So

what brought you to the point you were like, we got to do something about this? My body was failing me.

Yeah.

My body was failing me bad.

My back was hurting all day.

I remember.

I had chronic pain.

It is an actual thing that happens in this world.

So if someone says they're getting chemo versus someone says they're getting radiation, you're more worried about the chemo person than the radiation person? In general, but

again, this is starting to get a little bit more in the clinical area where I wouldn't be able to speak with confidence.

But what I would say is, Typically, there's a couple of other things that factor into that.

There's this thing called the mitotic index, how rapidly the cells in your cancer subtype are dividing.

And if they're dividing super quickly, you're a good candidate for chemo.

But if they're not, you're not because there's nothing to inhibit if they're not dividing super quickly.

So there's a bunch of other factors I would go into.

But then you eventually have to stop doing that, right? Doesn't it just go right back on?

Hmm.

'Cause the key is that cancer cells, unlike your senescent cells, are constantly dividing, so there's more opportunities to develop the mutations that will randomly cause that epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition.

Whereas your normal cells aren't getting that opportunity, and they have those error check programs that would stop them before they start misbehaving too badly.

Cancer cells don't have those brakes and checks, so they keep rolling the dice until they develop that epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition.

This is also why certain cancer subtypes are much harder to treat than others.

Ones that pick up mutations that more readily prime them for that epithelial-mesenchymal transition are gonna be way more aggressive in their metastasis, in their spread, in their progression.

Whereas ones that are more organized have mutations that don't lend itself to that epithelial-mesenchymal transitions will stay in place a lot better.

Oh.

The rule is what I have set forth.

Well, I too am thrilled to be chatting with Eugene about this.

This is a topic we've discussed over the years on and off as it comes up.

Let me set out a few basic principles of my way of thinking about things.

The first thing is, while the government certainly has all sorts of powers to do all sorts of things, those powers are by definition limited by the amendments, the First Amendment in particular in this instance.

So while the government might have the power to ban speech, to take your money and give it to someone else for speech, all of those things, One has to ask the second question, but does the First Amendment limit that? So conceding that in a sort of natural understanding of what government does, you might think government can speak, because why not? It can do everything else.

I would ask the question, does the First Amendment limit that power some way? And I agree with Eugene that it is unusual for the government to have the power to compel you to do something, but not to urge you to do something.

Okay.

It's silly to just insist that this one kind of definition that you're probably wrong about anyway is the one that everyone is using for all times and places and contexts.

I'm fine giving Richard Dawkins that the definition he uses is a correct definition of sex.

It's just not the one that I would use in that situation.

In the same way, when I'm growing a plate of cells, I'm not going to use the sex cell definition of sex.

I'm going to use the chromosome definition of sex.

And then even further, right, if I silence all of the Y chromosome, I'm probably going to identify those plates of cells as female even though they have 2X chromosomes.

Let's say I silence using these things called silencing RNAs, right? Basically, every time the Y chromosome is trying to make a protein, I shut it down before it even has a chance to make it.

Hmm.