With so many new methods buried in results-focused papers, this thread is my encouragement to groups to also publish separate protocols papers! You'll be pleasantly surprised at the engagement these papers get, and most importantly they provide real impact aiding others in their science.

Analyses spot on as usual but I do think:
1) the added inflammatory boost is important to study (there are numerous eg of this in less glam outlets)
2) exposes a confounder than might be important for neo-ag vax effects you’ve parsed before

I wonder if there is a way to thread the needle through academic partnerships. Maybe they’d be more nimble

There must be a market for “designer” cell therapies. Ultra wealthy failing on SOC - make them a bespoke product. Antigens, enhancements, etc. Success there maybe sways FDA regulation 🤔

Ansuman Satpathy will engineer T cell states with enhanced anti-cancer activity using synthetic transcription factors to modulate gene expression and advanced machine learning tools.

Yeah it's a weird lineage because it seems like there is a path from canonical-ish effector to Tex that is more intuitive. You're right though - why hedge when your hedge is a bad hand?

I think you're right about a tolerance mechanism. I assume chronic conditions have mostly afflicted individuals past peak-fecundity so there isn't a critical species-level need to clear these, and so the trade-off is to preserve healthy people by limiting immunopathology?

The dented 2000 Toyota Sienna pulled off on a fire road

Right I’d rather acknowledgment of that than the pressure to have significance that is attained by some p hacking but doesn’t actually change the fact that it’s variable/stochastic/complex biology

I distinctly recall a plot in a recent N paper where half the mice responded to checkpoint or something and in the other half there was zero effect. Highly significant though!