I've read both the original article and the lawyer letter and must say that the amount of counter-evidence to that presented in the New Yorker is significant. Even if it doesn't receive a judgement as libel, it is, at the very least, shoddy journalism. After reading the original article, my reaction was that Yau was fairly sleazy (on the assumption that everything written therein is true). However, soon after publication of the article, many of those quoted came forward publicly and claimed they were misquoted or quoted out of context. I doubt if Yau has the power to intimidate each of these mathematicians to his will. What recourse does he have against a large internationally circulated publication like the New Yorker? In the lawyer letter it asks only for a corrective/apology in the magazine (and corollary web sites and blogs) and correction of false statements. He wishes to undo the damage done. If they tell him to buzz off, then he will sue for defamation.
- Paul
Though a human eye may not be able to fully see the level of detail offered by this system, it allows for larger displays and zooming functionality without a loss of quality (up to a point). The same source can be used for small television displays as well as large theatre screens.
In our longest trial, which lasted 99 days, 30 percent to 40 percent of the mice given the nanoparticle with methotrexate survived,...
I think these results weren't better due to the drug they delivered with the polymer (methotrexate).
The way this polymer targets tumor cells specifically is those cells high demand for folic acid. Folic acid is therefore bundled with the polymer. The apparent novelty of this approach is two-fold:
1) The polymer is small enough to easily get inside cells.
2) Any drug can be attached to the "tentacles" of the polymer to be delivered to cancer cells (including ones currently thought to be too toxic).
This treatment sounds like it could probably target any type of tumor cell (as long it is rapidly growing). Then again, a new "cancer cure" has been announced every few weeks for the past several years. I guess all these cures only need 10-200 years more of testing.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read both the original article and the lawyer letter and must say that the amount of counter-evidence to that presented in the New Yorker is significant. Even if it doesn't receive a judgement as libel, it is, at the very least, shoddy journalism. After reading the original article, my reaction was that Yau was fairly sleazy (on the assumption that everything written therein is true). However, soon after publication of the article, many of those quoted came forward publicly and claimed they were misquoted or quoted out of context. I doubt if Yau has the power to intimidate each of these mathematicians to his will. What recourse does he have against a large internationally circulated publication like the New Yorker? In the lawyer letter it asks only for a corrective/apology in the magazine (and corollary web sites and blogs) and correction of false statements. He wishes to undo the damage done. If they tell him to buzz off, then he will sue for defamation. - Paul
Though a human eye may not be able to fully see the level of detail offered by this system, it allows for larger displays and zooming functionality without a loss of quality (up to a point). The same source can be used for small television displays as well as large theatre screens.
However, your work since "In Living Color" leaves much to be desired.
You, sir, are an idiot. Cure for cancer? They are a rock band, not scientists.
Sickening.
what is your favorite colour?
what is your favorite color?