Many things wrong there. The benefit was a few months, not decades. Also, that's a small sample size and furthermore they seem to admit it wasn't a double blind study. "A double-blind design was planned, but due to the rapid progression of the disease, a survival of 3years or more was considered as a success factor (30, 31)."

That sentence doesn't make much sense.

Also: "Following this enrollment evaluation, consultation was done by a clinical dietician and then, if the patient agreed to participate, the ketogenic diet was initiated. " Umm .. that sounds like patient self selection, maybe the patients willing to do the keto diet took care of themselves other ways too?

Biggest issue is the small sample size, but it seems the patient selection process may have been wonky too.

Is there any proof that his approach actually was responsible for keeping those patients alive? I mean, where are the controlled studies. It's possible that pancreatic cancer patients survive 6 years. I mean statistics show that pancreatic cancer has a 5 year survival rate of 13%. So basically if you randomly chose 10 pancreatic patients at diagnosis time, one would likely survive past 5 years. As for glioblastoma .. decade survival is 1 in 100, but I'd like to see specifics of that, and why the method hasn't attracted mainstream studies to back up the findings. Provide a link to the studies.

I asked Claude and this is what it said: Both Waymo and US transit are far safer than human-driven cars, but they're hard to compare directly because they report in different units. Transit buses run about 0.09 deaths per 100M passenger-miles and passenger rail about 0.19 â" and most rail deaths are trespassers, not riders; for actual passengers rail is closer to 0.015, making it the safest ground mode. Cars kill at roughly 70x the bus rate and 20x the train rate per passenger-mile. Waymo, through 220M+ driverless miles, shows about 90% fewer serious-injury crashes than matched human drivers and zero passenger deaths, but that mileage is still too small to statistically establish a fatality rate. Rough ordering for rider fatality risk: trains â buses â Waymo, all far below human-driven cars â" with Waymo carrying the widest error bars since transit has decades of data and Waymo has ~3 years at scale. Note the numbers exclude crime on transit and the walk to the stop, which favor door-to-door Waymo in practice.

Never skip medication day.

PS> Waymo has millions of miles of safe autonomous driving in multiple cities with dense pedestrian and vehicle traffic that prove its safety: https://waymo.com/safety/impac...

The only thing that can stop self driving cars is taxi unions, delivery drivers, basically people trying to preserve their jobs at the expense of lives lost. The technology itself works really well, and that's with all the obstacles and naysayers trying to block it before it even has a chance. If we evaluated based on what's the safest .. self driving car safety is miles ahead of any human ALREADY https://waymo.com/safety/impac... And that's with people actively trying to block it from getting developed. People who said self driving cars are impossible looking out for their own prophecy trying to block themselves having to eat crow.

That easy, yet you've made no money from rap?

UBI is like reparations from the robots and AI.

It is a vaccine in the traditional sense. It creates immunity to the cancer cells, the same way the covid vaccine created immunity to the covid virus.

Yes, they are calling it a neo-antigen therapy now, but this type of treatment used to be called vaccine for the prior two decades.

Duplicatability is a core tenet of science.

Flock can save lives. Strongly regulate its use and severely punish its abuse, don't destroy it. A large number of violent crimes can be solved with it. Right now in the USA only about 50% of murders get solved. Scotland has a 100% homicide solve rate. Scotland's cities and towns utilize broad CCTV networks in public squares, transport hubs, and high-traffic streets and they use live facial recognition. We don't need to be Scotland, but if we have total surveillance we would be able to solve well over 90% of US murders. We'd know who was, and wasn't there. We'd have the crime on camera in a lot of cases since most homicides happen on public streets. According to the FBI in 2013, roughly 4,000 to 6,000 homicides (40% of total) a year occur out in public spaces, streets, or commercial areas. We could trace back people to their vehicle and then track the vehicle to their home etc.

Scotland has a 100% homicide solve rate: https://www.reddit.com/r/today...

That means they solve every murder. If a person kills someone in Scotland, they're getting caught. Guaranteed.

Also, the UK in general has a low homicide rate, in spite of having millions of unvetted migrants, because they have a lot of cameras. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep...

And btw, if you excluded the Black-on-Black homicide rate from UK average stats .. the UK is the safest it has ever been in history (and btw it's the safest it's ever been for Blacks too .. but excluding the contribution of that shows how much safer it has gotten for every ethnic group).

Would there be ways to game the system? Maybe. Would there be criminal masterminds getting away with stuff? Probably. But it'd be rare. The homicide rate would be reduced by a lot. I mean, China has the lowest homicide rate in the world .. because they have total surveillance.

The steps are simple .. the costs listed below are without labor and capital investment:
1. Obtain the tumor vs. normal sequence at 100x high coverage ($800).
2. Run sequence obtained in step 1 through a neo-antigen selection program ($0? lol) https://github.com/openvax/neo...
3. Synthesize & purify the requisite RNA ($100) https://www.creative-biogene.c...
4. Load the RNA into LNPs using a microfluidics device (the one most people uses is called NanoAssemblr https://www.cytivalifesciences... ) ($100)
5. Purify it: https://www.cytivalifesciences... ... $200.

It's not expensive in terms of raw materials and frankly I don't see how it can't be automated and made dirt cheap.

Not every tumor has strong neo-antigen presentation and many use complex immune evasion strategies that may be hard to defeat, therefore treatment evasion is still possible. https://www.cell.com/cancer-ce... Also notice they aren't using it as a treatment during cancer. You have to be mostly cancer free for it to work -- and even then it's not 100%.

The issue is that it will always be tough to identify a cell as cancerous from the outside. To do it reliably, you have to do it from INSIDE the cell. Unfortunately getting things into cells is not trivial.

The path to a final cure (an agent that can be easily transported into every type of cell, determine if it's within a cancer cell, and destroy it) will be something like the following: https://www.nature.com/article... (explanatory article about it: https://www.nature.com/article... )

There are numerous problems to solve with the "final cure" path though. I can list about a bunch .. but the good news is that for each one, there are about 2 or 3 possible ways it can be solved -- I think. We're probably about a decade or two out (consider the papers on neo-antigen vaccines started coming out in the 1990s, first proof-of-concept in early 2000s, and a "holy smokes, this thing really works" paper around 2017 I think). And note the neo-antigen therapy is still not approved.

Oh yeah btw, ICE has been capturing illegal immigrants that way by the thousands. You don't think they could do that to other "undesirables" when they run out of illegals?

No. I asked about surveillance, I didnâ(TM)t ask if we should have slave camps. The president of China wears socks, are you saying we shouldnâ(TM)t wear socks?