DHS has proposed removing ICE from airports in regions where sanctuary cities/states are. That would be Newark here in NJ.
Now the geography of Newark is below:
Guess that would work. Not any good for New York however.
We have just posted a Technical Report analyzing them and we believe that they may have some merit but are not as effective as antibody drug conjugates.
It may be worth a read.
Now above is this years Engineering doctoral students. You could not recognize this class if you were from 1971. First we never had hats, second the doctoral gowns were black, the hoods were simple. Below is MIT 1960.
One wonders what these folks will contribute 55 years from now?
I was approached by Antnee, my local squirrel representative, who proceed to tell me that the gang (8 squirrels, 5 chipmunks, 1 fox, 1 rabbit, 2 raccoons) are planning on filing a class action suit against the Governor here in NJ.
The reason is a new tax benefit bill proposed which says:
What we know: New Jersey lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would grant dog and cat owners up to $900 in gross income tax credits to offset the rising costs of caring for a pet. The proposed legislation would give those taxpayers $300 for everyday pet expenses and up to $600 for veterinary bills, totaling a maximum $900 tax break. Qualified expenses would include food, crates, leashes, litter boxes, collars, grooming supplies and toys, annual exams, medications, emergency care and diagnostic testing. By the numbers: New Jersey is the fourth most expensive state for dog ownership in the country, according to MarketWatch. The 2026 study claims that New Jersey owners spend an average of $32,947 throughout their dog's life. That lifetime cost includes $1,129 in puppy costs, $698 in food and treats, $1,084 in boarding and grooming and$1,111 for insurance and vet care.
Now the group states that I provide nuts, seed, clean water, and have from time to time rendered medical and psychological support and that the discrimination in favor of dogs and cats is unconstitutional. They argue that equal protection under the 14th Amendment is being violated, and that I should be eligible to get my $900 for each one of them whom I assist.
Later in the day Freddie the Blue Jay and Rocky the male cardinal stated they wanted to be amicus curia sing they also benefited by my care and upkeep.
Now it is no clear who will file this complaint but I refereed them to my attorney, who is fully aware of my predilections.
There are multiple testing modalities[1]. We have examined them decades ago[2]. Various other markers have been proposed[3]. Ase the UK has just announced[4]:
The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has recommended that all UK nations implement targeted prostate cancer screening for men aged 45 to 61 who have both a BRCA2 gene change that increases cancer risk and a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer. As part of this approach, eligible men would be offered a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test every two years. This final recommendation modifies a draft recommendation the UK NSC made in November 2025, which also included men with BRCA1 gene changes. Since then, the committee has been consulting with organisations, experts and the public, and considering the latest evidence on the risks and benefits of screening these groups, among others. “Today’s announcement will be disappointing for many people, but the PSA test currently used to help detect prostate cancer isn’t effective enough to support wider screening, as shown in multiple large-scale trials,” explains Dr Ian Walker, Cancer Research UK’s Executive Director of Policy. “Screening should only be introduced when the benefits outweigh the harms, including unnecessary and invasive overtreatment, and right now, the evidence is only strong enough to screen men aged 45 to 61 with BRCA2 gene changes and a relevant family history.” We now urge governments across the UK to accept the UK NSC’s recommendation and begin to implement targeted screening. At the same time, they should continue to invest in research that brings us closer to effective screening for more men. We also aim to be part of that work. Over the past three years, Cancer Research UK has invested £28m to find new and better ways to prevent, detect and treat cancer, and we will continue to help more men affected by prostate cancer live longer, better lives.
MedCityNews notes[5]:
On Wednesday, 60 organizations representing providers and patients with cancer submitted a letter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health and Human Services, urging him to protect the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). USPSTF is an independent panel of experts in disease prevention. It provides recommendations for clinical preventive services like screenings, counseling services and medications. However, the task force hasn’t convened in over a year. And last week, Kennedy fired the vice chairs of USPSTF: John Wong, a professor of medicine at Tufts University, and Esa Davis, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland.
Ironically the USPSTF had taken a stand comparable to the UK, Namely, limit PSA testing. Just to put things in perspective, PSA and %Free tests cost about $50. Here in the US one can get them at Quest and other Labs without a doctors order. If one were to be tested ever six months, and the results examined over time, then any significant change would present as a warning.
We have shown decades ago that PSA was useful, but only if examined in an ongoing temporal mode. Most physicians do not do this, they just look at the most recent. Thus is one’s PSA goes from 1.2 to 2.8 in six months, I would recommend another three months later and then a biopsy.
Your survival is in your hands. Is it worth $100 a year? I would think so.
Posts
All Comments
