I don't even know how I'd go about measuring stress levels, but I did notice that there were two instances where my blood sugar staid elevated for much longer than it should have after lunch, and both times there was a somewhat stressful/non-routine situation (an interview, and riding a scooter across town).
I have registered for All of Us but have yet to be called in for an in-person visit. I live in central NJ but it seems the closest medical centers are in NYC.
Codified Genomics is hiring a user interface and HCI developer. We have a massive amount of data to show users and need someone to develop new ways of presenting and interacting with it. Our current user interfaces are written in GWT, so experience with Java and css are important.
The software you write at Codified will directly influence healthcare decisions for thousands of patients. We do clinical genomic variant analysis. We take whole-exome sequence data and predict clinical outcome for the variants we observe in patients, which is then used by clinicians to inform treatment. To do this, we aggregate large amounts of additional data on individual genes and variants, and apply a series of proprietary algorithms.
A willingness to learn is more important to us than a Biology background, but the job will require you to become familiar with the Biology that we're working with.
Send resumes / portfolios to codifiedgenomics@gmail.com
Software you write at Codified will directly influence healthcare decisions for thousands of patients. We're looking for experienced software engineers who are up to that challenge, and who have a track record of working in an environment that demands a high level of quality.
We do clinical genomic variant analysis. We take whole exome sequence data and predict clinical outcome for the variants we observe in patients, which is then used by clinicians to inform treatment. To do this, we aggregate large amounts of additional data on individual genes and variants, and apply a series of proprietary algorithms. We started with seed funding and are currently profitable with revenue from our first customer.
We're hiring our first engineer. At Codified your responsibilities will be wide - you will probably end up touching every piece of software we write, with an emphasis on the user facing applications. We are currently using GWT and mysql with some scripting in Python. Additionally, you'll help us grow our team over the next few months as we continue to add engineers.
We have a large number of interesting projects under active development, spanning natural language processing, machine learning, user interface design and of course sequence analysis.
We're looking for someone who is experienced, flexible and willing to work outside of their comfort zone. A willingness to learn is more important to us than a Biology background, but the job will require you to learn the basics of the Biology that we're working with.
We're willing to consider remote work for experienced candidates, but preference will be shown to candidates in the Houston area.
We are offering 70k+ salary and equity. Contact us at codifiedgenomics@gmail.com
Interfering with telomere activity is a critical step for cancer progression (see the halmarks of cancer, limitless reproductive potential), so this procedure essentially makes every cell in your body pre-cancerous.
In my opinion, the most amazing part about this is that the way in which telomerase is delivered is via a retrovirus, typically a relative of HIV.
Since telomerase is not really an oncogene, I'm not sure that the notion of "pre-cancerous" that you're advocating has any meaning. By that token, nearly every cell is pre-cancerous, and in a fetus even more so.
I'd encourage a different interpretation of the data: Cancer holding steady actually is an improvement.
Everyone is guaranteed to die of something, and the longer you live the likelihood of that something being cancer greatly increases. So as people shift away from other categories, i.e. heart disease and childbirth, and live longer, they're going to shift towards the cancer category. I'm actually amazed that cancer hasn't gone up significantly.
This is a very good point. Although the data (at this link) are not isolated, using a GUI window as a ruler, you can see a clear decrease, just not a visually compelling one. And yes, I agree that as you reduce the mortality associated with other diseases, getting cancer becomes more likely.
What would be more interesting to see, in this particular context, is the mortality associated with different disease groups for different age cohorts. For example, how has the treatment for cancer progressed for people between 40 and 50, rather than all cohorts at once.
The yellow band is also getting eaten from below by the blue (presumably AIDS deaths?).
US median age grew by about 2 years per decade between 1990-2000 so that also supports thisisnotmyname's point.
Some of the decline may be due to lifestyle changes (e.g. lung cancer has probably peaked in the US) but there has also been dramatic progress in treatment for some cancers (Breast, testicular, Hodkin's).
Also, some of the recent treatment modalities are genuinely revolutionary. For example, Gleevec (subsequently exposed problems aside) is pretty damn amazing. Obviously, new things are becoming possible because of a long-growing body of research. The question is whether we have reached the tipping point. As I said previously, I'm optimistic -- I think we have. That being said, cancer is fucking complex and even if we were at some tipping point, progress is measured in years and decades, not weeks as the breathless popsci articles always seem to imply.
If people were to shift away from heart disease, etc, towards cancer over time, the death rate due to cancer would be going up, not holding steady.
I think you're making a poor assumption that if people move away from heart disease, etc, that they would automatically move towards cancer. If such a move happens, there would have to be an external causation factor for that.
Holding steady would indicate to me that either our efforts to combat cancer haven't improved at all, or our efforts to combat cancer are only keeping pace with the increase in cancer rates due to increased toxins in our daily environment or whatever. This talks about death rates due to cancer, not cancer incident rates, so either of these 2 scenarios are plausible (and I'm sure there are other possibilities I'm not able to imagine).
Thank you, I did not know that. That changes the picture quite a bit, though I'd be curious by how much.
This is quite a long article, which I can't afford the time to read right now. Can someone answer the critical question for me, which is: is aging found to be a causative factor in cumulative genetic damage and also cancer, or is it only known to be correlated at this point?
This is an interesting point. It makes you wonder about the general macro considerations around life pro-longing technology. You solve one risk, but then something like cancer either remains or even increases.
Tackling the cancer problem is exciting but also worrisome at the same time. It’s an old problem. Nixon said in 1970 that we’d win the War on Cancer by ’76. People have been working on it for 40 years. So while we’re 40 years closer to a solution, it also seems farther away than ever. Doesn’t the fact that it’s taken so long mean that it’s an incredibly hard problem that won’t be solved soon?
Aging is a defense against cancer. There is a 'cancer probability hump' that tops up around your 60s. After that age, your probability of having cancer actually decreases significantly.
There is a great deal of philosophy here, but I'd prefer to see some data that backs up his point. Can you show me a project in which investing in an estimate harmed it?
Peopleware, DeMarco and Lister, pg 27-29, alluded to in the post.
Namely:
"The most surprising part of the 1985 Jeffery-Lawrence study appeared at the very end, when they investigated the productivity of 24 projects for which no estimates were prepared at all. These projects far outperformed all the others..."
Study refers to Jeffery and Lawrence, 1985 study, to which I cannot find the raw data, unfortunately.
