personAAA t1_iw00vrt wrote


For some cancers, better to just watch and wait than treat them. Don't take the therapy side effects for low grade cancer that is localizing, non to very slow spread, not impacting any function. Monitor the cancer to see if anything changes.

Cancer likelihood increases with age. For a really old patient, very possible to find with advanced imaging small cancers. Not worth treating and those are not going to kill the patient. They are low grade, not impacting function and more of we only founded it due to imaging. Patient is going to die from something else. Patient is going to die with cancer than from it.


personAAA t1_ivx3dun wrote

To explain some of this to lay readers. Cancers are weird. Everything from the shape and structure of them to how they get and structure the blood supply system. This paper and its subfield focus on the local immune environment of cancers.

Cancers somehow avoid being killed off by the immune system. Why the immune is not working on the cancer is a big question.

One thing being tried with this vaccine approach is teaching the immune system hey this actually is cancer.

This paper has for IV given vaccines, the immune system is working two ways to fight cancer. The innate immune system is working in the local tumor environment. T cells are boosted and fight the cancer better.

This study was done in mice, so don't get hopes up too much. How much different between lab mice tumors and a particular human cancer is a big question.

Cancer is better understood as a collection of diseases. The genotype of the cancer, the location, and tissue of origin all matter. Not all cancers are as scary as others. Don't panic if you here the c word. Find out what it is more in depth before worrying too much. Stressing yourself out wouldn't help.


personAAA t1_iu7h6lj wrote

Paper in question he wrote:


>In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.