61–70 of 167 posts
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's one way of looking at the glass half empty. If half of people get rid of cancer for 1 year that is still outstanding - ESPECIALLY if the majority of those remain cancer free for quite some time after.
If we wanted patients to survive long term, then maybe we could try a treatment that doesn't destroy their immune system in the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for some reason a contingent of HN is cheering it on. We are breaking the innovation machine and pretending discoveries will just keep happening.
I'm probably part of the contingent you're alluding to. I'm not cheering. I am however a lot less likely to be depressed, mostly because whenever I tried to fact check a doom-like piece of news, I found it failing, hard. So now I'm at a "once every three months" rotation - which will of course change the first time I manage to confirm a piece of news. I am moderately pessimistic about the state of research because I…
I am confused how 'burn it all down' will solve any problems, let alone long term ones.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how innovation works. The 'deal' of basic science in the US is that the government funds broadly and without prejudice. Topics are decided by experts and overseen by experts. These experts are taking large pay-cuts (compared to their worth in industry) to have the freedom to investigate their own interests. In return the public gets a vast amount of R&D on the cheap, much of which doesn't seem to have immediate ROI, but as we well know, has tremendous long term ROI.
Yes sometimes those ideas are dead-ends or don't replicate. Yes sometimes fraud/plagiarism happens. Yes sometimes people research minorities or marginalized people. Certain interests have made some people believe that these are symptoms of a broken system when in reality they are all just parts of the scientific process and freedom of thought. These interests mostly have used culture war issues as a wedge to defund science broadly.
So no, we should not destroy tomorrows cancer treatment (which could save you or the ones you love) because some tech-oligarch wants more money/power.
I really wish this was available earlier, because I just lost a family member to bladder cancer yesterday morning. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstand the line you quoted. That means consequences from other private citizens, not from the government.
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...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the recurrence rate after 1 year here is still quite high. Good progress, but not a cure yet.
Do cancers have a tendency to come back with better drug resistance if it's not fully eliminated? at least a resistance to the drug that got rid of it the previous time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for some reason a contingent of HN is cheering it on. We are breaking the innovation machine and pretending discoveries will just keep happening.
>And for some reason a contingent of HN is cheering it on. Seems easily understood. Only 5% of humanity are USians, for the rest, 'your loss is our gain'. Where cowmix wishes for all the brilliant minds to come to the US, the countries that lose those people call it a 'brain drain', and the reduction of that brain drain is most welcome.
I really wish this was available earlier, because I just lost a family member to bladder cancer yesterday morning. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm probably part of the contingent you're alluding to. I'm not cheering. I am however a lot less likely to be depressed, mostly because whenever I tried to fact check a doom-like piece of news, I found it failing, hard. So now I'm at a "once every three months" rotation - which will of course change the first time I manage to confirm a piece of news. I am moderately pessimistic about the state of research because I…
>I am moderately pessimistic about the state of research because I do hear things I don't like, but this is compensated by my belief that US academia has a ridiculous amount of institutional entropy, and I'm perfectly willing with temporary issues if this means at least some of the long term problems will be improved I am confused how 'burn it all down' will solve any problems, let alone long term ones. You seem to h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for some reason a contingent of HN is cheering it on. We are breaking the innovation machine and pretending discoveries will just keep happening.
In any sizable group, you're going to find a vocal jackass minority. But here, at least, they genuinely seem to be the minority.