scarbrtj
scarbrtj
scarbrtj

Will buy.

Heck, I'm impatient. I went ahead and did a lit search for a brain size vs. IQ dataset, because I was 100% convinced that the slope of the correlation between brain size and IQ was not in the 0.36 neighborhood; I was right. What you were talking about must have been the correlation coefficient, and you must have been

A statistical aside...

1) I never thought about it, but did Einstein really have a small brain? For sure, there's profoundly more variability in human intelligence than there is in human brain size.

Now playing

Argue with Carl, not me... I plagiarized.

Brain size has much more than "zero" correlation to intelligence... which you probably already knew. From a trend perspective, throughout the entire animal kingdom, brain size is very correlatable to intelligence. I'm not surprised that a large study found some linkage between brain size & intelligence for (modern)

"Ashton Kutcher" anagrams to "Hack other nuts."

A 4th dimensional being could transport you through locked doors (and see inside any room without you knowing they're watching you), appear in different points of space simultaneously, and look inside your body and see all your organs and blood without an X-ray (all hypothetically, of course).

Eiskant believe this is true.

To you, and anyone else reading, typing "Cyberknife breast cancer" into Google *does not* equate to "4 or 5 places that are actively treating some types of breast cancer with Cyberknife." No one is *actively*(I'll define that as more than a few percent of patients) treating breast cancer patients with Cyberknife; the

Hey, I hear you. But "My mom died in a plane crash" is not a clear refutation of the claim that air travel is a safe and efficient means of transportation for most travelers, e.g.

If you want to dig further—actually talk to a board-certified radiation oncologist (like me, a Cyberknife user) for a more in-depth and nuanced explanation than a Google search can provide. And FWIW, research essentially equals treatment when it comes to using Cyberknife for breast cancer. The vast majority of any

Really! I was speaking in generalizations, however. So yes, there are some research protocols open looking at Cyberknife to treat (early-stage only) breast cancer. But, >99+% of all women receiving breast cancer radiotherapy will not be treated with Cyberknife (much less protons)... amongst other reasons for this,

No one is using protons or Cyberknife for breast cancer patients... yet. But IMRT, which is not conventional radiation, is used pretty routinely, however, for breast patients.

We don't necessarily "throw chemo" at all triple negative tumors. For example, a 70 year old breast cancer patient with a 1 cm tumor completely removed, no lymph nodes positive, and triple negative disease, would not receive chemotherapy most likely—just surgery and radiation. (Plus, radiation is pretty tolerable for

It's a very high energy light (X-ray) source. Since it's so high energy, the wavelength of the light is very, very small. Very small wavelength light is very good for imaging very small things, like molecules and atoms. This thing takes GREAT pictures of molecules and atoms (before destroying them!).