anatnom
> Four predetermined questions were posed regarding sun exposure: (i) How often do you sunbathe during the summertime? (never, 1−14 times, 15−30 times, >30 times); (ii) Do you sunbathe during the winter, such as on vacation to the mountains? (no, 1−3 days, 4−10 days, >10 days); (iii) Do you use tanning beds? (never, 1−3 times per year, 4−10 times per year, >10 times per year); and (iv) Do you go abroad on vacation to swim and sunbathe? (never, once every 1–2 years, once a year, two or more times per year). The four questions were dichotomized into yes/no in the analysis (i.e. sometimes versus no or never). We created a four-score variable as a measure of sun exposure depending on the number of ‘yes’ responses to the above questions on a scale from 0 (avoid sun exposure: reference) to 4 (greatest sun exposure). Sun exposure habits were categorized into three groups: zero ‘yes’ responses (avoidance of sun exposure; the main study group); ‘yes’ responses to one or two questions (moderate exposure); and ‘yes’ responses to three or four questions (greatest exposure).
Of note, the surveys are of Swedish women and were conducted in Swedish. There could be some translation nuance for the word "sunbathe" which doesn't map well to English, or other cultural differences to explain the "but no one I know actually sunbathes..." thought that I immediately jump to.
The change in _stated_ FDA policy is a huge shift. This explainable-by-a-simple-mistake news article seems much more likely to me. This article header says "Posted at 5:43 AM, Mar 21, 2024 and last updated 2024-03-21 20:13:30-04". That's a 100% full business day where _no other mainstream media_ picked up the story? Possible, but not likely.
Has anyone found a more definitive source that the FDA has recently released a "report" with this content? I wonder if this is just slow news day recap of old information.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-newsroom/press-announcem... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULoaz3E7o&t=20s [3-redacted] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/signed-ash-to-dea-le...
[0] https://ncics.org/ibtracs/index.php?name=v04r00-1958263N1314...
I was really hoping to find an authoritative listing of the strongest storms, but it is missing in both the linked article and the underlying paper. The paper itself uses data from International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship, which has a confusing website. As a non-expert, the website's top windspeed[1] category lists the following storms with maximum wind speeds of >167 knots (category 6 in the proposed scheme):
213kt - 1958 IDA
194kt - 1958 GRACE, 1959 JOAN, 1959 DINAH, 1961 NANCY, 1964 SALLY
185kt - 2015 PATRICIA
184kt - 1961 VIOLET
180kt - 1955 RUTH
178kt - 1955 JANET,
174kt - 1951 MARGE, 1953 NINA, 1956 WANDA, 1957 VIRGINIA, 1957 HESTER, 1957 KIT, 1957 LOLA, 1959 VERA, 1959 CHARLOTTE, 1966 KIT
170kt - 1964 OPAL, 2013 HAIYAN, 2016 MERANTI, 2020 GONI, 2021 SURIGAE
[0] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2308901121#t01
[1] https://ncics.org/ibtracs/index.php?name=browse-wind#210
But I also have extreme doubts that proper redaction can be done robustly. The design mockup image suggests that this will all be done as a step subsequent to response generation. Given the abundance of "prompt jailbreaks", a determined adversary is going to get around this.
In the US, most credit card transactions are simply "(swipe or chip)". If you have the card, you can use it. Gas stations seem to be the slight exception in America -- they generally require "(swipe or chip) and billing zipcode". This is quite funky and not at all secure against fraud.
At the time I took blinatumomab, I had already had unsuccessful treatments with two different chemo regimens. At the hospital system I was at, at least one failed chemo regimen was a pre-requisite for blinatumomab, as it was only indicated for "refractory" or "recurrent" cancers. I assume this is more related to the chance of acute death and (at the time) relative newness of blinatumomab compared to established chemotherapy regimens. (B-cell ALL is sadly very common in children, but this fortunately means that there is a LOT of funding research into the disease.)
After going through 3 one-month cycles of blinatumomab, it was becoming less effective, but I was able to line up a allogenic stem cell transplant which has (knock on a thousand woods) kept me clean for the 8 years since.
> [After doing a gene sequence of the patient, we] identified no structural and sequence variants in genes known to be associated with [systemic lupus erythematosus] or diseases of immune dysregulation. However, we detected a [single allele mutation] of unknown significance in [the patient] and her father who had not yet come to medical attention.
The paper seems to be a deep-dive into exploring whether this single mutation is sufficient to explain the micro-characteristics of lupus and concludes that it does.
Given that this mutation was not documented in any public or intra-institution databases, I would expect that this is NOT an explanation for all cases of lupus. It's possible that, like many other genetic- and developmentally-linked disorders, lupus is a cloud of similar outcomes due to many different aberrations.
The biochemistry in the supplementary materials goes WAY over my limited knowledge, but it appears that the researchers went from "this is a weird DNA sequence" to actually manufacturing and testing the (incorrect) proteins in order to conclude that this patient's case of lupus is due to this single mutation. That seems like absolute wizardry. (But I'm also an outsider extrapolating from the linked article and the supplementary materials of the paper.)
[0] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adi9575?url_v...
So...not actually secret diplomacy? Seems like a non-story with the details provided.
In my opinion, lean4 is not in any way "for beginners" as you mean it; it is a tool for experts in mathematics.
However, the "you can hand out a link" part is what really grinds my gears. The expectation of my former coworkers that it is <someone else>'s job to find the proper documentation pages for them was quite exasperating. '@anatnom can get you the docs for this' and similar messages is...disheartening. My workflow was always to go to <internal docs page> and search for <relevant term>.
Perhaps there are organizations where the documentation-writers are not also encumbered with being the link genie, but I've not had that experience. I wish I could teach a dev to fish, but instead I have to hand out fish all day.