No, it's not a peer reviewed research article. It's a modified lecture given at some conference.
This is a classic venue for opinion pieces / overviews / misogynist rants. Some presumably well known academician gives a 'distinguished talk' and it gets transcribed, cleaned up a bit and placed in a (usually) middling level journal.
I have no idea who this person is, nor his qualifications, nor the status of the journal in question. But it's a well known approach to publishing in various scientific fields and is usually done to get people arguing^Hdiscussing the issues.
If you could double the active lifespan of a (sane, healthy) individual, you'd get twice the amount of wotk for the same amount of high-school and college man-years.
Surprisingly, the full text is available without registering or going through a paywall. Must be a leak into a different universe or something.
Just scanned it quickly - all cells have a cytoskelaton, a framework that allows a cell to maintain a three dimensional shape. Cytoskeletons are controlled, in part, because of a class of proteins called tropomyosins. These proteins are turned over quite rapidly in cancer cells yielding the hypothesis that targeting those molecules could selectively kill cancerous cells. Unfortunately, the chemicals that have been used previously also targeted non cancer cells and caused a lot of systemic toxicity (they cured the cancer, but unfortunately, the patient died).
The new compound, TR100 (sounds like a toy truck), specifically targets a type of tropomyosin presumably found only in cancer cells. Leaves normal cells alone.
IF this remains true in testing and IF the compound doesn't have other, unintended and typically deleterious effects it MIGHT be a good drug. Grandstanding by the PR idiots notwithstanding.
The road to Big Pharma Hell is paved with effective in vitro cures for cancer.
the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.
Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.
Worse - you don't bring a paintball gun to a tactical nuclear weapons fight. Sure, us little guys can buy gizmos and change habits but if you have the power of any major government after your ass, you're toast. Even sophisticated people like Laura Poitras are hassled to the point of having to leave the country.
Unless you've got some major new technology that can defeat the status quo, the only answer is to fight them at the ballot box.
There is a chapter in the hilarious book Stiff that discusses 18th century French attempts at discerning exactly this. Of course, their understanding of physiology was a tad sparse, but the author comes up with some interesting studies of guillotined heads doing possibly purposeful movements and actions for perhaps a minute or so.
Makes some sense, it takes a few minutes for the brain to die, for the cellular functions to completely cease. During that time they whole organism is going to go into panic mode, trying futility to protect itself. The study in TFA suggests that higher brain functions operate to some degree at this time. What this actually means in terms of consciousness is unknown of course (and will be hard to study short of another guillotine wielding revolution).
That's pretty interesting. One technique that actually worked well for me was flashcards with a couple of other people. We'd carry them around and pop them out at meals and in boring lectures. A decent program might make sharing the cards pretty easy.
Note taking (and dealing the the cram fest that was medical school class instruction) WAS (and I am sure, still is) a big problem for medical students. Too much information, too little time. The whole point of the first two years of med school is to cram the basics of anatomy and physiology down people's throats. It's pretty much out and out memorization.
What most schools don't teach instructors is how to teach a detail oriented, time limited subject in a coherent fashion. Most med school lecturers aren't really happy they are there and aren't terribly well plugged into the bigger picture. Lectures tend to be disjointed and incomplete. There are a few gems, but most of the lecture content is pretty meh. You still have to memorize it. And sort of understand it. And regurgitate it. And relearn when it turns out to be hopelessly wrong.
Med schools is rather different from the actual practice of medicine, people who did well in school don't necessarily make the best clinicians and vice versa. No profound answers, but I understand where the OP is coming from.
Tried a number of 'digital' (or analog, mostly) ways of recording lectures - nothing really works. Here's the real kicker: Unless you have a really unusual, high quality lecturer who is invested in teaching medical students, most of the lectures are pretty reflex and humdrum. Nothing that needs to be archived.
The few professors who really are interested in teaching will inevitably have a syllabus. So read the book, go to the lecture. Get some sleep (the hard part). Get in a study group of a couple of people you like and work with them - that's probably the most useful thing you can do and sometimes seems at odds to the way many people have learned to study. You're trying to cram down volumes of material in a short period of time, not solve difficult math problems or gain deep insights. It's mostly wrote memorization -- but at some point you have to do it to speak the language. Thinking comes later, in clinicals.
Then, once you graduate you won't be so terribly upset that most of what you learned past anatomy was just... wrong. Even basic physiology got turned around in the twenty some years it''s been since medical school and I have no doubt that what is touted as the New Smart Thing will be just as incorrect as everything else I've tried to memorize. Get your anatomy down cold. Get the basic physiology down as best you can. Plan on reading up on everything else when you get there.
Fortunately, we live in a time where there are really high quality, on line, carefully vetted medical databases. Yes, they're likely wrong (as is much of what we do) but it''s the best we've got and it's at your fingertips.
Even at 60, you might well be better off letting prostate cancer just sit around unmolested. And this is the problem with a broad brush approach to false positives and screening programs. DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in situ) is the poster child for this problem. Some cancers are very aggressive (ovarian for one), others not (DCIS and most but not all prostate cancers). If you don't screen for less aggressive cancers and they aren't clinically apparent, your false negative rate goes sky high. If you screen for aggressive cancers then your five year survival rate is likely to change.
It is impossible to have a coherent discussion about screening for ALL cancers. You need to weight the risks and benefits for individual diseases. This makes it complicated. Fortunately, as time goes on, we are getting more nuanced about the word 'cancer'. Hopefully this correlates with better patient education and better treatment options.
Sorry. Try again. The HMO act of 1968, while hardly perfect and starting a cascade of ugly things was pushed through because health care costs were large and accelerating. Before the concept of HMOs.
Using technology to automate much of the work now done by employees and contractors would make the NSA's networks "more defensible and more secure," as well as faster, he said at the conference.
Which sounds eerily like:
The strategy behind Skynet's creation was to remove the possibility of human error and slow reaction time to guarantee a fast, efficient response to enemy attack.
Skynet was originally activated by the military to control the national arsenal on August 4, 1997, at which time it began to learn at a geometric rate. On August 29, it gained self-awareness, and the panicking operators, realizing the extent of its abilities, tried to deactivate it. Skynet perceived this as an attack and came to the conclusion that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Astounding isn't it? The world is such a complicated place.
I miss Walter Cronkite.
Sniff.
No, it's not a peer reviewed research article. It's a modified lecture given at some conference.
This is a classic venue for opinion pieces / overviews / misogynist rants. Some presumably well known academician gives a 'distinguished talk' and it gets transcribed, cleaned up a bit and placed in a (usually) middling level journal.
I have no idea who this person is, nor his qualifications, nor the status of the journal in question. But it's a well known approach to publishing in various scientific fields and is usually done to get people arguing^Hdiscussing the issues.
Burma Shave.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Well, if you're immortal, you don't have to worry about a several decade delay.
Oh. Wait.
And we've shown such an ability to get to those resources.
Not only do you not seem to understand exponential functions, you seem to have a bit of an issue with basic concepts such as gravity.
Reading science fiction is a wonderful hobby. Just don't mistake it for reality.
I take it you have problems understanding the concept of an exponential function.
If you could double the active lifespan of a (sane, healthy) individual, you'd get twice the amount of wotk for the same amount of high-school and college man-years.
So what do you do about the rest of us?
I want a fork to stand up in the coffee, ideally.
No, the fork should dissolve.
Surprisingly, the full text is available without registering or going through a paywall. Must be a leak into a different universe or something.
Just scanned it quickly - all cells have a cytoskelaton, a framework that allows a cell to maintain a three dimensional shape. Cytoskeletons are controlled, in part, because of a class of proteins called tropomyosins. These proteins are turned over quite rapidly in cancer cells yielding the hypothesis that targeting those molecules could selectively kill cancerous cells. Unfortunately, the chemicals that have been used previously also targeted non cancer cells and caused a lot of systemic toxicity (they cured the cancer, but unfortunately, the patient died).
The new compound, TR100 (sounds like a toy truck), specifically targets a type of tropomyosin presumably found only in cancer cells. Leaves normal cells alone.
IF this remains true in testing and IF the compound doesn't have other, unintended and typically deleterious effects it MIGHT be a good drug. Grandstanding by the PR idiots notwithstanding.
The road to Big Pharma Hell is paved with effective in vitro cures for cancer.
the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.
Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.
Worse - you don't bring a paintball gun to a tactical nuclear weapons fight. Sure, us little guys can buy gizmos and change habits but if you have the power of any major government after your ass, you're toast. Even sophisticated people like Laura Poitras are hassled to the point of having to leave the country.
Unless you've got some major new technology that can defeat the status quo, the only answer is to fight them at the ballot box.
Goodluckwiththat.
Something tells me that bottles full of alcohol on a roof would not remain bottles full of alcohol for very long.
There is a chapter in the hilarious book Stiff that discusses 18th century French attempts at discerning exactly this. Of course, their understanding of physiology was a tad sparse, but the author comes up with some interesting studies of guillotined heads doing possibly purposeful movements and actions for perhaps a minute or so.
Makes some sense, it takes a few minutes for the brain to die, for the cellular functions to completely cease. During that time they whole organism is going to go into panic mode, trying futility to protect itself. The study in TFA suggests that higher brain functions operate to some degree at this time. What this actually means in terms of consciousness is unknown of course (and will be hard to study short of another guillotine wielding revolution).
That's pretty interesting. One technique that actually worked well for me was flashcards with a couple of other people. We'd carry them around and pop them out at meals and in boring lectures. A decent program might make sharing the cards pretty easy.
Sorry to break your bubble, but those 'libraries' are pretty much for show. These days, one's library is hidden in the smart phone.
Actually, we UptoDate, but we don't rely on our increasingly fallible memories except for stuff we use all of the time.
Note taking (and dealing the the cram fest that was medical school class instruction) WAS (and I am sure, still is) a big problem for medical students. Too much information, too little time. The whole point of the first two years of med school is to cram the basics of anatomy and physiology down people's throats. It's pretty much out and out memorization.
What most schools don't teach instructors is how to teach a detail oriented, time limited subject in a coherent fashion. Most med school lecturers aren't really happy they are there and aren't terribly well plugged into the bigger picture. Lectures tend to be disjointed and incomplete. There are a few gems, but most of the lecture content is pretty meh. You still have to memorize it. And sort of understand it. And regurgitate it. And relearn when it turns out to be hopelessly wrong.
Med schools is rather different from the actual practice of medicine, people who did well in school don't necessarily make the best clinicians and vice versa. No profound answers, but I understand where the OP is coming from.
Is there a GUI for this?
Pay attention. Yes. Been there, done that.
Tried a number of 'digital' (or analog, mostly) ways of recording lectures - nothing really works. Here's the real kicker: Unless you have a really unusual, high quality lecturer who is invested in teaching medical students, most of the lectures are pretty reflex and humdrum. Nothing that needs to be archived.
The few professors who really are interested in teaching will inevitably have a syllabus. So read the book, go to the lecture. Get some sleep (the hard part). Get in a study group of a couple of people you like and work with them - that's probably the most useful thing you can do and sometimes seems at odds to the way many people have learned to study. You're trying to cram down volumes of material in a short period of time, not solve difficult math problems or gain deep insights. It's mostly wrote memorization -- but at some point you have to do it to speak the language. Thinking comes later, in clinicals.
Then, once you graduate you won't be so terribly upset that most of what you learned past anatomy was just ... wrong. Even basic physiology got turned around in the twenty some years it''s been since medical school and I have no doubt that what is touted as the New Smart Thing will be just as incorrect as everything else I've tried to memorize. Get your anatomy down cold. Get the basic physiology down as best you can. Plan on reading up on everything else when you get there.
Fortunately, we live in a time where there are really high quality, on line, carefully vetted medical databases. Yes, they're likely wrong (as is much of what we do) but it''s the best we've got and it's at your fingertips.
Do you see any sharks?
Well, do you?
Not even a mutant sea bass here.
We're waiting....
Even at 60, you might well be better off letting prostate cancer just sit around unmolested. And this is the problem with a broad brush approach to false positives and screening programs. DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in situ) is the poster child for this problem. Some cancers are very aggressive (ovarian for one), others not (DCIS and most but not all prostate cancers). If you don't screen for less aggressive cancers and they aren't clinically apparent, your false negative rate goes sky high. If you screen for aggressive cancers then your five year survival rate is likely to change.
It is impossible to have a coherent discussion about screening for ALL cancers. You need to weight the risks and benefits for individual diseases. This makes it complicated. Fortunately, as time goes on, we are getting more nuanced about the word 'cancer'. Hopefully this correlates with better patient education and better treatment options.
Sorry. Try again. The HMO act of 1968, while hardly perfect and starting a cascade of ugly things was pushed through because health care costs were large and accelerating. Before the concept of HMOs.
Don't Bogart that joint, my friend. You've had enough already.
From TFA:
Using technology to automate much of the work now done by employees and contractors would make the NSA's networks "more defensible and more secure," as well as faster, he said at the conference.
Which sounds eerily like:
The strategy behind Skynet's creation was to remove the possibility of human error and slow reaction time to guarantee a fast, efficient response to enemy attack.
Skynet was originally activated by the military to control the national arsenal on August 4, 1997, at which time it began to learn at a geometric rate. On August 29, it gained self-awareness, and the panicking operators, realizing the extent of its abilities, tried to deactivate it. Skynet perceived this as an attack and came to the conclusion that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.