151–160 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Invent it and your grandchildren will retire rich.
There is no profit in curing anything, which is a big part o the shit we're in. Treating it as the parasitic fungus it is would be a step in the right direction.
Some important things not mentioned in this press release (not to detract from the idea of new treatment approaches of any sort): - All patients had their tumors surgically removed before they were started on treatment. Thus the trial wasn't testing cure so much as delay of recurrence. - These were very superficial tumors, meaning they were growing on the very surface of the inner bladder, just like skin tags. These…
Some important things not mentioned in this press release (not to detract from the idea of new treatment approaches of any sort): - All patients had their tumors surgically removed before they were started on treatment. Thus the trial wasn't testing cure so much as delay of recurrence. - These were very superficial tumors, meaning they were growing on the very surface of the inner bladder, just like skin tags. These…
Yes, it is.
Any intervention in humans that is meant to create generalizable information regarding a treatment intervention is a clinical trial.
The quality of the information is not as strong as a double-blind, placebo controlled, RCT, but it is still accurate to call it a clinical trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
alongside privately held wealth including in non profits and foundations, yes, absolutely privately held wealth far eclipses other metrics like gdp
This is a silly argument. That wealth is already there. If the people with privately held wealth wanted to support research at the level that it is at now, then they could already do so. The fact that they do not does not lead me to think they would once USA funding gets terminated. As I understand it, you are arguing that if the system was inherently good, then others would try to replicate it. I would then counter…
Find another funding sources, a subsidized university in the US isn’t the only path, if its not found then your reality will be exactly as described. We agree! Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
B-29s dropped the atomic bombs. The B-29 project was also more expensive than the Manhattan project: > The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $52 billion in 2024), far exceeding the $1.9 billion cost of the Manhattan Project, made the B-29 program the most expensive of the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress
Sure, because the United States wanted a truly powerful long-range bomber that could fly at extreme altitude with a pressurized, climate-controlled cabin such as its liberators and B-17s didn't have. They wanted this for initially bombing Japan, since the B-29 was developed before the US navy had conquered islands close enough for easy access with older bombers to the home islands. But, none of this as necessary for…
> Up to 3,600 kilograms (7,900 lb) could be carried externally. External bomb racks blocked the internal bomb bay. Carrying bombs externally increased weight and drag and impaired the aircraft's performance significantly. Carrying the maximum load usually required rocket-assisted take-off.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yeah, I know the rules. But I also know they were written before our current reality. More important rules seem to be being rewritten in front our eyes, so you never know. Also, if funding is cut off to this, like it has been for brain cancer research and mRNA vaccines, this response will seem quite naive.
That aside, if anybody could demonstrate how tangential/off-topic comments like this on a forum like HN can materially improve federal/global politics, we'd be pleasantly surprised.
Until then, let's make an effort to not let contemporary politics drag the quality of HN downwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, because the United States wanted a truly powerful long-range bomber that could fly at extreme altitude with a pressurized, climate-controlled cabin such as its liberators and B-17s didn't have. They wanted this for initially bombing Japan, since the B-29 was developed before the US navy had conquered islands close enough for easy access with older bombers to the home islands. But, none of this as necessary for…
Not to take away from your thesis (I agree that this was likely a very solveable issue, and after all they didn't need to fly across an ocean), but even Little Boy was 9700 lbs, which was nearly 2000 lbs/25% more than the He 111's capacity even with rocket assisted takeoff. So it is indeed easy to overlook that simply having something to deliver the massive things was no small feat > Up to 3,600 kilograms (7,900 lb)…
First, that lack of financial resources wasn't an obstacle to the Bomb. Hitler had his government spend absurdly colossal sums on other and ultimately useless things mainly because of his stubborn fixations (real surprise, that) and even with the scientific brain drain due to Nazi persection of jews and dissidents of all stripes, enough sharp minds remained in Germany to pull it off I believe, but only if the whole concept had been taken seriously enough, early enough and with good planning and funding.
Secondly: Assuming they'd actually developed the bomb, delivery would have been a very solveable problem at that point for stopping a western Allied invasion dead in its tracks.
Stopping the vast soviet army would have been a different matter entirely, especially if they only developed the atom bomb later in the war. I'm not entirely sure about even a nuclear weapon being enough to put a brake on that level of thirst for revenge, combined with so much military force for applying said revenge.
Some important things not mentioned in this press release (not to detract from the idea of new treatment approaches of any sort): - All patients had their tumors surgically removed before they were started on treatment. Thus the trial wasn't testing cure so much as delay of recurrence. - These were very superficial tumors, meaning they were growing on the very surface of the inner bladder, just like skin tags. These…
> the press release called this a clinical trial, but it's not Yes, it is. Any intervention in humans that is meant to create generalizable information regarding a treatment intervention is a clinical trial. The quality of the information is not as strong as a double-blind, placebo controlled, RCT, but it is still accurate to call it a clinical trial.