Featured Stories
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust: Patients With a Form of Advanced Lung Cancer Lived 56 Per Cent Longer Without Their Disease Progressing After Receiving Radiotherapy in Addition to Standard Treatment
LONDON, England, Oct. 27 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Patients with a form of advanced lung cancer lived 56 per cent longer without their disease progressing after receiving radiotherapy in addition to standard treatment
Primary results from the SARON trial found the addition of radiotherapy to standard treatment plans improved progression-free survival by five months
26 October 2026
Patients with an advanced form of lung cancer lived 56 per cent longer without their disease progressing when radiotherapy was added to the standard
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Oct. 27 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Patients with a form of advanced lung cancer lived 56 per cent longer without their disease progressing after receiving radiotherapy in addition to standard treatment
Primary results from the SARON trial found the addition of radiotherapy to standard treatment plans improved progression-free survival by five months
26 October 2026
Patients with an advanced form of lung cancer lived 56 per cent longer without their disease progressing when radiotherapy was added to the standardof care whole-body therapy, including chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy, according to initial results from a clinical trial presented at the 2026 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.
The findings from the SARON trial were presented by Dr Fiona McDonald, Consultant Thoracic Clinical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Leader of the Thoracic Radiotherapy Group at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, who is also Chief Investigator of the SARON trial.
A focus on oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer
For many patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a type of lung cancer which has spread to a small number of secondary sites at the time of diagnosis, the standard treatment is a whole-body, or 'systemic' approach. This involves either chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or a combination of both.
The aim of the SARON trial was to understand how additional local consolidation radiotherapy, a type of high dose radiotherapy delivered with the aim of controlling a cancer, to the affected areas could improve outcomes for patients.
From 19 centres across the UK, the Phase II randomised controlled trial selected 140 patients with between one and five metastases in three or fewer organs and randomised them equally. Half received the standard of care systemic treatment and the other half received local consolidation radiotherapy in addition to the standard treatment.
The latter group received high-dose radiotherapy to all known sites of disease, including the primary lung cancer, nearby lymph nodes, and secondary tumours elsewhere in the body. Depending on the size and location of the tumour being treated, this could involve stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SBRT), a highly accurate form of radiotherapy that delivers high-dose treatment to small, well-defined tumours.
Progression time slowed for patients who received local consolidation radiotherapy
After a median follow-up period of 37.4 months, researchers observed that, for patients who received radiotherapy, their cancer did not progress for an average of 13.9 months. This is a 56 per cent increase when compared to the average of 8.9 months experienced by those receiving the standard of care systemic treatment alone.
Researchers also discovered that the number of patients who experienced progression of the initial sites of disease within 12 months (meaning the tumour continued to grow in those areas following their treatment) was only 13 per cent for the group who received local consolidation radiotherapy, compared to 39.5 per cent of patients who received the standard of care systemic treatment alone.
In addition, the trial radiotherapy was well tolerated without any significant reduction in the quality of life that patients experienced.
When examining overall survival (OS), the length of time beginning from randomisation within the trial that a patient remained alive, the results were similar, with a median OS of 31 months for patients in the radiotherapy arm of the trial and 28 months for patients in the control (standard treatment) arm of the trial.
* * *
Julie Moran, SARON trial participant
"The treatment worked remarkably well and, six years later, I'm still stable."
* * *
"Until now, there has been limited randomised evidence about the benefits of adding radiotherapy to the standard of care systemic treatment for patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)," explains Chief Investigator, Dr Fiona McDonald.
"The SARON trial has provided important data in this context, demonstrating a significant improvement in progression-free survival without compromising quality of life. It is an exemplar of national collaboration, and these types of studies are crucial for informing personalised treatment approaches for patients."
'The staff at The Royal Marsden were superb'
Julie Moran, 69, from Buckinghamshire, a former Senior Cardiac Technician, contracted COVID during lockdown in March 2020. After experiencing long COVID symptoms, she had a CT scan in September 2020 at a local hospital which led to a diagnosis of oligometastatic lung cancer.
She was subsequently referred to The Royal Marsden for treatment, where she was enrolled onto the SARON trial.
"In a way, COVID saved my life. Without it, my symptoms might have gone under the radar," says Julie.
"It's strange to be diagnosed with lung cancer after working in heart and lung care for so long, because you can really see it from the patient's perspective. Even after seeing so many ECG scans throughout my career, when I saw my own one, it was off the scale.
"The staff at The Royal Marsden were superb and they made sure I knew what my options were and exactly what to expect. After joining the trial, I received immunotherapy followed by radiotherapy. The treatment worked remarkably well and, six years later, I'm still stable. I was able to return to work and, now I'm retired, I get to spend lots more time with my grandchildren and great-grandchild."
The SARON trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and sponsored by University College London (UCL). Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre (UCL CTC) coordinate the trial and acknowledge the support and the grant funded by Cancer Research UK.
The CyberKnife at The Royal Marsden, a machine which delivers SBRT to some SARON patients, was funded by The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/patients-form-advanced-lung-cancer-lived-56-cent-longer-without-their-disease
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust: New Treatment Combination Shows Promising Results in Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer
LONDON, England, Oct. 27 (TNSxrep) -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
New treatment combination shows promising results in recurrent head and neck cancer
77 per cent of patients with HPV-unrelated recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma saw their tumours respond to the treatment
25 October 2026
A treatment combination including the targeted therapy amivantamab shrank tumours in more than three-quarters of patients with a hard-to-treat form of recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer, according to
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Oct. 27 (TNSxrep) -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
New treatment combination shows promising results in recurrent head and neck cancer
77 per cent of patients with HPV-unrelated recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma saw their tumours respond to the treatment
25 October 2026
A treatment combination including the targeted therapy amivantamab shrank tumours in more than three-quarters of patients with a hard-to-treat form of recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer, according toresults from an international clinical trial.
Researchers from The Institute of Cancer Research, London, and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust took part in the global study, which found that amivantamab, given alongside the immunotherapy pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, achieved tumour responses in 77 per cent of patients with HPV-unrelated recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
The findings, which were presented today at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2026 in Madrid, are particularly encouraging because the current first-line treatment of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy shrinks tumours in 36 per cent of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.
The results come from Cohort 5 of the international OrigAMI-4 clinical trial, which is supported by The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity and is being conducted at 56 sites across 11 countries. The trial is evaluating amivantamab both as a standalone treatment and in combination with other therapies.
In earlier cohorts, investigators saw that tumours shrank in 42 per cent of patients treated with amivantamab alone and 56 per cent with amivantamab plus pembrolizumab.
HPV-unrelated cancers are typically harder to treat
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is the most common type of head and neck cancer. Patients whose cancer has spread to other parts of the body or returned after treatment often face poor outcomes, and many do not benefit from existing therapies.
Head and neck cancers can broadly be divided into HPV-related and HPV-unrelated disease. HPV-related cancers are caused by infection with human papillomavirus and generally have better outcomes. HPV-unrelated cancers are typically harder to treat and associated with poorer survival.
Researchers have been investigating whether amivantamab, a bispecific antibody that targets the cancer-driving proteins EGFR and MET, can improve outcomes for these patients.
One in 10 patients had no detectable cancer following treatment
Cohort 5 of the Phase Ib/II OrigAMI-4 study evaluated amivantamab in combination with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for recurrent and/or metastatic disease in patients whose tumours expressed PD-L1.
In total, 30 patients received treatment and 29 were included in the analysis.
Among 22 patients with HPV-unrelated disease, 17 achieved a confirmed response, resulting in an objective response rate of 77 per cent. Three patients achieved a complete response, meaning no detectable cancer remained, while 14 achieved a partial response.
Four patients had stable disease and one experienced disease progression. At the time of analysis, 11 of the 17 patients who responded to treatment continued to see their tumour shrink or remain stable.
Among seven patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, two achieved a partial response, giving an objective response rate of 29 per cent.
The findings have led investigators to take this regimen forward into the global Phase III OrigAMI-5 study, which is comparing amivantamab, pembrolizumab and chemotherapy with standard treatment in patients with HPV-unrelated recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC.
Combined regimen to be continued as a global phase III trial
"These findings are particularly encouraging because the strongest activity was seen in patients with HPV-unrelated disease, who typically have poorer outcomes and fewer effective treatment options than patients with HPV-related cancers," says Professor Kevin Harrington, Professor of Biological Cancer Therapies at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Consultant Clinical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
"We observed tumour responses in 77 per cent of patients in this group. Current pembrolizumab-based chemotherapy has achieved response rates of around 36 per cent, so this level of activity is very exciting.
"The decision to take this regimen forward into a global Phase III trial reflects the confidence these results have given us and provides an important opportunity to determine whether it can improve outcomes for patients."
'As a mum of three young children, this trial gives me hope'
Holly, a 29-year-old Royal Marsden patient from County Durham, was diagnosed with stage one tongue cancer in April 2025, while pregnant with her third child. She underwent surgery to remove part of her tongue during pregnancy, followed by surgery to remove lymph nodes in her neck and six weeks of radiotherapy after giving birth. However, a year later, her cancer returned, and she was told it was incurable.
"When I was told my cancer was incurable and that there were no other treatment options available to me at my local hospital, I was desperate to find another way forward," says Holly.
"I contacted Professor Harrington at The Royal Marsden, whose open-minded approach and extensive knowledge gave me hope and made me excited about the possibility of joining the OrigAMI-5 trial. I started the triple-combination treatment in July.
"Scans have already shown a 60 per cent reduction in my cancer and the intense pain I was previously experiencing disappeared within the first few weeks of starting treatment.
"As a mum of three young children, being given another treatment option has meant everything to me. When I thought there was nothing else that could be done, the trial gave me hope."
The OrigAMI-4 trial is supported by The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/new-treatment-combination-shows-promising-results-recurrent-head-and-neck
Reason Foundation: RFK Jr. is Right to Expand Consumer Access to Peptides
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
RFK Jr. is right to expand consumer access to peptides
Allowing pharmacies to compound experimental peptides would give consumers a more accountable alternative to unregulated sellers.
Jeffrey A. Singer
Senior Fellow
October 26, 2026
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently offered a sensible rationale for wanting to expand consumer access to experimental peptides, which have attracted growing interest among fitness enthusiasts and people seeking injury recovery, weight loss,
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
RFK Jr. is right to expand consumer access to peptides
Allowing pharmacies to compound experimental peptides would give consumers a more accountable alternative to unregulated sellers.
Jeffrey A. Singer
Senior Fellow
October 26, 2026
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently offered a sensible rationale for wanting to expand consumer access to experimental peptides, which have attracted growing interest among fitness enthusiasts and people seeking injury recovery, weight loss,and anti-aging treatments. During an appearance on Fox News' "The Will Cain Show," Oct. 20, he explained, "Americans are going to be buying these anyway." He said the administration wants a regulated marketplace where consumers receive what sellers claim to provide and factories undergo inspection.
Kennedy's comments come as the administration considers easing restrictions on pharmacies that compound customized medications containing certain peptides. He is on the right track. Letting pharmacies supply these products gives consumers a better chance of knowing what they are getting and holds suppliers accountable for what they sell.
Peptides are short chains of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Many act as chemical messengers, binding to receptors on cells and signaling them to release hormones or alter other bodily functions. Scientists can synthesize these molecules or modify them to produce specific effects. Physicians have prescribed peptide medicines for decades. Insulin is a familiar example. Semaglutide, sold as Ozempic and Wegovy, mimics a hormone that regulates appetite and blood sugar. Each peptide has its own effects, benefits, and risks.
At its July 23 and 24 meeting, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee considered seven experimental peptides for the list of substances pharmacies may use in compounding. FDA staff recommended against adding any of them, citing safety concerns and insufficient evidence of effectiveness. The advisory committee nevertheless recommended adding six. Those votes were recommendations and they did not themselves change the rules.
The market extends well beyond the seven peptides the committee considered. Promoters market BPC-157 and TB-500 for tissue repair, injury recovery, and pain relief. MOTS-c attracts interest for metabolic health, exercise performance, and longevity, while Semax is promoted for mental sharpness and brain health. Products such as CJC-1295 stimulate growth-hormone release and attract consumers seeking muscle growth and faster recovery. These are advertised or hoped-for benefits, and the supporting human evidence varies considerably. The FDA's July assessments describe substantial gaps in that evidence.
Retatrutide, often called "reta," has also attracted consumers seeking weight loss. It activates three hormone receptors involved in appetite and metabolism, compared with the single receptor targeted by semaglutide. Researchers are still testing retatrutide in clinical trials, and the FDA has not approved it, although some sellers already offer products bearing its name. The FDA says retatrutide cannot be used in compounding under current federal law. For ordinary pharmacy compounding, the law generally requires bulk ingredients to meet an applicable U.S. Pharmacopeia standard, be components of FDA-approved medicines, or appear on an FDA list of permitted substances. Retatrutide currently meets none of those conditions. It was not among the seven peptides considered at the July meeting.
Consumers may obtain experimental peptides through wellness clinics, telehealth services, and some compounding pharmacies that prepare customized medications. Others buy directly from online sellers who label their products "research use only" yet market them for human use. Availability does not guarantee that a product complies with federal compounding rules. Social media has amplified the promised benefits, often giving consumers testimonials with little discussion of risks.
The evidence varies considerably. A small retrospective study of BPC-157 injections for knee pain reported improvement but lacked a randomized comparison group. Such findings justify further research but do not tell us whether the peptide caused the improvement. A controlled study of CJC-1295 found that it increased growth hormone and a related growth signal. That does not demonstrate faster injury recovery or longer life. Nor can favorable findings from cells or animals tell us whether a particular human dose provides more benefit than risk.
Some peptides have much stronger clinical evidence. Randomized trials of tesamorelin found reductions in abdominal visceral fat among patients with HIV. A recently published phase 3 trial of retatrutide, involving 1,152 adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, found an average weight loss of 18.8 percent at 80 weeks in the highest-dose group, compared with 5.1 percent with placebo. Gastrointestinal adverse effects were more common with retatrutide. These results support a specific use in the studied population. They do not establish that every vial sold online contains the trial drug at the stated strength or purity.
Consumers deserve candid explanations of these distinctions. The FDA has raised concerns about impurities, immune reactions, and missing safety data for several experimental peptides. Reliable manufacturing cannot eliminate a drug's inherent risks or prove its effectiveness, but it can reduce the additional risks of contamination, incorrect ingredients, and inaccurate dosing.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has urged the FDA to reject the committee's recommendations. Its concerns about evidence, safety, and financial conflicts among committee members deserve attention. But preserving restrictions also has consequences. Adults who understand the uncertainties may still choose to use these products. Blocking pharmacies from supplying them leaves those consumers with fewer accountable sources and can steer them toward sellers whose manufacturing practices and products are harder to verify.
Kennedy recognizes that demand will persist. Permitting compounding pharmacies to prepare these products under standards for identity, potency, and sterile production would offer willing buyers a more accountable alternative. Pharmacies and clinicians should explain the limits of the evidence, and suppliers should be held accountable for fraud and negligence. Allowing access would not certify every claimed benefit or relieve sellers of responsibility for the products they provide.
Autonomous adults should be free to weigh uncertain benefits against known and unknown risks. Compounding allows clinicians and pharmacists to tailor a drug's dose or formulation to an individual patient's needs. Preserving that option gives patients and clinicians more room to make treatment decisions as researchers continue gathering evidence. Physicians can advise them, researchers can improve the evidence, and regulators can warn them about hazards. None of those roles requires public officials to have the final say over a competent adult's willingness to try an experimental product. The Center for Science in the Public Interest gives too little weight to that autonomy and to the risks of keeping willing buyers in an underground market.
Kennedy recognizes that consumers benefit from identifiable products and accountable suppliers. His approach points to a practical principle for drug policy: preserve legal access, give consumers accurate information, and hold suppliers accountable for fraud and negligence. Pharmacological differences warrant specific warnings and careful monitoring. Competent adults should retain the authority to decide which risks they accept.
The FDA should permit pharmacies to compound these experimental peptides under standards that minimize contamination and misrepresentation. Blocking accountable suppliers leaves willing buyers with fewer reliable sources and exposes them to additional risks. That reasoning also applies to other substances sold on black or gray markets. Kennedy is on the right track with peptides. His administration should apply that insight consistently.
* * *
Jeffrey A. Singer is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/rfk-jr-is-right-to-expand-consumer-access-to-peptides/
Greater Cincinnati Foundation: Estate Planning - More Than Just a Will
CINCINNATI, Oct. 27 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Estate planning: More than just a will
October 26, 2026
An estate plan is more than a will--it brings together the pieces that shape your legacy. If charitable giving matters to you, a thoughtful plan helps those pieces work together to reflect your intentions.
Estate plans can include the many ways assets can be passed on at the end of your lifetime. Some assets may be distributed under a will or according to the terms of a revocable trust. Other assets--including IRAs, retirement plan accounts, life
... Show Full Article
CINCINNATI, Oct. 27 -- The Greater Cincinnati Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Estate planning: More than just a will
October 26, 2026
An estate plan is more than a will--it brings together the pieces that shape your legacy. If charitable giving matters to you, a thoughtful plan helps those pieces work together to reflect your intentions.
Estate plans can include the many ways assets can be passed on at the end of your lifetime. Some assets may be distributed under a will or according to the terms of a revocable trust. Other assets--including IRAs, retirement plan accounts, lifeinsurance policies, and certain financial accounts--may pass according to beneficiary designations or "transfer on death" designations.
All of this means creating the legacy you envision requires thinking not only about who and what you want to support, but also about how particular assets will get there. For example, suppose you would like part of your estate eventually to support charitable causes through Greater Cincinnati Foundation (GCF). Depending on your circumstances and goals, you and your estate planning advisors might consider approaches such as:
* Naming a fund at GCF as beneficiary of an IRA or other retirement account. You can generally designate a charitable beneficiary to receive all or a percentage of your IRA or retirement account, while leaving other assets to family members or other beneficiaries. Traditional retirement accounts can be particularly worth discussing with your advisors because distributions that may be taxable to individual beneficiaries generally can be received by a qualified charitable organization--including GCF--without the same income tax burden.
* Leaving a specific dollar amount through your will or trust. Your attorney can incorporate the appropriate language into your estate planning documents.
* Leaving a percentage of your estate through your will or trust. Instead of specifying a dollar amount, you might direct that a percentage of your estate pass to a charitable fund. A percentage gift can adjust along with the value of your estate over time.
* Creating a fund to support favorite organizations or causes. Your estate gift could establish or add to a designated fund benefiting an organization you care about, or a field-of-interest fund supporting an issue or area of interest that has been meaningful to you.
* Leaving a gift to meet changing community needs. You might instead leave all or a percentage of your estate as an unrestricted gift to GCF. This approach entrusts GCF to put charitable dollars to work where they can make a meaningful difference as community needs and opportunities change over time.
These approaches don't necessarily have to stand alone. Charitable components of your estate plan might incorporate more than one document, beneficiary designation, asset, or type of fund to accomplish your goals. What's more, setting up a charitable giving structure is especially important if you are anticipating a business exit at some point in the future.
Now is a perfect opportunity to look at your entire estate plan and ask whether your documents and beneficiary designations work together to reflect the people, organizations, and community you want to support.
GCF would be honored to help you think about how you can create a legacy through charitable giving. We can work alongside your attorney, CPA, and/or financial advisor to help you explore charitable options and determine what type of fund may best carry out your intentions for years--and perhaps generations--to come.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.gcfdn.org/blog/estate-planning-more-than-just-a-will/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: New Technology Can Bring Benefits to Everyone
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 27 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
October 26, 2026
Who's Afraid of AI?
Ella Dawson
New technology can bring benefits to everyone.
-
A former employee of the AI firm Anthropic, Jacob Coxon, recently went viral for being a whistleblower about the future of artificial intelligence. "I believe that if we don't slow down at the current rate of progress, there is a strong chance that we could all die in the immediate future," he said. Coxon worries that AI developers are racing through self-improving superintelligence, resulting
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 27 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
October 26, 2026
Who's Afraid of AI?
Ella Dawson
New technology can bring benefits to everyone.
-
A former employee of the AI firm Anthropic, Jacob Coxon, recently went viral for being a whistleblower about the future of artificial intelligence. "I believe that if we don't slow down at the current rate of progress, there is a strong chance that we could all die in the immediate future," he said. Coxon worries that AI developers are racing through self-improving superintelligence, resultingin technology that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.
Both Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and Elon Musk, CEO of xAI, have agreed with Coxon's concerns, and called for both independent monitoring of AI development and government regulation. There has been some suspicion as to the devious motivations of these businessmen. Why would these AI developers call for something that would, supposedly, cut into their profits and progress? More laissez-faire commentators argue that these regulations would actually do the opposite for big businesses by blocking out small startup competitors who can't compete with rising red tape.
In connection with these assertions, the AI debate is often incorrectly accepted under the premise that it only benefits the rich. Supposedly, data centers cut into everyday Americans' housing and water costs, Flock cameras gather personal information valuable to those rich enough to obtain it, and social media is full of anti-AI posts and comments with most bemoaning that their jobs will soon be taken by robots. And it's all because of evil Trump-loving billionaires... or is it?
"The rich in Ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing: running servants replaced running water," Milton and Rose Friedman wrote in Free to Choose. "Television and radio--the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers." This point from the Friedmans isn't unique to plumbing and radio, but applies to many types of tech, including AI.
I use ChatGPT for things like meal- and garden-planning, research, and interpreting the writings of crazy philosophers like Jacques Derrida. Similar to the rich in Ancient Greece, the wealthy today have chefs, gardeners, and researchers. The rich don't benefit from AI in the same way ordinary people do. For every common person who hates AI, there is a common person using AI. On college campuses, 86% of students use AI in their studies. One in four use it daily. These same students boo commencement speakers who talk about AI positively. In the workplace, 38% of adults report using chatbots for everyday tasks, and outside of the office, about half of US adults report using chatbots in general. If we're so worried about AI stealing our jobs, why do 38% of employees use it at work?
There are certainly legitimate questions as to whether or not this use of AI actually benefits people. As the argument goes, the more we outsource human activities to robots, the less human we become. But it does beg the question: If there are so many problems and dangers with AI, why do so many use it? Virtually every invention has outsourced a human activity to a machine. There are massive cons to running water, guns, television, radio, cell phones, and social media. But again: Why would so many people use these devices if they didn't believe they benefited their life in some way?
"The real result of the machine is to increase production, to raise the standard of living, to increase economic welfare," Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson. "Full employment--very full employment; long, weary, back-breaking employment--is characteristic of precisely the nations that are most retarded industrially."
In Milton Friedman's vision of the world, as Thomas Sowell wrote in his book A Conflict of Visions, "exploitative situations have been seen as more effectively eliminated by the systemic characteristics of a competitive economy than by the deliberate intervention of political leaders in complex economic processes that they cannot comprehend."
In other words, if the rich are prone to exploit others, this is better resolved by a free-market competitive economy than by government regulation. "Intervention" in "complex economic processes that they cannot comprehend" is particularly true of artificial intelligence. How can you regulate something that is always changing, and most politicians likely do not comprehend?
The rich always have more resources at their disposal than do the poor, albeit with much more risk. But, AI, like many other inventions, gives the ordinary person the resources that previously may have been only available to the rich.
"Human nature will not change," journalist Matt Ridley wrote in his book The Rational Optimist. "The same old dramas of aggression and addiction, of infatuation and indoctrination, of charm and harm, will play out, but in an ever more prosperous world."
* * *
Ella Dawson
Ella Dawson is a freelance journalist and history writer living in Utah. She previously wrote for Spectator World. Follow her on Substack.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/whos-afraid-of-ai/
FFRF Awards $15,450 to 2026 Grad Student Essay Winners
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 27 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 26, 2026
FFRF awards $15,450 to 2026 grad student essay winners
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proud to award $15,450 to the top 10 winners of the 2026 Cornelius Vander Broek Graduate/Older Student Essay Competition.
Students were asked to write on the prompt: "Why the 250-year-old United States of America is not a Christian nation." Essays were to include details on why the U.S. government is not based on God or Christianity and include and refute other timely examples
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 27 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 26, 2026
FFRF awards $15,450 to 2026 grad student essay winners
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proud to award $15,450 to the top 10 winners of the 2026 Cornelius Vander Broek Graduate/Older Student Essay Competition.
Students were asked to write on the prompt: "Why the 250-year-old United States of America is not a Christian nation." Essays were to include details on why the U.S. government is not based on God or Christianity and include and refute other timely examplesof legislators, public officials or other individuals promoting the Christian nation myth.
FFRF conferred 10 top prizes this year.
FIRST PLACE
Andy Baldassarre, 27, St. Louis University, $3,500.
SECOND PLACE
Madolyn Henderson, 26, Arizona State University, $3,000.
THIRD PLACE
Aleyna Barry, 22, University of Washington, $2,500.
FOURTH PLACE
Megan Powell, 22, Loyola University Maryland, $2,000.
FIFTH PLACE
Leyla Roque, 29, Lake Sumter State College, $1,500.
SIXTH PLACE
Amelia Dobbins, 23, Pacific University, $1,000.
SEVENTH PLACE
Scott Burden, 24, Duke University, $750.
EIGHTH PLACE
Makenna Doherty, 26, Mercer County Community College, $500.
NINTH PLACE
Ahndiya Kiburi, 24, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, $400.
TENTH PLACE
Cassandra T., 27, University of Houston, $300.
FFRF thanks Lisa Treu for managing the details of this and FFRF's other student essay competitions. FFRF would also like to thank its volunteers and staff for reading and judging the essays, including Dan Barker, Anita Barrett, Michael Berntsen, David Chivers, Craig Crispin, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Susan Gould, Richard Grimes, Tim Hatcher, Jeffrey LaVicka, Sammi Lawrence, Katay Maes, David Malcolm, Jason Mosebach, Barbara Nolta, Andrea Osburne, Lisa Rae Robison, Rose Mary Sheldon and PJ Slinger.
FFRF has offered essay competitions to college students since 1979, high school students since 1994, grad students since 2010, one that is now dedicated to first in the family since 2016, and a fifth contest for law students since 2019.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With over 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-awards-15450-to-2026-grad-student-essay-winners/
[Category: Religion]
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation: New Cellular Immunotherapy Shows Promise Against Solid Tumors
NEW YORK, Oct. 27 (TNSjou) -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
New cellular immunotherapy shows promise against solid tumors
October 26, 2026
Since the first FDA approval nearly a decade ago of a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, in which a patient's own immune cells are genetically engineered to recognize and attack their cancer, scientists have been trying to design next-generation cellular immunotherapies that persist longer in the body and infiltrate solid tumors more effectively.
One strategy that has shown promise is engineering
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 27 (TNSjou) -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
New cellular immunotherapy shows promise against solid tumors
October 26, 2026
Since the first FDA approval nearly a decade ago of a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, in which a patient's own immune cells are genetically engineered to recognize and attack their cancer, scientists have been trying to design next-generation cellular immunotherapies that persist longer in the body and infiltrate solid tumors more effectively.
One strategy that has shown promise is engineeringanother type of immune cell--natural killer (NK) cells--rather than T cells. Since NK cells do not respond to all of the same threats as T cells, they carry a reduced risk of immune complications from therapy. CAR NK cells have, however, encountered the same challenges as CAR T cells against solid tumors, which until recently have resisted infiltration.
But this February, former Damon Runyon-Dale F. Frey Breakthrough Scientist Sidi Chen, PhD, and his colleagues at Yale University announced a major breakthrough. Using a cutting-edge genetic screening strategy, the team searched for genes that could give CAR NK cells a performance boost. One gene stood out: OR7A10, a gene not previously linked to cancer immunotherapy.
When researchers engineered CAR NK cells to express OR7A10, "all of a sudden these NK cells started to work against solid tumors," reported Dr. Chen. The modified NK cells multiplied more efficiently, attacked cancer cells more actively, and resisted exhaustion. They were also better equipped to survive in the tumor microenvironment and persist over time, two of the biggest barriers to success against solid tumors. In mouse models of breast, colon, and ovarian cancers, the engineered cells produced a stronger anti-tumor response than standard CAR NK cells, and in one breast cancer model, the therapy produced complete tumor responses in every treated animal.
"We really believe this type of therapy has immense potential in patients," Dr. Chen told his institution.
Further, because OR7A10 can be added using a simple, scalable manufacturing approach, this strategy opens the door to an "off-the-shelf" immune cell therapy that could be produced in advance and made broadly available to patients.
This research was published in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10149-8).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.damonrunyon.org/discovery/new-cellular-immunotherapy-shows-promise-against-solid-tumors
