Did you know that the body has a way of keeping the immune system in check?

1,401 peer reviews were completed on @ResearchHub in Q1 🚀 On ResearchHub, experts earn $150 in $RSC for reviewing preprints and preregistered proposals. Reviewers shouldn't have to work for free. Get paid for your expertise.

For life sciences companies, the question is not just: “What does the literature say?” It is: “Is this evidence strong enough to support the next decision?” Target validation. Biomarker development. Study design. Go / no-go. That is where QED Score matters.

My colleague Chris Boshoff, who leads R&D, is featured in @sciam on the state of American science. He calls it extraordinary, and accelerating. He's right. We're living through a scientific renaissance, and I'm optimistic about what American innovation can do for patients. scientificamerican.com/artic…

We’re excited to share that ResearchHub Foundation President, Jeffrey Koury, has been named a founding member of Nucleate’s new Leadership Council. @NucleateHQ is a nonprofit organization that has helped thousands of scientists, founders, and innovators turn ideas into impact. Its new Leadership Council brings together leaders across biotech, academia, and entrepreneurship to help support the next generation of science. We’re proud to see @jeffyfish9 contributing to that mission alongside an exceptional group of leaders. Congratulations, Jeff! 🎉 Read Nucleate’s announcement ↓ nucleatehq.medium.com/introd…

I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner. Well, maybe not wrong, but at a minimum I missed something obvious because I was thinking like a doctor who's been practicing for 25 years. And I didn't explain my point well. First, where I was wrong: All historical precendent that showed that widespread screening imaging is net neutral or harmful was imaging that was expensive, inconvenient, gated by physicians and couldn't practically be repeated frequently short term. If the Midjourney ultrasound is high resolution, harmless, inexpensive and convenient, people can get an initial scan, then if there are abnormalities concerning for cancer, they can get weekly follow up scans to see if it's growing/changing, and if it's not, they can leave it alone. In retrospect, that is obvious but it never occurred to me. Now, you'd assume that that approach would have to lead to it being useful and saving lives, and it probably will. But we won't really know it does until we have a couple years of data. Lots of things that seem obvious in medicine end up being wrong once we collect data. Second, what I didn't explain well: It's not that I think non-doctors are 'too dumb' to use the results effectively. Its that historically it was literally impossible to use the results effectively, and that is super, super counterintuitive. It seems obvious that finding stuff early is beneficial, but experience has shown that it isn't. Here's why: The vast majority of abnormalities (i.e. possible cancer) isn't cancer - like over 90% of them, ends up being harmless - something thay your body could have handled on it's own. But the only way to find out was to have invasive, risky procedures to biopsy or remove what was found. And overall, the side effects from all the risky, invasive procedures to track down the over 90% of stuff that was harmless equal or outweigh the benefit from removing the less than 10% of stuff that wasn't harmless. If the MIdjourney device can be repeated frequently, like weekly, at a low cost and is harmless, it could negate the need for the risky, invasive procedures. Not saying it will, but it seems like it could and I confidently posted yesterday that it was a bad idea. I was wrong to confidently post that.