121–130 of 167 posts
That's not 82% of bladder cancers. It's 82% of those whose bladder cancer is fortunately not invading the muscle, and after failing current standard treatments.
(1) For this trial, patients with MIBC (as opposed to NMIBC) weren't in the cohort, so we don't know what the results will be with MIBC.
(2) "After failing current standard treatments" makes the result more impressive, not less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically speaking, Germany was never on track to produce atomic weapons before their war economy was obliterated by the allies. The program was not taken seriously or had proper investment. The war machine was already severely starved of resources prior to their even more significant land losses in 1944. I honestly can’t even think of an alternate (realistic) timeline where they achieve a delivery system for ato…
The delivery system would have been mostly irrelevant if they'd gotten the bomb on time. Having even one functional nuke at any time at all before or just shortly after June 6th 1944 and dropping it on London or even around the Normandy beachhead (well within German reach even in 1944) would have pretty much killed the D-Day landings stone dead immediately, and that was something they certainly plausibly could have d…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 te…
"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?
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't think you understand my point, i don't have two specific concerns lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bladder cancer has a notoriously high recurrence rate, unfortunately. (I worked for years in NMIBC molecular diagnostics.)
FFS, I'm a physician and I had to look up that the acronym. Have mercy on people: NMIBC = non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government doesn’t just “fund innovation” — it creates the fertile ground where it can happen at all. It also bankrolls the unprofitable, high-risk research the private sector can’t or won’t touch. Cut that, and you’re ripping out the roots, not just trimming a branch.
Government bankrolls innovation? What are you talking about? This has never been true and isn’t true currently. At best all government can do is get out of the way so that private actors can solve problems and innovate. At worst it strangles innovators through higher taxes and more stringent regulation. Look at the light bulb, locomotive engine, airplane, etc. Government involvement in major innovations is almost alw…