4 ms·

I really can't tell if you're trolling at this point but in the chance you aren't, I'll bite. Appealing to the authority of a pathologist is safe in my book gi

I really can't tell if you're trolling at this point but in the chance you aren't, I'll bite. Appealing to the authority of a pathologist is safe in my book given the subject matter and the education of the counterparty. There is a lower bound of requisite knowledge beneath which it's not worth even trying to entertain your claims about just "find and destroy rogue cells". You can't even begin to respond with logic and refutation if you haven't achieved anything close to the level of expertise required to be certified as a pathologist. Coming in here trying to play the angle of "well just model with supercomputers" isn't the winning ticket. Contrary to stereotypes of computer-illiterate doctors, there are some wicked smart people working in medicine (I've met and befriended many) and I guarantee your genius approach was considered and abandoned decades ago.

killjoywashere 2y ago
Looking through his comments, I think he's young and, as tends to go with youth, frustrated. This comment elsewhere in thread suggests he may be coming around: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40895503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40895503
- petermcneeley 2y ago
  I am not that young. If you go back far enough in the comments you will see that I completed my physics degree 15 years ago. I studied quite a bit of biology and I personally know multiple doctors. I am more bored than frustrated.
  - locopati 2y ago
    i truly hope you never have to experience cancer treatments for a loved one where the treatments end up not working in the end. it is humbling and eye opening.
petermcneeley 2y ago
Where did I say "just model with supercomputers"? Thats the biology problem it is super hard! I am literally saying that avoiding the hard problem is going to work in the general case. I would argue that radiation therapy is in this vein.
- Zenzero 2y ago
  > . I would argue that radiation therapy is in this vein. Why?
  - XorNot 2y ago
    I mean I kind of get it: if the problem is tumours, just "laser" all the tumours out and problem solved right? Which feels like it should be true for a sufficiently targetable "laser" right? Metastatic cancer is defined by essentially there being too many things to hit though, but therein lies the entire detail: you can't treat someone faster than they die of either the cancer or the treatment. *Laser is being used metaphorically
    - Zenzero 2y ago
      > if the problem is tumours Google paraneoplastic syndromes. Cancer is rarely a problem of just tumors. > just "laser" all the tumours out and problem solved right? No. The tumors don't just evaporate. The treatment causes tissue necrosis. Your laser causes inflammation. Even the high tech IMRT you're picturing has those problems. >Metastatic cancer is defined by essentially there being too many things to hit though, Metastasis as a concept is fairly meaningless in how you're using it. There are so many more factors in treatment of various cancers that have nothing to do with the distribution. There's a lot that clinpath looks at and frankly I care much more about what's on those reports than playing where's Waldo with nodules. Frequently we assume micrometastasis just based on the cell line or other characteristics. > therein lies the entire detail So no. > you can't treat someone faster than they die of either the cancer or the treatment. Again far more consideration goes into it but I'm losing my desire to debate these contrived simplistic takes.
      - petermcneeley 2y ago
        I dont get it. The first hit there says it is a rare disorder due to cancer; so this is already not the more common case. Second it is still due to the presence although not local of the tumor. If you destroy the tumor you may have a chance of resolving the condition. I am aware of necrosis. You need to either completely break down the cell or remove the material. Radiation of course does not do this but surgery of course does. My appeal to you would be to allow more disruption in this space. Software and Hardware are (mostly) unregulated which allowed for the explosion of progress.
6510 2y ago
"find and destroy rogue cells" is an attempt to ask the right question. Sometimes, when stuck, questions from ignorance are useful even if it is just as inspiration. My ignorance has a model like: If you keep putting sugar in the gas tank, how do you fix the car? How do I stay healthy if I eat only crap? How do I stay fit if I never get out of my chair? Shit, would it be one of those cause and effect things?

killjoywashere 2y ago

Looking through his comments, I think he's young and, as tends to go with youth, frustrated. This comment elsewhere in thread suggests he may be coming around: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40895503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40895503

petermcneeley 2y ago
I am not that young. If you go back far enough in the comments you will see that I completed my physics degree 15 years ago. I studied quite a bit of biology and I personally know multiple doctors. I am more bored than frustrated.
- locopati 2y ago
  i truly hope you never have to experience cancer treatments for a loved one where the treatments end up not working in the end. it is humbling and eye opening.

petermcneeley 2y ago

Where did I say "just model with supercomputers"? Thats the biology problem it is super hard! I am literally saying that avoiding the hard problem is going to work in the general case. I would argue that radiation therapy is in this vein.

Zenzero 2y ago
> . I would argue that radiation therapy is in this vein. Why?
- XorNot 2y ago
  I mean I kind of get it: if the problem is tumours, just "laser" all the tumours out and problem solved right? Which feels like it should be true for a sufficiently targetable "laser" right? Metastatic cancer is defined by essentially there being too many things to hit though, but therein lies the entire detail: you can't treat someone faster than they die of either the cancer or the treatment. *Laser is being used metaphorically
  - Zenzero 2y ago
    > if the problem is tumours Google paraneoplastic syndromes. Cancer is rarely a problem of just tumors. > just "laser" all the tumours out and problem solved right? No. The tumors don't just evaporate. The treatment causes tissue necrosis. Your laser causes inflammation. Even the high tech IMRT you're picturing has those problems. >Metastatic cancer is defined by essentially there being too many things to hit though, Metastasis as a concept is fairly meaningless in how you're using it. There are so many more factors in treatment of various cancers that have nothing to do with the distribution. There's a lot that clinpath looks at and frankly I care much more about what's on those reports than playing where's Waldo with nodules. Frequently we assume micrometastasis just based on the cell line or other characteristics. > therein lies the entire detail So no. > you can't treat someone faster than they die of either the cancer or the treatment. Again far more consideration goes into it but I'm losing my desire to debate these contrived simplistic takes.
    - petermcneeley 2y ago
      I dont get it. The first hit there says it is a rare disorder due to cancer; so this is already not the more common case. Second it is still due to the presence although not local of the tumor. If you destroy the tumor you may have a chance of resolving the condition. I am aware of necrosis. You need to either completely break down the cell or remove the material. Radiation of course does not do this but surgery of course does. My appeal to you would be to allow more disruption in this space. Software and Hardware are (mostly) unregulated which allowed for the explosion of progress.

6510 2y ago

"find and destroy rogue cells" is an attempt to ask the right question. Sometimes, when stuck, questions from ignorance are useful even if it is just as inspiration. My ignorance has a model like: If you keep putting sugar in the gas tank, how do you fix the car? How do I stay healthy if I eat only crap? How do I stay fit if I never get out of my chair? Shit, would it be one of those cause and effect things?