. Certain speech-related activities, such as fraud, defamation, or perjury, could be classified as CIMTs if they result in a criminal conviction.

- Impact on Visa Holders: Engaging in speech that leads to a CIMT conviction (e.g., making false statements in a public context that result in legal action) could jeopardize visa status.

6. Export Control Laws - International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR):

- Relevant Provision: These regulations, administered by the Departments of State and Commerce, restrict the dissemination of certain technical data or information to foreign nationals, including visa holders. Speech involving the sharing of controlled technical information (e.g., in academic or professional settings) could violate these laws.

- Impact on Visa Holders: Visa holders in technical fields (e.g., H-1B workers in engineering) must ensure their speech or presentations do not disclose ITAR- or EAR-controlled information without authorization, as violations could lead to penalties and immigration consequences.

7. Social Media and Public Statements Scrutiny:

- Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Policies: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may review visa holders’ social media activity as part of visa adjudications or entry screenings (per DHS policies implemented around 2019–2020). Speech on platforms like X that is deemed to conflict with U.S. laws or visa conditions (e.g., expressing intent to violate visa terms) could lead to visa denial or revocation.

- Example: Posts advocating illegal activities or expressing intent to overstay a visa could trigger adverse immigration actions.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you didn't answer the question I asked more than once. Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy? There are plenty of limitations to Visa holders. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...

That link isn't very helpful, as it's a huge document. Which section limits the speech of people on visas? From what I can see that entire document is about whether someone can get a visa, not what they are allowed to say once they are in country. Further one section says that visa applicants can't be denied entry for their previous speech if that speech is legal for American citizens.

Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy?

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#110
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I may get some flack for this. But IMO, you shouldn't make waves when you are a VISA guest in another country. It's just a bad idea all around. There's every reason to actively avoid getting politically involved. While I realize that US higher education is particularly motivated towards activism, protests and the like. Historically accepting even foreign nationals in such activity. It's still just a bad idea f…

The “activism” angle is a red herring — they’re screwing with all foreign students now, regardless of what they do. And honestly, activism is one of the things that made the US stand apart — or used to. The US government, while far from perfect, was once seen as a neutral partner in research — a place where scientists from everywhere could coordinate, mix, and build. It cost us relatively little compared to what we g…

As mentioned in other threads... Visa holders are prohibited from working against, subverting, or otherwise advocating for the overthrow of US Govt or against standing policies.

Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy?

Post reply on HN