Can Roche’s little tech startup help the FDA change clinical trials?

first_img What’s included? @matthewherper Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Senior Writer, Medicine, Editorial Director of Events Matthew covers medical innovation — both its promise and its perils. Can Roche’s little tech startup help the FDA change clinical trials? Tags cancerdrug developmentresearchSTAT+ Log In | Learn More Could a startup founded by two guys in their 20s change the way medical researchers study patients? The Food and Drug Administration is open to the possibility.Flatiron Health began as a small New York tech company trying to use real-world data from patient electronic medical records to replace more traditional clinical trial data. Then it raised $328 million, launched a modest collaboration with the FDA to study the use of its so-called “real-world” data in 2016, and entered partnerships with just about every major drug firm. Last year, it was acquired for $1.9 billion by the Swiss drug giant Roche Holding. About the Author Reprints GET STARTEDcenter_img Matthew Herper Unlock this article — and get additional analysis of the technologies disrupting health care — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. matthew[email protected] By Matthew Herper Feb. 25, 2019 Reprints Health What is it? Zach Weinberg, co-founder, president, and COO of Flatiron Health, speaks at a summit in Washington. Wilde Companylast_img read more

Juggling Terms to Maintain the Illusion of Darwinian Selection

first_imgAdd now the confusion over the unit of selection. Is it the gene? The protein? The cell? The organ? The species? The body plan? The population? The ecosystem? Evolutionary biologists divide into camps supporting classic gradualism, punctuated equilibria, evo-devo, species selection, kin selection, group selection, multilevel selection and more. It would be easy to allege that “selection” is one of the most imprecise terms in all of science. It means whatever it must mean in order to keep those wicked ID people out of the game. Evolution NewsEvolution News & Science Today (EN) provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues, including breaking news about scientific research. It also covers the impact of science on culture and conflicts over free speech and academic freedom in science. Finally, it fact-checks and critiques media coverage of scientific issues. Share The Selection Deception Like stern English teachers, ID advocates would make excellent proofreaders and reviewers of such casuistry given the chance: demanding precise definitions, redlining circular arguments and extrapolations, pointing out invalid inferences. The authors would undoubtedly dislike all the red marks, but science would improve. The number of synonyms indicates that many people have a shared experience encountering it. Synonyms can be short (bosh, bunk, cant), sophisticated (amphigory, rigmarole, balderdash), or emotional (baloney, drivel, gibberish, hooey, rubbish, and a few other unmentionables). Synonym counts escalate with related words like equivocation, casuistry, sophistry, prevarication. Their commonality is an effort to manipulate words to put on airs while communicating no meaningful information. More evolvability with fluff from the University of Zurich, but first, pause and salute for the obligatory Darwin Party PSA: Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share In order to recognize gobbledygook and not be deceived by it, perceptive readers of evolutionary literature need to focus their laser-beam attention on the precise meanings of words. They also need to remain aware of the difference between association and causation. And they must avoid the fallacy of extrapolation: i.e., a particular fact cannot be extended without warrant TagsDarwinian evolutionDarwinismdeceptionDollo’s LawDuke Universityevolutionary biologistsevolutionary biologyfruit fliesgenesgobbledegookHunter FraserIcarusIndiana UniversityNorthern Arizona UniversityPNASpositive selectionSanta Fe Instituteselectionskin colorspeciousnessUC BerkeleyUniversity of Zurichword saladYale University,Trending Selectionists used to teach Dollo’s Law, that once adapted, an organism cannot revert, because the changes become canalized. But evolutionists at Santa Fe Institute claim that evolvability itself evolves! What a convenient theory rescue device. Does the evolution of evolvability evolve, too? How far can one take this game?  Evolution Juggling Terms to Maintain the Illusion of Darwinian SelectionEvolution News @DiscoveryCSCJanuary 28, 2021, 6:58 AM It is important to note that results from all trait-based tests of selection must be treated with caution when trait ascertainment bias is present. Darwinian evolutionists are masters at this kind of empty talk. Their victims are often caught unprepared to encounter or recognize it, because they have been trained to “respect science” and “follow the science” (the popular meme today). Way too much gets mashed together into the concept of “science” to give that word precision: is multiverse theory on the same level as electrodynamics? Black holes with gene sequences? Human evolutionary psychology with titration levels for chemical reactions? Evolutionary biologists are poised at the junction of a rich, meaningful science (biology) with a vague, descriptive concept (evolution). This makes the talkers especially prone to shift deftly toward either end of the spectrum of plausibility between. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share If this seems overstated, look at these recent examples. “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All The only kind of selection potentially able to contribute meaning to Darwinism would be positive selection. Something has to get better — significantly better. A selected variation must gain genetic information that provides new function. Cross off all the other types right now: stabilizing, relaxed, purifying, or any other type that goes down or sideways; even many creationists allow for “horizontal” variations within groups. Darwin’s tree must grow upward. The real-world genetic evidence that Michael Behe has accumulated has only shown survival by breaking things and losing information. One might imagine polar bears from brown bears that way, but not whales from wolves, or sequoias from mosses. Evolutionists claim to measure positive selection, but the reasoning is circular: if a gene survives, it must have been selected, irrespective of the function. But selection is the very question at issue. The Origin of Species Two UC Berkeley evolutionists try again in PNAS to find the elusive selection that makes any difference. Find anything? No; it’s all theoretical. Any positive or directional selection? No, but the graphs show that it “should” happen in their models.  Photo credit: Matt Bero via Unsplash.What are synonyms for saying lots of words without conveying any real meaning?  “Lamarck, come in here: I need you!” Large portraits of Darwin and Lamarck side by side introduce this news from Yale. Apparently, Darwin can’t do without his erstwhile rival at scientific explanation. A Yale University lab mixes natural selection with epigenetic inheritance to upgrade the Origin, saying, “both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms need to be combined in a ‘grand unified theory’ of evolution.” There goes almost a century of neo-Darwinism, the last big patch.center_img In PNAS, Hunter Fraser from Indiana University makes a valiant effort to rigorously measure selection to differentiate it from neutral drift in cases involving hybrids, but it’s all the useless kind of selection. In a hundred instances of the word selection, there’s only stabilizing selection. He mentions “directional selection” but it’s only theoretical, except in trivial examples like male head shape in Hawaiian fruit flies and human skin color, which involve members within species. He cautions wisely,  Word Salad: “incoherent speech consisting of both real and imaginary words, lacking comprehensive meaning, and occurring in advanced schizophrenic states.”Gobbledegook: “language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand.”Speciousness: “pleasing to the eye but deceptive.” A pernicious, ubiquitous term of confusion in evolutionary biology is “selection.” Even 161 years since Darwin put the word on the title page of the Origin, nobody knows what it means. Who or what is the selector? What is it selecting for? How does the concept of selection support Darwin’s dream of a natural world growing and developing into the rich biosphere without guidance or direction? There are many papers publishing “coefficients of selection” on graphs and charts that give an air of precision to the word. There are adjectives that parse selection into various directions: positive selection, negative selection, balancing selection, stabilizing selection, relaxed selection, purifying selection, and more. But that is part of the deception. Since the conclusions were derived by circular reasoning (“Whatever we find, it will support Darwinism”), those adjunct terms become part of the word salad garnished to different tastes. If large gene segments differ between populations, there must have been an explosive radiation. If no genes change much, ah: there is purifying selection at work. Selection selects except when it doesn’t. And since the selector is deemed impersonal, it could not care less what happens. Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour The rest, as already noted, is just fluff. Evolutionists must hang on to evolvability so that the animals don’t get locked in. How that evolvability will work, and what particularly it will select — hey, didn’t you hear that in the speech? Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Our Debt to the Scientific Atheists Everywhere we look in the natural world, there’s evidence of natural selection: the resin armor of a lodgepole pine cone evolved to defend against seed-hungry birds and squirrels; the long neck of a giraffe was evolutionarily favored for reaching high vegetation that the competition can’t touch. We know that natural selection shapes how animals and plants evolve and adapt. But does natural selection also influence an organism’s very capacity to evolve? And if so, to what degree? [Emphasis added.] A Duke evolutionist writing at bioRxiv predicted finding purifying selection in the LTEE, and that it would mostly occur in the “superessential” metabolic genes. The results were so contrary to expectations, he invented a new category “idiosyncratic purifying selection” to describe them and likened it to a game of Jenga. If this is Jenga, “who” is selectively removing the sticks carefully to prevent the tower’s collapse? The only potential instances of improvement the author mentions all occurred from loss of genes, as Behe said. Here was a case where scientists knew the actual ancestral paths, and after 60,000 generations, that’s it? Incidentally, all the trillions of cells were still one species, E. coli.  But lo! He finds directional selection in crop breeding — artificial selection! Darwinians clap nervously. Masters of the Art Darwin and Lamarck at Yale Slippery, Vague, Useless Waste of time. Next. Recommended Positive selection must be significantly greater than tiny steps that might appear to a Darwinist to be an improvement, unless they can be demonstrated to be cumulative. The improvements must also lead to the origin of species and larger taxonomic groups; it cannot occur merely with a species. Look at the variety within the human species; where, though, does history show a landlubber evolving into an Icarus by selection except in fables? No; positive selection, to differentiate Darwinism from random drift or from intelligently-designed front-loading, has to yield mammals from microbes, appealing only to unguided natural processes that “selected” the outcome in hindsight. Yet Darwinists’ main examples in the literature are about tiny variations at the gene or protein level, which fall under the “edge of evolution” according to Behe.  Our primary focus here has been on evolution in laboratory populations. It is unclear whether we should expect a similar impact of selection in natural populations. Naïve students are taught that selection works at the individual level, but evolutionists at Northern Arizona University appeal to multi-level selection to explain whole communities.  Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Selection is a slippery, vague, useless word in evolutionary biology that masks its lack of clarity with gobbledygook. In these seven recent examples from different institutions linked only by reliance on the word “selection,” the possibilities for obfuscation became apparent in practice. Pick your favorite synonym for gobbledygook. Hooey works just fine. last_img read more

NASCAR TV schedule: Aug. 27-Sept. 2, 2018

first_imgWhat channels are NASCAR races on this week? We answer that and give you the weekly NASCAR television listings here in the NASCAR TV schedule.Note: All times are ET. MORE: Get the NBC Sports App | How to find FS1 | Gets FOX Sports Go | How to find NBCSN Monday, August 276 p.m.: NASCAR America, NBCSN/NBC Sports App6 p.m.: NASCAR Race Hub, FS1On MRNnoon: Motorsports Monday (with hosts Woody Cain & Joey Meier)Tuesday, August 285 p.m.: NASCAR America, NBCSN/NBC Sports App6 p.m.: NASCAR Race Hub, FS16 p.m.: Glory Road, “David Pearson and the 1968 Rebel 400,” NBCSN/NBC Sports App6:30 p.m.: Glory Road, “Battle of the Big 3,” (re-air) NBCSN/NBC Sports App9 p.m.: Glory Road, “David Pearson and the 1968 Rebel 400,” (re-air) NBCSN/NBC Sports App9:30 p.m.: Glory Road, “Battle of the Big 3,” (re-air) NBCSN/NBC Sports AppOn MRN7 p.m.: NASCAR Live (with host Mike Bagley)Wednesday, August 2912 a.m.: Glory Road, “David Pearson and the 1968 Rebel 400,” (re-air) NBCSN/NBC Sports App12:30 a.m.: Glory Road, “Battle of the Big 3,” (re-air) NBCSN/NBC Sports App5 p.m.: NASCAR America, NBCSN/NBC Sports App6 p.m.: NASCAR Race Hub, FS1On MRNnoon: Crew Call (with hosts Sammi Jo Francis and Rocko Williams)1 p.m.: NASCAR Coast to Coast (with hosts Kyle Rickey & Hannah Newhouse)Thursday, August 305 p.m.: NASCAR America, NBCSN/NBC Sports App5:30 p.m.: Dale Jr. Download, NBCSN/NBC Sports App6 p.m.: K&N Pro Series East Midwest Melee 150, NBCSN/NBC Sports App6 p.m.: NASCAR Race Hub, FS1Friday, August 31noon: NASCAR Southern Speed: The Legend of Darlington, NBCSN/NBC Sports App1 p.m.: NASCAR Xfinity Series opening practice, NBCSN/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN App)2 p.m.: Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series opening practice, NBCSN/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN5)3 p.m.: NASCAR Xfinity Series practice, NBCSN/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN App)4 p.m.: Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series final practice, NBCSN/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN App)5 p.m.: NASCAR America, NBCSN/NBC Sports App6 p.m.: NASCAR Southern Speed: The Legend of Darlington (re-air), NBCSN/NBC Sports AppOn MRNNoon: The Inside Line (with host Tyler Burnett)1 p.m.: Throwback: 1983 Trans South 500Saturday, September 112:30 p.m.: NASCAR Xfinity Series qualifying, NBCSN/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN App) (UPDATE: Coverage will begin on the NBC Sports App until the conclusion of John McCain coverage on NBC, then Xfinity qualifying will pick up on NBCSN in addition to NBC Sports App as soccer moves over to NBC)1:30 pm.: NASCAR America, NBCSN/NBC Sports App2 p.m.: Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series qualifying, NBCSN/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN App)3 p.m.: NASCAR Xfinity Series Countdown to Green, NBC/NBC Sports App3:30 p.m.: NASCAR Xfinity Series Sport Clips Haircuts VFW 200, NBC/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN3)Sunday, September 23 p.m.: NASCAR RaceDay, FS15 p.m.: NASCAR America Sunday, NBCSN/NBC Sports App5:30 p.m.: Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series Countdown to Green: Darlington, NBCSN/NBC Sports App6 p.m.: Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series Bojangles’ Southern 500, NBCSN/NBC Sports App (Canada: TSN4)10:30 p.m.: Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series postrace, NBCSN/NBC Sports App11 p.m.: NASCAR Victory Lap, NBCSN/NBC Sports Applast_img read more

Ryden’s 65th Scottish Property Review

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img