sniperjoe360

Many hypothesis, one of my favorite, however not at all proven, is the heavy use or sautee / stir fry cooking over gas stove. That’s like second hand smoke exposure at least a few times a day

Paw Patrol?

Really impressive results. The real victory here wasn't the breakthrough drug, which many have pointed out is another flavor of PD-1 inhibition (Nivolumab, Pembro) It's the patient selection - careful curation of MSI status with Next Gen Sequencing. Clinically it has already been implemented and is changing the outcomes of thousands of patients every year.

Really very cool, the time savings alone for places without autocontours is perhaps an hour per patient. Would be cool to see the following features in the next update - please dm if you want to collab!

1. Longitudinal comparison of images over time for response assessment 2. Prediction of radionecrosis vs. brain metastases 3. Flags for hypertrophy or atrophy of normal organs (i.e. cardiomegaly, splenomegaly) Easy to do based on volume

Odds for a never smoker aren't well estimated, but I'd say it's in the single digits. Definitely less than 5%. It depends on one's radon exposure, asbestos exposure, exposure to gas stoves/coal burners, smog pollution, and genetic background. Many lung cancers in non-smokers are driven by single gene alterations (i.e. EGFR, ALK)

Your second question is also interesting. For a nonsmoker to get to 25% lung cancer risk, I guess he/she would have to live past 80, which few people do.

Your statement that we all probably get cancer eventually is mostly true - as we age there is an accumulation of mutations which eventually should cause cancer. Some super-elderly people in their 90s and 100s may have more senescent cells than others, and paradoxically lower their risk of new cancer later in life.

As an oncologist, the cause is unknown. But it's not so simple to point fingers at one cause. For example someone who is a heavy smoker (ie. a pack a day) gets cancer at a rate of 25% in their lifetime should they live to age 80. It's a delicate interplay between genetics, development, and environment. We should identify all modifiable risk factors and change our behavior to reduce exposure to them.

I wouldn't have my brain frozen unless we have a better understanding of the fundamental stuff that makes up consciousness. The mind is more than the neurons and synapses. Yes it's a necessary condition to have a brain but consider the following anecdotes:

1. Under anesthesia, the neurons within the brain are fully connected and have access to blood and other resources of the body, yet it is not functioning at all. No pain, respiratory drive, no memory

2. Patients with large parts of their brains removed, or large parts of their brains injured by stroke, can recover fully to a point that is functionally indistinguishable from their previous intact state.

Definitely a great new modality

Benefits - Can target tumor noninvasively with active imaging. No damage of nearby blood vessels.

Cons - Sound waves can only penetrate a few centimeters into the body. Also need a liquid medium to travel, ie. Can't target brain tumors because of the skull, can't target lung tumors due to presence of air.

This material has radiation shielding properties far worse than just lead - lead which is cheaper and easier to manufacture

Pure tungsten on the other hand is very good and can even shield beta particles

3A is a pictoral representation of 3C...I still don't see the difference.

I too am calling bullshit, although for different reasons. Take a look at Figure 3A. Is there really that big of a difference between THC and CBD treated vs. not treated images? To me, a seeing person with eyes, no.

I completely agree with you. If there was even one response I would be much more optimistic. Since there is no clinical signal this is at best a proof of concept and safety.

"Five patients had stable disease, and the other 11 had disease progression as best response on therapy"

great science, but disappointing clinical results

Cheeky of him to use -2022 in the exponent reflecting the year of publication

> It is possible to replace the exponent −2022 in Theorem 1 by a larger (negative) value if the current arguments are modified, but we will not discuss it in this paper.