Updated:19th June, 2016

FULL TEXT LINK:What is the Life Sciences Institute of New Jersey? Why and how does it exist? What are its goals? Ferez S. Nallaseth, PhD, JMB Omics Nallaset, Mol Biol 2015, 4: 3, 2168-9547-1000130.php?aid=60692, http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/doi: 10.4172/2168-9547.1000130

PDF LINK: http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/what-is-the-life-sciences-institute-of-new-jersey-why-and-how-does-itexist-what-are-its-goals-2168-9547-1000130.pdf

Is There a Role for an Evolutionary Genetics Based Rational Health Policy In Global Biomedical, Health and Economic Policies? Nallaseth.Final.mbl-14-e118. 8.27.2014.pdf

LinkedIn Pulse Post - Asilomar Revisited! The debate on the non-issue that is CrispR/Cas9 & why it detracts from the basic obligation of Humankind!

LinkedIn  PulsePost-Updated! What Is Lost In Confronting Global Health & Economic Crises? Scale! Science & Cost - Benefit Ratios Overwhelmingly Support Marshall Plan Based Preemption! 2.9.2016.pdf

NYT On (A) Cancers, Health Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/health/dna-research-points-to-new-insight-into-cancers.html?hp

Comment (in response to the above and other articles on NYT/LinlkedIn/Twitter) - Proposal for A Rational Health Policy:

Objective: Bring a paradigm shift in the Biomedical Sciences from perpetuating the management of consequences (Pathologies, etc..) to pre-empting the Mutational causes of disease states. How? By Systematization and control of Mammalian Chromosome and Genome Biology in Homeostasis and Development with the coverage of all ~6 billion pairs of Nucleotides/Diploid Genome in all ~200 Cell types of all ~10-40 trillion Cells/average Human, from which these Mutations escape.

A dawning that should have occurred with only a small fraction of decades of work! Next - understand and preempt the causes of these 'fingerprints' (mutations?) which is their escape from Genetic Mechanisms maintaining Chromosomes/Genomes in Mammalian Homeostasis and Development. How? By including Evolutionary Diversity (based induction of dysfunctional Chromosome/Genome Biology in Hybrid Zones, etc..), Hybrid Zones and Genetics,  hundreds of Genomic Targets, traditional (Orthology, Mapping, Synteny, RI/CC mice, etc..) and contemporary (e.g. miRNAs, Proteomics, Epigenomics, Transcriptomics, Systems, etc..)Scientific methods, assembling Mutation Frequency Histograms and re-configuring perspectives on the Genome from an assembly of Transcription Units to Targets of Regulation of Chromosome/Genome Biology in Systematizing these networks! We need to force a paradigm shift in the Biomedical Sciences from intervention at and cataloging of 'after the mutational facts' (i.e. the consequences of disease which are various Pathologies, symptoms, etc...' ) to  'before the fact preemption of causes of disease i.e. mutations' . To achieve this we need an International Institute of Functional Mammalian Chromosome and Genome Biology assembling tools (e.g. the above methods developed) on a par with diploid Synthetic Lethal Analysis by Microarray (dSLAM) in Yeast.

Conservatively (e.g. Translocations, Aneuploidies, Multifactorials, Mitochondrial diseases, home care costs of Neurodegenerative diseases, etc.. are not included!) costs of more than 6000 monogenic diseases are estimated at tens of trillions of dollars per year. Where is the money to be found for this endeavor? From a fraction of a percent of the Research Budgets of all the National and International, Federal, State Departments and Private Funding Agencies that use DNA and Scientists trained by Public Funds - i.e. ALL! From corporations that spew Mutagens and Carcinogens andthat use DNA and Scientists trained by Public Funds - i.e. ALL! And finally from Sin Taxes (smoking, etc.. that mutate DNA - i.e ALL)! This would secure in perpetuity funding separate from current sources at a level of ~$20 billion dollars or ~ NASA's budget for the International Institute of Functional Mammalian Chromosome & Genome Biology. Of course, this does not mean that the ongoing revolution in the Life Sciences e.g. Next Generation Sequencing, Stem Cell Replacement Therapy, Systems in Brain/Mind, Neurogenesis, Embryogenesis, Structure-function relationships, etc...need be suspended! Just supplemented! What are the payoff rates? Once a threshold of data is attained, perhaps sooner than is estimable from current perspectives, as was so dramatically shown by NGS, their application will lead to the decrease in new cases i.e.  over time. What is the return on investment? Conservatively a few billions of dollars will end up saving tens of trillions of dollars and yield a paradigm shift in the Biomedical Sciences to boot! 

We are fully in agreement with others on the need for engaging "Citizen Scientists" in this process. However, as things stand, in our rush to ameliorate the various Pathologies of Patients we unwittingly perpetuate the use of their money for disease management and their afflictions for reagents. This is needless, as shown earlier, there are more than enough resources for multiple parallel approaches eventually effecting the necessary paradigm shift to pre-emption of diseases. There is little doubt as to the choices that Patients would make! Can you expect to focus on (after the fact) consequences (Pathologies, etc..) of disease and wake up one day and understand and preempt their (before the fact) Mutational (necessary but possibly insufficient) causes? There are other reasons for resistance to these ideas/proposals besides the necessity for an immediate response to Patient needs! What are they?

They are (1) lack of Scientific Interest and Recognition required to propel studies e.g. Nobel Prize have already been awarded in the relevant fields, (2) the notion that all modern methods e.g.Genomics/Stem Cells are a panacea while all older methods such as Classical/Evolutionary Genetics are passe. Even the immensely promising Cell Replacement Therapies with induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS) presume an ongoing recurrence of de novo cases (e.g. Parkinsons Disease, Diabetes, etc..). This despite the former often being limited to 'after the fact' intervention, having no pre-emptive capacity for de novo disease states, being largely retrospective while in contrast the latter will be preemptive, (3) Lack of thought given to the subject by Scientists ranging from Nobel Laureates to Graduate Students, as is obvious from their assertions e.g. (a) diseases are not caused by Mutations in House Keeping Genes (e.g. for DNA replication) - they are caused by Mutations in Specialized Genes (e.g. P53, BRCA1, etc..). This when the latter Genes are substrates for Regulatory Networks of the former Genes!, (b) KNOCKOUTS of 1% of the Genome have supplanted methods for understanding and controlling mutational pathways over the entire Genome in all ~200 cell types in Development and Homeostasis! This when Evolutionary Diversity (a resource derived from billions of years of divergence) based Dysfunctions and scanning of Networks of Alleles maintaining the Genome are wide spectrum and unbiased scans which would much more closely parallel the Mutational Ontogeny of disease states. Targeted searches such as Knockouts in fact complement Evolutionary Diversity based scans as has been so strikingly demonstrated in Model Organisms, e.g. Fruit Flies, Worms, Arabidopsis, etc.. , (4) In this CONCEPTUAL vacuum these mutations are considered (a) to be inevitable and (b) preempting them a far greater cost than allowing them to 'happen'.

And so ironically, Human accomplishments in other areas overcome barriers that are technically, scientifically and economically far larger than the pre-emption of disease states. We (a) approach the explorable limits of Space by sending craft to Mars, studying Stars Light Years away with the Hubble Telescope, etc.. (b) approach the limits of sub-atomic particles in the Large Hadron Collidor (LHC), (c) explore the depths of the Mariana Trench and (b) Map Tectonic Plate movements. All this is achieved while we remaining strikingly and haplessly accepting of this regulatory cauldron in our Genomes that causes a minimum of 6000 (monogenic) diseases at a cost tens of trillions of dollars per year while exacting a massive Human cost as the equivalent of a happening!

How can the Socio-Economic and Political barriers/climate  be overcome? Preferably by enlightenment but with financial and legal tools, e.g. invoking of Eminent Domain, if necessary, to inculcate a civic sense and that of good citizenship! What is more the costs of this difficult decision can be balanced by President Obama's Model for rescuing the Motor Industry in Detroit as well as the Banks and allowing the returns on investment made to be paid off with interest. So in addition to the decreasing rates of disease and Human costs and the relieving of enormous Economic Pressures on the Global Economy, on the scale of trillions of dollars, the savings could perhaps even induce a gradual stimulus! There will be money to be made!!!!

And just in case anyone has not noticed, eventually, all this might just put off e.g. the loss of a 13 year old girl to Leukemia.

(1) Editorial on 8/4/2013

Editorial

Mixed Blessings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/opinion/mixed-blessings.html?ref=global

Mixed Blessings

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: August 4, 2013 86 Comments

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Google+

• Save

• E-mail

• Share

• Print

• Reprints

Pity the poor patient who tries to make sense of federal advisory committee reports that appear headed in opposite directions. For at least three decades, Americans have been told that it’s best to detect cancers early, when they are theoretically most curable. So it was not all that surprising when an authoritative advisory group recommended that very heavy smokers get an annual CT scan to check for early signs of lung cancer. It was much more surprising, however, when a separate group of experts suggested that for several cancers — including potential lung cancers — early scans are detecting too many abnormalities that aren’t dangerous and should not be treated.

Related News

• • Task Force Urges Scans for Smokers at High Risk (July 30, 2013)

  • Well: Scientists Seek to Rein In Diagnoses of Cancer (July 29, 2013)

Today's Editorials

• • Editorial: The Long Stall (August 5, 2013)

  • Editorial: Florida Ignores the Supreme Court (August 5, 2013)

  • Editorial: Teachers’ Union v. City Hall (August 5, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (86) »

Oddly enough, both groups, which issued their recommendations last Monday, may be right.

The recommendation on smokers came from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, independent experts who serve as the federal government’s foremost authority on screening procedures. Screening with chest X-rays, long the standard approach, seldom catches a tumor early enough for surgeons to save a life. In 2010, however, a large clinical trial found that low-dose CT scans, which detect much smaller tumors, could reduce mortality by 16 percent among patients at the highest risk of lung cancer because of their age and smoking history.

That led several prominent medical groups to recommend such screening in high-risk current and former smokers. Now, based primarily on that same study, the Preventive Services Task Force, the final arbiter, has recommended that people ages 55 to 79 who have smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years or two packs a day for 15 years or the equivalent get annual CT scans. That includes former smokers who have quit within the past 15 years. It estimates that such screening could save 20,000 lives a year, among the 160,000 Americans who die each year of lung cancer.

The task force said it had “moderate certainty” that the screening would produce a “moderate net benefit” in these high-risk smokers but did not know whether the same would be true in lower-risk patients. It gave lung cancer screening a grade of B, on a par with mammography. Under the Affordable Care Act, that would require Medicare and private insurers to pay for the screening tests without any cost to consumers.

Meanwhile, three members of a working group advising the National Cancer Institute, the federal government’s pre-eminent supporter of cancer research, suggested that “overdiagnosis” — the detection of tumors that would not cause illness or death if left unattended — is common in cases of breast, lung, prostate and thyroid cancer. Such overdiagnosis often leads to further tests and biopsies to determine if a tiny tumor looks dangerous, followed by surgery, radiation or chemotherapy to eliminate an abnormality that would never have caused illness. In such cases, the cure is worse than the disease it is trying to prevent.

The group said that, ideally, screening tests should focus on tumors that will cause harm and are more likely to be cured if detected early. But that can’t be done until scientists find better ways to identify which lesions are truly worrisome. The group also proposed renaming some conditions to exclude the word cancer so that patients might be less frightened and less apt to press for unneeded tests and treatments. For instance, the tiny breast tumors called ductal carcinoma in situ would be renamed to exclude the word carcinoma.

Recommendations from both these groups come with uncertainties and unanswered questions. This will put the burden on patients, in consultation with their doctors, to decide whether to get early screening for various cancers and what to do based on the findings.

Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board »

A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 5, 2013, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Mixed Blessings.

• Save

• E-mail

• Share

Try unlimited access to NYTimes.com for just 99¢.  SEE OPTIONS »

86 Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• All

• Reader Picks

• NYT Picks

Newest

Comments Closed

• • • • • Marcia Simon

        • Potomac, Maryland

• • • • 1. What about someone like me, diagnosed at age 52 with metatastic lung cancer. I never smoked and I ate a healthy diet, exercised regularly, and maintained a good weight. Just bad luck, I guess, that I had a mutation that predisposed me to the disease. Smokers at least have an inkling that trouble may lurk down the road.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 1:15 p.m.

        • Recommend1

• • • • • smg

        • seattle

• • • • 1. While cancer is practically synonymous with fear, not all cancers are created equal. We would do well to couple investments in heatlh education with investments in treatment.

        2. The more we can achieve an understanding that yes, some tumors are indolent and that some will even spontaneously regress, the more we can focus energies on rationally understanding the diagnostic process, and make choices that are well informed vs. reflexive and born from anxiety. All too often, people learn they have a tumor (or elevated PSA) and leap to the conclusion that the tumor--which has probably been growing slowly for years, is suddenly doubling in size, by dint of being discovered. Fear-mongering has got to be curtailed if we are to have any success in helping increase recognition of the over-diagnosis phenomenon.

        3. Two words every student needs to learn at some point in their educational life: "indolent," and "incidentaloma..."

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 1:15 p.m.

        • Recommend

• • • • • John Kuntz

        • CLEARLAKE, CA.

• • • • 1. Started dealing with bladder cancer 7-years ago, also squamus skin cancer. 5-operations on bladder. Early detection is deffinitly adviseable. Personal research is also a big help understanding what the doctors know or don't know. There is an awful lot that doctors don't tell you for fear of a lawsuit. There is much understanding to be gained by getting information from organizations like Mayo Clinic through the internet. You know how your body feels. Communication with doctors can sometimes leave you in a void. I have stopped treatment on bladder two years ago. Trying too create family records of sort involving major illness's. Personal research will give you a perspective and understanding for calmness. At 77 years old, I consider the disease and the time left as well as the time spent and pass this information on too the family. Do participate in testing on their advice. But how you choose to treat yourself might be answered best by yourself after your personal research. Resp. Jack

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 11:52 a.m.

        • Recommend

• • • • • K.

        • Ann Arbor MI

          1. NYT Pick

• • • • 1. "It estimates that such screening could save 20,000 lives a year"

        2. Interesting term, that..."saving lives."

        3. No life can be "saved" from death in the long run...what the doctors are trying to do is "prevent premature death." Is death at 79 really "premature?"

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.

        • Recommend1

• • • • • EveT

        • Connecticut

• • • • 1. What a shame that, some 5 decades after the famed Surgeon General's report, our population still has so many people who "smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years or two packs a day for 15 years." We all know how bad tobacco is. Yet millions continue to use it.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.

        • Recommend4

• • • • • Robert C. Leif

        • San Diego, CA

• • • • 1. The best solution is to improve the diagnosis. In the case of cervical cancer, the lesion is easily accessible and in women past child bearing age and the morbidity associated with treatment is often much less than with other cancers, such as lung. This is one of the reasons for the acceptance of cervical cytology. The use of HPV testing has also improved the accuracy of screening.

        2. One of the solutions for other types of screening is to develop minimally invasive second steps to verify the diagnosis. Fortunately, molecular techniques can now be used to augment morphology. The present combination stain for pathology, hematoxylin and eosin was independently introduced in in 1865 and 1875. Therefore it has been around for at least 138 years http://www.scribd.com/doc/115968647/H-E-Staining. Fortunately, new technologies including new dyes and diagnostic agents and detection technologies that are specific for individual types of molecules are being and have been developed. There is a reasonable chance that the use of these new technologies together with fine needle biopsies can serve as a second step that will improve the accuracy of pathology and ability of pathologists to grade specimens and therefore reduce the need for more invasive and expensive procedures.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.

        • Recommend

• • • • • victor888

        • Lexington MA

• • • • 1. The more various screening tests are studied, the less useful and more harmful they seem to be. Early detection often just means living longer with a diagnosis but dying at the same age. PSA, mammograms and colonoscopy fall into this category of screening tests that are not nearly as useful as was once thought.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.

        • Recommend2

• • • • • SayNoToChemo

        • Chico, CA

• • • • 1. Someday, genetic sequencing will identify the exact cancer(s) involved, then using a masking form of mRNA derived from one's own stem cells will allow one's own biology to repair itself, but we are not there yet. Separate to the disease of cancer is the use of chemotherapy and radiation. Unfortunately, many people including doctors singularly combine the disease of cancer and the treatment of it - with automatic chemotherapy. Unfortunately, most people can not survive the types of chemotherapy which basically kill all cells, both cancer and healthy. Once the patient is at Death's door, the treating physician attempts to retrieve the patient with blood transfusions, bone marrow transplants, antibiotics, bed rest in ICU and finally, the patient's own biological ability to recover. If the patient dies during this procedure the cause of death will be listed as "death from cancer" when in fact the patient has died from chemotherapy poisoning. IOWs, the cure is worst than the disease. Over 100 years ago mercury was used to attempt cures of cancer, syphilis and other diseases. The death from mercury poisoning is beyond description.

        2. As with mercury so it is with the common agents used in chemotherapy. Once one has been exposed it must be remembered that there is no cure for chemotherapy. It is not a question of how strong one can fight or how much pain one can endure. Yes, the chemo agents will wash out from the patient's body but the damage they have caused can not be reversed.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.

        • Recommend

• • • • • Ann Cameron

        • Panajachel, Guatemala

• • • • 1. I had lung cancer in lymph nodes between my lungs diagnosed in November 2012 by PET scan as "avid for sugar" and "growing rapidly." I drank the juice of five pounds of carrots a day--this comes to a quart and a cup of juice. In eight weeks a scan showed the tumors stopped growing. A new scan shows that the cancer is gone. In five months I cured myself without chemo or radiation, just with carrots. Details on this at the sites CancerIsOver.org and ChrisBeatCancer.com The anti-cancer chemicals in carrots have been proved at a lower dose, to retard the growth of tumors in lab rats in UK experiments. I think trying carrots beats chemo and radiation by far and unlike those treatments, does no harm. I am not the only one who has been cured this way, and I believe it could help millions. If treatment weren't often so terribly damaging, if it were carrots or turmeric or kale in the diet, treating early wouldn't hurt.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.

        • Recommend

• • • • • Dave

        • SC

• • • • 1. I suspect that CT scans are actually underused. Radiation risk of CT scans is based on assumptions that many experts regard as dubious. Costs of machines to the public are greater when machines are used below their capacity much as a metro bus may be cost ineffective if used by too few passengers. I know that these statements go against common beliefs about how to hold down medical costs. However, CT scans can detect brain and heart aneurysms, early cancers, and many other conditions that now escape early treatment. A laudable goal would be to reduce costs of CT scans and make their use more widely available. Who wouldn't like to know that they have a brain aneurysm waiting to burst or other life-limiting condition that could be corrected, for example. Society should move forward and embrace technologies that can improve life.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.

        • Recommend5

• • • • • jb

        • new york

• • • • 1. In the case of heavy current smokers, why should society (Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance plans) bear the costs of lung cancer treatment when for over 50 years the links between smoking and lung cancer have been well known?

        2. Long time, heavy smokers should just know that lung cancer is inevitable and the insurance plans should exclude diagnosis and treatment for such individuals.

        3. For other cancers, the links are not that we'll known at this point in it and there are uncontrollable genetic and environmental factors.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.

        • Recommend3

• • • • • Robert Y

        • St. Louis, MO

• • • • 1. I am professionally involved in the early diagnosis of lung, breast, and thyroid malignancy. The mantra of "lives will be saved if we catch it early" is undergoing some revision. It turns out that what we call "cancer" is a more heterogeneous group of diseases that we in the medical community and especially in the lay community once believed.

        2. Every day, people are harmed by early diagnosis of cancer--physically, emotionally, and financially. We must continue to support research that will help us differentiate aggressive cancer that can indeed be cured if detected earlier from the cancer that will unfortunately kill no matter when it is found and from the so-called cancer that is not aggressive and better left alone or simply monitored. We have a very long way to go in making these distinctions, and until we do, we will continue to practice and live in a confusing mess of mixed signals and recommendations.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:45 a.m.

        • Recommend35

• • • • • Linda

        • NYC

• • • • 1. There are occasions when the answer is so clear, so definitive, almost obvious. Other times, it's a matter of weighing the options, at least for the lucky people who have options.

        2. Some people want to politicize this or use it as an opportunity to accuse health-care providers of corruption. To me, it's life, and life is mostly gray areas. Please, for heaven's sake, give the doctors a break. If you really think they're all corrupt and want to do treatments just to enrich themselves -- which is really evil --then don't go to them. (That works well, doesn't it.)

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:44 a.m.

        • Recommend8

• • • • • Ann Wyrick

        • Red Hook, NY

• • • • 1. I, for one, feel that I am not a breast cancer survivor as much as a Breast Cancer Industry victim. The last treatment was the most heartless and I opted for this treatment myself, to avoid more testing and more x-ray. Pitiful to be so frightened as to be willing to undergo disfiguring and barbaric surgery to feel almost 'cancer free'.

        2. Earlier in my life I was part of the hysterectomy hysteria and opted for that organ to be removed, for no reason, in the end.

        3. Ah woe to women who get suckered into the 'cancer industry' scares

        4. .

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:00 a.m.

        • Recommend7

• • • • • Coolhunter

        • NJ

• • • • 1. If you think all this is confusing, wait until the Obamacare 'Death Panels' kick in. Then science will take a back seat to economics. Each year the Panel will decide how much we can spend on health care, and then allocate it so that effective rationing takes place. You live in a dream world if you think patients and doctors will be in charge of health care decisions, government will decide if you live or die. Welcome to a brave new world where science takes a back seat to dollars.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:00 a.m.

        • Recommend

          1. Read All 8 Replies

• • • • • Elizabeth

        • Seoul

• • • • 1. So much of whether this new recommendation is viewed in a positive or a negative light depends on one's own approach to medicine, health, and life expectations, as well as on the experiences of both self and family.

        2. I watched my father and grandfather plunge headlong into every treatment that a doctor prescribed for my grandmother, leading to a long and painful decline for her. My own approach to medicine is that I am the one who gets to decide what treatment--if any--is right for me. There are plenty of screenings I do not do because I know I would not pursue treatment. However, what is right for me may not be right for anyone else.

        3. It is time for medical professionals to talk frankly and openly with patients about what screenings can and cannot do--and what their own prejudices and beliefs about medicine and health are. Honest communications among patients, caregivers, and providers are what have been missing from too many screening-and-treatment conversations.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:00 a.m.

        • Recommend4

• • • • • Betsy S

        • Upstate NY

• • • • 1. Anyone who has observed a loved one dying from a disease like prostate cancer will be reluctant to just wait and see how it turns out when early tests suggest the presence of the disease. It's not a trivial decision and statistics don't help much..

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 8:00 a.m.

        • Recommend11

• • • • • Nancy

        • New York

• • • • 1. Thank you for this highly accurate and realistic editorial - vs the fanatical 'do this, do that' articles that have dominated the cancer news lately. The anti-screeners are as shameful as the over--screeners.

        2. Early detection and even more so cancer prevention are not one-size-fits all approaches. That's too bad since they are by far the best ways to avoid dying of cancer at the present time. Both require excellent doctors giving excellent advice to individual patients. It's well known that 50% of the cancer deaths in the US today could be prevented over the next 20 years by a combination of prevention and early detection. So to oppose these life-saving measures by blanket orders seems indecent to me.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.

        • Recommend3

• • • • • DJK.

        • Cleveland, OH

• • • • 1. I have seen this info before and am bothered by the way prostate cancer is described. In reality there are aggressive forms and very slow growing forms. Not testing means those with aggressive forms will not be treated early enough to save lives. I don't think it's the testing. It's the recommendations and information supplied afterwards that have patients being treated when it's not necessary.

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.

        • Recommend17

• • • • • Dr. Dave

        • Ann Arbor

• • • • 1. The editorial speaks of a 16% reduction in risk of lung cancer deaths in those high risk big time smokers screened with CT scans in the lung cancer screening trial.

        2. This relative risk reduction of 16% is the same as an absolute risk reduction of 1/3 % ( one third of a percent), changing the five-year death rate from lung cancer in this high risk population of big time smokers from 1.66% to 1.33 %. In other words, reducing the risk of death of lung cancer by one in three hundred (1 in 300) for this high risk population of big time smokers.

        3. Is the cost- in terms of money, time spent by those who are screened, time spent by those who screen, time away from productive work, anxiety about test results good or bad- and so many more factors- worth it?

• • • • • Aug. 5, 2013 at 7:58 a.m.

        • Recommend3

Thank you for having published our comment which is in the rich tradition of open communications, transparency and public debate  (short of cacophony) that characterize pluralistic societies and the NYT. In searching for the reply to this submission, beyond its publication - I could not find any relevant comments.

Ferez S. Nallaseth, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator and Consultant - Life Sciences

Life Sciences Institute

229 Parsons Court

Belle Mead, New Jersey 08502, USA

Tel: 646 283 5163 (M)

       908 431 5069 (H, O)

Skype Address: ferez.nallaseth

Websites:

http://sites.google.com/site/nallasethfs

http://www.google.com/profiles?q=ferez+nallaseth

https://sites.google.com/site/fereznsquashdocs

LinkedIn Profile:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ferez-soli-nallaseth/14/2a7/311

Twitter address:

https://twitter.com/fnallase1

Your Comment on DNA Research Points to New Insight Into Cancers

The New York Times

----------------------------------------

Thank you for participating on NYTimes.com. A reply to your published submission can be found at this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/health/dna-research-points-to-new-insight-into-cancers.html?comments#permid=68

----------------------------------------

ABOUT THIS E-MAIL

You received this message because you signed up for

NYTimes.com's Comments Notifications. As a member of the

BBBOnline Privacy Program and the TRUSTe privacy program,

we are committed to protecting your privacy.

To unsubscribe from this e-mail, go to:

http://www.nytimes.com/gst/unsub.html?email=ferez.nallaseth@gmail.com&id=29747032&group=nl&product=CR

To change delivery or format options, change your e-mail

address or sign up for other newsletters, go to:

http://www.nytimes.com/email

Suggestions and feedback are welcome at:

feedback@nytimes.com

NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Copyright 2013 The New York Times Company

15% full

Using 1.6 GB of your 10.1 GB

©2013 Google - Terms & Privacy

Last account activity: 7 hours ago

Details

Dear Ferez S. Nallaseth,

Thank you for taking the time to write The New York Times.

We want to ensure you that we take our reader’s suggestions and opinions very seriously. We value this feedback and use it to make the New York Times the best it can be.

Please continue to provide us with your feedback so we may strive to serve you better.

Sincerely,

Zack Palmitier

Online Customer Care

1-800-NYTIMES

www.nytimes.com/help

-----Original Message-----

From:  ferez.nallaseth@gmail.com

Sent:  5/2/2013 10:58:27 AM

To:  "Care, Customer"

Subject:  Re: Your New York Times Inquiry

Zack Palmitier

 Online Customer Care

 The New York Times

 www.nytimes.com/help

Dear Zack Palmitier,

The comment was posted, an acknowledgement sent to this email address and after sometime it was removed from the online postings on the NYT. Several subsequent attempts failed to post this comment.

This comment is perfectly valid, in the Public Interest and addresses the enormous misplacement of Public Funds to a process that would be far more productive as listed on our website. The attempt to illustrate this discrepancy in our comment reduces the article to an advertisement and leaves the New York Times responsible for something that it professes undermines Public Debate in a Pluralistic system - censorship!

Sincerely,

Ferez S. Nallaseth, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator and Consultant - Life Sciences

Life Sciences Institute

229 Parsons Court

Belle Mead, New Jersey 08502, USA

Tel: 646 283 5163 (M)

        908 431 5069 (H, O)

Skype Address: ferez.nallaseth

Websites:

http://sites.google.com/site/nallasethfs

http://www.google.com/profiles?q=ferez+nallaseth

 https://sites.google.com/site/fereznsquashdocs

LinkedIn Profile:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ferez-soli-nallaseth/14/2a7/311

 Twitter address:

https://twitter.com/fnallase1

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM,   wrote:

 Dear Ferez S. Nallaseth,

 Thank you for contacting NY Times.

 We apologize for any inconvenience you are experiencing.

 Since comments are moderated, they do not appear on the site until they have been approved. Comments are typically posted faster during business hours. Moderation can be less frequent in the evening and on weekends. Comments by Verified Commenters appear on the site without prior moderation. Comments are displayed directly below articles and blog posts. We reserve the right to display comments in a variety of ways, including within the text of articles or in advertisements.

 If there is anything else we can do to help you, please e-mail us at customercare@nytimes.com or call us at 1-800-NYTIMES (1-800-698-4637) from 5 a.m. to midnight Monday-Friday and 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday & Sunday (ET).

 Your satisfaction is very important to us and we thank you for your feedback.

 Sincerely,

 Zack Palmitier

 Online Customer Care

 The New York Times

 www.nytimes.com/help

 -----Original Message-----

 From:  ferez.nallaseth@gmail.com

 Sent:  5/2/2013 10:33:29 AM

 To:  "Care, Customer"

 Subject:  Re: Comments for article on cancer.

 Dear Editor,

 I am concerned that my comments for this article will not be accepted by and posted to the online issues NYT:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/health/dna-research-points-to-new-insight-into-cancers.html?hpw

 The comment:

 A  dawning that should have occurred with only a small fraction of decades  of work! Next - understand & preempt the causes of these  'fingerprints' (mutations?) which is their escape from Mechanisms  maintaining Chromosomes/Genomes in Mammalian Homeostasis &  Development by including Evolutionary Diversity, Hybrid Zones &  Genetics, Histograms, hundreds of Genomic Targets & traditional  Science in Systematizing them! The dawning of the age of Functional  Mammalian Genomics on a par with dSLAM in Yeast.

  less                                                                                                                                                                                                     http://lnkd.in/EzV8KF                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      DNA Research Points to New Insight Into Cancers                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 nytimes.com                                                                                                                                                                           To the surprise of scientists, the  most dangerous cancers of the uterine lining closely resemble the worst  ovarian and breast cancers, raising the tantalizing possibility that the  three deadly cancers might respond to the same...

 If this is not a technical problem, as someone who has studied the issue (http://sites.google.com/site/nallasethfs) and  understands the limitations of the Biomedical Sciences community in it, this I would consider it an unfortunate lapse by a News Medium with the exceptional record of the New York Times.

 Thanks and regards

 Ferez S. Nallaseth, Ph.D.

 Principal Investigator and Consultant - Life Sciences

 Life Sciences Institute

 229 Parsons Court

 Belle Mead, New Jersey 08502, USA

 Tel: 646 283 5163 (M)

         908 431 5069 (H, O)

 Skype Address: ferez.nallaseth

 Websites:

 http://sites.google.com/site/nallasethfs

 http://www.google.com/profiles?q=ferez+nallaseth

  https://sites.google.com/site/fereznsquashdocs

 LinkedIn Profile:

 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ferez-soli-nallaseth/14/2a7/311

  Twitter address:

 https://twitter.com/fnallase1

NYT On (B) Brain & Mind - Neurosciences

Brain

News about the Brain, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times (copy and paste URL below into your browser):

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/brain/index.html

(C) For additional: NYT articles, peer reviewed publications, on Cancer, Public Health Policies, the Brain, Mind, the Neurosciences and the Analytical Nexus of these Sciences with Sports/Squash please visit:

(1) Page 2 of this website - Selected Abstracts, pdfs, PubMed links and Publications

(2) as well as the Website:

Ferez'nSquashDocs

(D) Comments on news articles, social media posts and our Scientific History/Contributions that address 'Proposal for A Rational Health Policy' or the Neurosciences

(D1) Comment on an Article reproduced on the front Page of The Times of India :''Jaw-dropping' breakthrough hailed as landmark in fight against hereditary diseases as Crispr technique heralds genetic revolution' Art.TOI on Crispr-FSN-Ltr-Editor_11.7.13.pdf

(D2) Letter and comment on an OpEd article in the New York Times by Correspondent Maureen Dowd on David Page's work on 'Why the Y?'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/dowd-why-the-y.html?_r=1&#!.

Letter and comment on an OpEd article entitled 'Why the Y?' by Correspondent Maureen Dowd on Dr. David Page's work. NYT - LiI.corr.1.11.2014.pdf

The links to our publications qouted in the above article (D2) maybe inactive but are re-posted below for convenient access:

(1) Nallaseth-YPos-Sequence InstabilityFunctional Inactivation-MBE-9(2)331-1992.pdf

(2) YPos.Interspecific Backcrosses.Mouse Genetics Mtng .6.22-6.25.2011.pdf

(3) DissDevPhyRelRegMammChBiol.Nallaseth et al.GSA.MOHB-CancerGen.WashingtonDC.6.17.2012.pdf

(D3).Destruction and Restoration of the Y chromosome. UCBerk.Times Of India- FSN comment.1.11.2014 .pdf

(D4) Comments on LinkedIn On Epigenetics of Sex Reversal - Evolutionary Implications. LinkedIn Comments - 9.25.2013.pdf

(D5) THE COMPLETE RESPONSE ON LINKEDIN (Disruptive Digital Darwinism Group) TO PETER SHIMON'S POST - 2014 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Life Evolves By A Shared Genetic Tool Kit.1.21.14.pdf

(D6) How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation: a Conversation with (Nobel Laureate) Sydney Brenner, by Dr. Elizabeth Dzeng, Kings Review Magazine/Blog/2014/02/24/

(D7) The Squash.com.au Daily http://paper.li/Squashcomau/1350014352 Squash.com.au (@Squashcomau) mentioned you on Twitter!