vibrio

I suspect there is a deep sequencing service that is non CLIA and cheap. True. they may not be trustworthy with the data. That said, there are steps here where the data is put into Claude. Do we trust that ?

Maybe also an interesting case study in the inconsistent application of copyright law.

I think their point is not the ESG component, but firms with traditionally irrational valuations (à la GameStop) for which index inclusion exceptions have been made to facilitate short term liquidity for IPO participants. Seems as though one should be able to hold the broad market less that component.

I can’t wait until Thanksgiving.

Just in that it’s not gonna work.

…Better plan all day Better plan all week, better plan all month, better plan all year…. (Sorry, esoteric song lyric that applies.)

Interesting analogy.

This is interesting. As a naive user I’ve gotten the gut feeling of commoditization among the models. I assumed the data center capacity push is intended to be the differentiator but that still seems utility-like over time. (and the data centers in space concept seems like good PR and IR, but to me, technically… ambitious)

(not intending ot be snarky, but this isn't my area of knowledge in the least.) Didn't the AI organizations 'get it both ways' when they trained on vast collection of works under copyright and then purely "own' the outcome?

You've succinctly identified and communicated a real problem. In your opinion, what is the best approach, if any, to attempt to address it?

Put this way, this seems reasonable. Beyond cell therapy, I don't thin the cost of drug is the motivation for not making it more freely available. 'Misuse' leading to potential liability or unjustified bad outcomes, along with some regulatory burden seems like the issue.

So charging patients/insurance companies at cost to fund the clinical studies?

Not even cost plus? Not sure how that works, from the viewpoint of economic incentives.

Knowing whether drugs work isn’t trivial. Patients are typically very heterogeneous in their responses to drugs. For example, pembrolizumab (the most successful cancer drug ever) typically only works in, say 30% of patients depending of the cancer type. Just throwing therapeutic ideas out there and letting physicians sort out how to use them and in which patients, isn’t a panacea. Looking at clinical data can be like star gazing even in planned studies. Structured, statistically powered studies, and costly rigorous assays on biomarkers and correlative studies are essential for understanding how and in what patients drugs are working. I’m all for expanding access to drugs, and there is abundant waste and greed in big Pharma and venture, but there are also people doing hard expensive science, medicine and manufacturing. Im not sure I have the answer. A “yelp for medicine” won’t improve immediate outcomes, nor longer term understanding and progress. A great and excruciating read about the tension there is a real-time blog (the story’s story) that was written by Jake Seliger unt he passed in 2023.

Cane you provide a list of the “stupid” drug approvals?

lol. The battery life seems so short, I was starting to wonder whether this was the case...

Slightly different point but many bacteria in us right now also make lipopolysaccharide (LPS). If it were purified and injected iv, the LPS in me could probably kill me 1000 x over.

I agreee with the caution. I am not endocrinologist enough to guess what may happen and when. Because of the level of variably in all that is being experimented with, my guess is there may be a slower burn rather than explosion of odd toxicities. It does feel like stuff will happen.

Will side effects for hormonal and gene therapy approaches be shaken out in just 3-5 years? For gene therapy, the rare blood cancers associated with car-t or bluebirdbio suggest maybe not. Maybe they remain rare, but as scale and flexibility of use increases, how that may evolve. Hormones are a whole different calculation. With the creative and dosing, combinations, and applications I’m not sure how many from conclusions will be available. I’m not judging good/bad here, I’m just thinking that this “democratization” of medicines (maybe otherwise not available to some) will increase access, with both risks and benefits.

“Viruses” have a very broad feature set-beyond evoking Batman, it seems like a lot of details need to be hammered out here, even residually chlorinated water can be problematic in maintaining titers. IMO, These days, public health policy (conspiracy?) seems to be a more efficient way to spread pathogens. Not precise targeting tho.

AIDS has been treatable for a few decades, with good progression getting it to developing world and some towards a cure. That said, some of this recent progress has been impeded due to differing beliefs of some current governmental regulatory and research leadership, and beliefs that infectious disease treatments and vaccines are not needed for most people that are 'healty'.

This made me think of the "Institute for one world health" . It came out as a non-profit pharmaceutical company in the mid 2000's. Victoria Hale was the founder-it got her a MacArthur fellowship. It is focuses(focused?) on global health and populations underserved by for-profit models. I think they successfully developed a treatment for leishmaniasis. it's an adorable model and should be pushed but as usual it seems like the philantropy money is limiting.

also, Elephants have a much higher copy number of a gene called p53/ It codes a protein that acts to force suicide in cells that have damaged DNA (think from UV light, cigarette smoke, age, etc). In cancer this is a common 'early' mutation that allows collection of further mutation and progession towards cancer. In having many more copies of p53, it makes it less likely the p53 function will be eliminated

As a bit of a Flight Aware addict, well done.

If I mowed 2 acres of lawn dad would give me a stack of quarters. It didn’t take me long to realize that a fraction of that mowing time spent playing Defender would consume those quarters. I still loved playing it, but valuable perspective.

Yes thank you. The concept of Natural Selection has a lot more dependencies and complications than typically attributed. Especially for a complex outcome like “intelligence” or economic success.

Any specific reason? Are you concerned about Purity of Essence?

This. They don’t get paid much, or much glory if any, but overall they are smart and hard working and are eager to have rational and data driven discussions about the programs they oversee. Current status is heartbreaking.

It’s much less fun if you have a loved one, say an aggressive autoimmune disease. Do not recommend.

This is a summary of my view. The danger is an overly opinionated “leader” with strong opinions has veto power over expert fda review teams, the system fails and decisions are not made on data and consensus but rather ideology and self importance. Patients and even practicing Physicians cannot be expected to review the nuances of every aspect of clinical studies for therapies in their area. The FDA and expert advisory committees (do these still exist?) are crucial in providing a data-driven analysis. This should not be done by an outspoken “leader” that is confident that he is smarter than the rest of the field. (This isn’t limited to medicine,but that is a can of worms)