neuropean

I would except it doesn’t appear to be published yet, the article mentions the data was from a conference presentation.

The mention genetic changes, but didn’t mention any gene names. I would have been interested to see something like TP53 duplications but there’s no way enough time would have passed for that to occur. It’s not super clear whether the population changes reflect a bottleneck or specific, advantageous mutations to cancer resistance.

He’s overdue in hell.

If it’s not peer reviewed then why tf are we talking about it like it’s true? The whole point of peer review is to avoid this bullshit buzz that the news thrives on.