A one-time drop of Derek's new podcast, Clarity Lab, the official podcast of Siris Health, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit building a free educational platform and curating social media channels that feature experts presenting health and science in a clear, compelling manner.
Celery juice. Coffee enemas. Ozone therapy. The list of pseudoscientific cancer "treatments" is endless. Yet they all risk pushing people in vulnerable positions toward untenable "cures."
Dr Andrea Love joins Derek Beres to discuss the dangers of cancer misinformation, as well as why the field of cancer research is so complex—and rewarding.
Dr Andrea Love is an immunologist and microbiologist, as well as subject-matter expert in infectious disease immunology, cancer immunology, and autoimmunity. She writes the Immunologic newsletter.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We've got a very different kind of sponsor for this episode, The Jordan Harbinger Show, a podcast you should definitely check out since you're a fan of high-quality, fascinating podcasts hosted by interesting people.
The show covers such a wide range of topics through weekly interviews with heavy-hitting guests, and there are a ton of episodes you'll find interesting since you're a fan of this show.
I'd recommend our listeners check out his Skeptical Sunday episode on hydrotherapy, as well as Jordan's episode about Tarina Shaquille, where he interviews an ISIS recruit's journey and escape.
There's an episode for everyone, though, no matter what you're into.
The show covers stories like how a professional art forger somehow made millions of dollars while being chased by the feds and the mafia.
Jordan's also done an episode all about birth control and how it can alter the partners we pick and how going on or off of the pill can change elements in our personalities.
The podcast covers a lot, but one constant is his ability to pull useful pieces of advice from his guests.
I promise you, you'll find something useful that you can apply to your own life, whether that's an actionable routine change that boosts your productivity or just a slight mindset tweak that changes how you see the world.
We really enjoy this show.
We think you will as well.
There's just so much there.
Check out jordanharbinger.com for some episode recommendations or search for The Jordan Harbinger Show.
That's H-A-R-B as in boy, I-N as in Nancy, G-E-R on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Hey everyone, Derek here.
Trying to identify and combat health misinformation is something I was doing for years before myself and Matthew and Julian launched Conspirituality in 2020. So it's very meaningful work for me considering how much of my life has been spent around healthcare and doing health and science journalism.
A few months ago, I launched a non-profit called Cyrus Health to continue this sort of work outside of conspirituality, although there's a lot of crossover between what I do on this podcast and what I'm focusing on, Cyrus.
Last week, I launched a new podcast called Clarity Lab, and I'd like to share the first episode with you here on this feed.
I'm talking to Dr. Andrea Love about cancer misinformation, a topic that's really important to me as a cancer survivor and as someone with two family members going through cancer right now.
Clarity Lab is seasonal.
It'll run for 10 episodes twice a year.
And because we cover so much at Conspirituality, I really just wanted to create a place where I talk to one expert about one topic.
For example, tomorrow's episode, I'll be talking to Dr. Rohan Francis, who goes by MedLife Crisis Online, about how to read a journal study.
I have Jen Novakovich, the cosmetic chemist, and we're going to talk about chemical formulations in cosmetics.
Danielle Schein is coming on to talk about nutrition misinformation.
Dr. Michelle Wong returns.
We're going to talk about sunscreen.
I have Mallory DeMille, Kevin Klatt, Dr. Danielle Bala.
This is the only episode I'm going to drop on the Conspirituality feed so you can find Clarity Lab on all of your favorite podcast providers as well as YouTube as they are shorter episodes, 20 to 30 minutes maximum, so they are also video podcasts.
As always, thanks for your support with Conspirituality.
I hope you enjoy these conversations and you'll check out this podcast.
Again, it won't be unfamiliar to you if you follow the sort of work I do here.
It's just a separate space to really give experts a moment to unpack the basics of health and science.
As always, thanks for listening and for your support.
Welcome to Clarity Lab, where I talk to leading health and science experts to educate, inform, and dismantle misinformation.
And if you are a human on this planet in 2025, you probably know what a problem misinformation is.
I'm Derek Barris, and Clarity Lab is the official podcast of Cyrus Health, a 501c3 nonprofit I founded to build a free educational platform and curate social media channels that feature experts presenting health and science in a clear and compelling manner.
And since we are a nonprofit, all your donations are tax deductible, which helps support our mission.
Please visit CyrusHealth.org to learn about what we're doing and what we plan to do in the future.
And if you can support us, we would greatly appreciate it.
Cancer is built into our genomes.
The genes that unmoor normal cell division are not foreign to our bodies.
But rather mutated, distorted versions of the very genes that perform vital cellular functions.
And cancer is imprinted in our society.
As we extend our lifespan as a species, we inevitably unleash malignant growth.
Mutation and cancer genes accumulate with aging.
Cancer is thus intrinsically related to age.
If we seek immortality, then so too, in a rather perverse sense...
Does the Cancer Cell?
That's Indian American physician, biologist, and author Siddhartha Mukherjee writing in his fascinating biography of cancer, The Emperor of All Maladies.
I read the book shortly after its publication in 2010, and it really gave me a framework for understanding cancer when I was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 2014. Cancer affects everyone, including my family, right now at this moment.
That's why I wanted to kick off this new I wanted to talk to Dr. Andrea Love,
An immunologist and microbiologist, as well as subject matter expert in infectious disease immunology, cancer immunology, and autoimmunity.
I've known Andrea for a few years and have interviewed her a few times for my other podcast, Conspirituality.
Whenever I come across a claim from some wellness influencer, usually in the field of chemophobia, I reach out to Andrea and she always supplies me with good information.
She's on the front line combating misinformation on social media and publishes the wonderful immunologic newsletter, which I'll link to in the show notes.
We talk about some of the most pernicious cancer misinformation out there.
How cancer is not one disease, but rather a catch-all term that cuts across hundreds of different diseases, and how cancer operates in our bodies.
We end on a high note with some research that Dr. Love is currently really excited about.
So let's get to it.
I hope you enjoy our conversation.
Andrea, can you cure cancer with celery juice?
If only it were that easy.
Celery, I personally find it delicious.
Some people enjoy drinking the celery juice, but it does not have magical health properties, unfortunately.
Well, we're talking about cancer misinformation.
It's an important topic for me personally as a cancer survivor, as someone with two family members going through cancer right now, and most everyone listening will know someone who's gone through cancer.
And there is so much misinformation on this topic, especially in wellness spaces.
What are some of the other egregious examples you've come across?
I mean, there are a lot.
When it comes to cancer, people kind of lump it into a single bucket.
And so you hear claims about, I think the biggest thing is what are actual carcinogens and what are not.
And this is partly because of how different...
Regulatory agencies or scientific organizations And those terms are based on these monographs from the International Agency for Cancer Research,
which is a working group of the WHO, the World Health Organization.
And what they do is they essentially perform a hazard assessment, which means that they're asking the hypothetical question, is there any world in which the exposure to this thing could theoretically increase risk of cancer in people?
So if you ask it that way, you understand why almost everything is at least a possibly, right?
But the reality is, is that they're the only agency that look at these sorts of exposures that don't factor in risk.
And so hazard is excluding the realistic likelihood or the actual dosage of the potential exposure.
And so, you know, we hear this a lot when we talk about things like artificial sweeteners and glyphosate and things like that.
And when you actually look at the levels of these substances that people would be exposed to, there's no actual causal relationship between...
Those substances and cancer in humans.
People see the headline cancer.
They see the headline possibly or probably carcinogenic.
The reality is that aside from the fact that IARC is not actually looking at realistic human likelihood or probability or even...
The word possibly and probably have very specific meanings in that science world.
It's like if your kid asked if they could have ice cream for dinner and you said maybe.
You know maybe means no, but...
You know, it sounds like a yes, right?
And media headlines frequently cite the IARC over many other expert agencies that actually are looking at realistic exposure and realistic risk, and that creates a lot of misrepresentation of the reality and confusion amongst the public.
And the other thing is that there's really no single cause of cancer.
Even when you're talking about things that we know have a direct relationship to cancer, It doesn't mean if you're exposed to it, you're automatically going to get cancer.
These are risk factors, meaning they increase the risk or the likelihood that you might develop that certain cancer, but it's not a guarantee, and the opposite is true as well.
You could live the most perfect on paper life, have the healthiest diet, do all the right exercise, sleep well, do this, do that, and have no family history, and you could still develop cancer because these diseases are incredibly complex, Your cells just not listening to the normal cues that they should be listening to, and then they start to just grow out of control, and then that problem gets magnified.
And the things that cause that, it's usually multiple insults over the course of your life, which is why...
Yes, I was a vegan yoga and fitness instructor when I got cancer.
So if I were going by the wellness world, that would mean that I had some other moral or ethical problem that caused it.
Yeah.
Whereas it was actually a genetic issue.
Yeah.
One of the more popular pieces of misinformation I've seen since COVID-19 was this idea that the COVID vaccines cause...
Turbo cancer.
Can you speak to that?
Turbo cancer is not a scientific...
So, you know, that should be kind of an automatic red flag for people in that this phrase is trying to evoke this really, you know, powerful negative emotion and scare me out of this thing.
But the reality is that there's no evidence that COVID vaccines cause cancer or are linked to cancer in any way.
A lot of people fundamentally don't understand the molecule mRNA and don't understand that every single organism has mRNA in its body at all times.
mRNA is not a gene therapy or changing your genes, which are made up of DNA and therefore is not going to be altering the genome or changing your DNA or things that are kind of loosely misunderstood because we know that DNA which are made up of DNA and therefore is not going Because we know that DNA mutations...
Are associated with cancer, basically, because cancers are a result of key gene families no longer behaving properly, and those genes are no longer behaving because they're mutated.
But the mRNA vaccines are not doing that.
It's an easy way to create fear about a newer type of vaccine technology that has already been plagued with misinformation.
And it kind of went hand in hand with a lot of the sensationalized headlines about cancer rates increasing or cancer rates skyrocketing.
It's really frustrating because these headlines and these news articles are doing a lot of harm.
And I don't think that even they realize it because what they're also doing is they're lumping these hundreds of different diseases into a single bucket.
And then people are convinced that cancer rates are skyrocketing when cancer.
They're not.
In many cancer types, we're seeing really, really substantial declines in cancer diagnoses.
In other cancers, we may be seeing an increased number of cases, and that's a function of we have better ways to diagnose those particular cancers because rates are a function of detecting them.
And there are some cancers that we're seeing increases in certain populations.
And a lot of that is linked to many of these complicated multifactorial causes, like we're not eating enough fiber, and that's really important for our gastrointestinal system, and that's directly related to risk of colon cancer, or we're not exercising, and that's also implicated, or we're consuming alcohol in excess, which is also implicated.
And so these headlines really misrepresent the reality of the situation, and then, of course, people want something to blame.
And the new thing is the COVID vaccine, so let's blame it on the COVID vaccine.
I can't believe the headlines are getting it wrong.
That's really...
So weird.
One more.
We are hiding natural cures for cancer.
What are you hiding, Andrea?
You know, we've talked about the appeal to nature fallacy, but this is one of the number one medical conspiracies.
This is one that's been pervasive.
For decades.
There's a study in JAMA that looked at, like, wellness behaviors and how many wellness behaviors someone participated in and the number of medical conspiracies they believed in.
And as wellness behaviors increased, like eating organic and taking herbal supplements and vitamins and, you know, all that sort of stuff, the number of medical conspiracies they believed in increased.
And the number one medical conspiracy is we're hiding.
The government is hiding the natural cures for cancer.
One, to keep people sick.
And two, Because they wouldn't profit otherwise.
And the reality is that's not true.
In fact, there are many cancer treatments that are derived from natural substances.
So when we find something that exists in nature and it's useful, we either harness that or we improve on it with science.
So many people have probably heard of the medication Paclitaxel, right?
And so Paclitaxel is a chemical that was isolated from the Pacific U tree.
And this is an anti-cancer compound.
It has efficacy to treat cancer.
However, it also has some adverse effects.
And cancer treatments can be quite taxing because...
The way to treat cancer is really difficult because they're your own cells, but there's a few differences.
But basically, we were able to improve on paclitaxel and we modified it chemically into a different chemical called docetaxel.
And docetaxel is more effective at a lower concentration in treating cancer.
It also had improved solubility, meaning that it can be dissolved into solution better than Paclitaxel.
And so it is used to treat a variety of cancers: breast, ovarian, non-small cell lung carcinoma.
We literally took a natural chemical and were using a derivative of it because we use science to make it better to treat cancer.
And again, we wanted to reduce the toxicity of these because a lot of these chemicals are plant toxins.
They're produced by plants to ward off.
Predators.
They don't want things to eat them.
So they make these noxious chemicals and these are a lot of the same things that are used in organic farming.
So we want to reduce the toxicity and the adverse effects but still harness the...
Yeah, I mean, we're not hiding anything in nature.
If nature is useful, we're going to utilize it and science and merge that and make something that is therapeutic.
You bring up a point that's been on my mind because, as I said, I have family members going through cancer and one of them is in stage four and the chemotherapy hasn't been working and they keep trying to tweak it and they're bringing in mistletoe.
And I read up on it and it's used in Europe.
There are a few clinical trials.
It's kind of mixed efficacy.
It's usually more for side effects than actually treating the cancer itself.
But that said, it is derived from something natural.
But as I was reading, some people believed you can just use the extract, but the researchers have said, no, what you had just said, you have to tweak it.
Now, there is an argument I see that people say, oh, if it's from this substance, why not just use the substance?
So can you speak a little bit to why you need to...
Yeah, absolutely.
So, you know, a lot of times when you're looking at a natural chemical, especially something like this, which has some promise in terms of treating these complex diseases like cancer, the way that we measure or assess risk-benefit...
Is also dependent on the health condition in question, right?
So if we're talking about a blood pressure medication, the expectation is that needs to be incredibly safe and have very low risk profile because blood pressure is important, but it's kind of a precursor to future more serious medical conditions, right?
In cancer, depending on the type of cancer...
Cancers can progress very rapidly and they can be fatal, right?
And so the math is a little bit different.
There's a higher tolerance for side effects because the alternative of not doing anything to treat it is dying.
And the fact that cancer cells are your own cells, oftentimes the goal is killing the cancer faster than your normal cells will die.
And that's often why you have side effects.
But we also have chemistry knowledge and toxicology knowledge.
And so if we find some of these chemicals that are derived from nature, but they have really bad side effects because, again, these are noxious chemicals, a lot of times you can tweak functional groups or some of the chemical structure to reduce those toxicity effects, which reduces side effects.
That's a huge factor in some of these.
Synthetic or semi-synthetic alternatives is that we can take the parental chemical structure and we can change it a little bit and that dramatically changes how it interacts with other cells in our body and how we might react to that chemical.
So that's one thing.
The other thing is better targeting or specificity.
So again, a lot of these chemicals, they're produced by plants.
Plants have evolved over millions of years, but...
You know, they're not the smartest organism, maybe, and so a lot of these chemicals have systemic or broad-spectrum impacts, and we want to try to make that less broad-spectrum, right?
We want to maybe target specific cell types or specific metabolic pathways based on what the chemical is.
And so by tweaking the chemical structure, we can actually make it more targeted, and maybe that will also allow us to reduce the overall dosage to have the same.
So that's another one.
And then a third thing is to improve the delivery of it.
So a lot of times these chemicals, you're not just taking, it's not floating around in the air, right?
You have to get it into a liquid.
You have to get it into a pill.
You have to get it into some formulation that not only you can take, either, you know, injecting, intravenous, ingestion, whatever, but that...
Formulation has to be bioavailable, meaning once it gets into your body, it needs to be able to go and do its work.
And so sometimes the chemical structure has changed to increase the solubility or increase the stability of the chemical so it actually can get to where it needs to get to in order to exert its effect.
So often it's a combination of those factors.
And then sometimes you can also improve the potency so you can increase how effective it is and simultaneously reduce the dosage of the active ingredient that you would need to have the same benefit.
So it's a lot of those factors and it builds on kind of what we learn from nature and what we learn from laboratory experimentation.
Now, you already brought up skyrocketing rates.
You've posted about it, but in that post, you wrote that cancer is widely misunderstood by most people.
What did you mean by that?
So cancers are hundreds of diseases, right?
And I think that's the first misconception is that when people hear the word cancer, It evokes this fatalism, right?
Because you've heard about somebody who's died from cancer, right?
We probably all have heard.
We've probably experienced it.
We probably know somebody who's going through cancer treatment or has gone through cancer treatment.
But the reality is there are hundreds of different types of cancers.
Cancers are kind of defined by...
What cell type they originate in.
So there's different layers of our tissues, and each of those can lead to different types of cancers that behave differently.
What organ they start in.
So is it a skin cancer?
Is it a blood cancer?
A hematologic cancer?
Is it a liver cancer?
What gene mutations are associated with it?
So there are kind of three buckets of gene families that are linked to cancer, meaning when they stop behaving, that's...
So you have oncogenes, which are genes that started out as kind of benign, but if they become mutated, they can...
Cause your cells to grow out of control and not listen to all of the stop-growing cues and self-program death, which is what cells are supposed to do.
So that's one bucket.
Then you have our tumor suppressor genes, which normally kind of restrict.
You know, the uncontrolled cell growth.
But when they're not functioning, they don't do that.
And then cells can grow out of control.
And then you have DNA repair genes.
And those are the ones that come in and they proofread and they edit and they fix any errors.
And if they can't fix them, then the cell should die.
But sometimes they don't.
You have these three kind of families.
You have the different tissue types.
You have the different cell types.
And then you have staging.
So when a cancer is found, it can be either very small and localized and not aggressive, or it could be later stage.
It could have spread to lymph nodes.
It could have invaded multiple organs.
And so staging is also a factor.
And so when you're looking at cancers, you have many different things that are involved.
And so you can't just say, Cancer is increasing or even just skin cancer is increasing because there are so many different types.
On top of that, every single person's cancer is genetically distinct.
So even if you had a bucket of people who all had triple negative breast cancer, stage 2, each of those people would have slightly different triple negative stage 2 breast cancers because these cancers are...
Your cells that are growing out of control and no longer listening to things, which means they share your genetic identity, meaning every single person's cancer is going to be slightly different.
This is also why there's not ever going to be a universal cancer cure, because it's not like a single cause.
Leads to all of the cancers.
Often, these get lumped into a single bucket.
Everyone thinks that every single cancer is automatically fatal or automatically really serious.
And in fact, many cancers, especially when found early, are incredibly treatable.
Many of them are really not associated with increased mortality at all.
But some of them can be.
And so, you know, when you're talking about cancer...
It's so complicated.
And then you have the added layers of your body's ability to control cancer is related to your immune system as well.
So cancer is also an immunologic disorder because cancers also have ways to hide out from your immune system.
So your body doesn't sense that there's something wrong and eliminate them.
Yeah, they're very widely misunderstood.
And so when you talk about cancer, you really have to kind of narrow the scope of what you're referring to because otherwise you can't have a productive conversation because you can't.
They're apples to oranges.
So when Casey and Callie Means say that 90% of diseases are metabolic diseases.
How do you even reply to something like that?
It's really difficult because, you know, people like these black and white, like no nuance.
I saw one of their friends, I can't remember who he's like a, you know, he's an influencer.
He said the 40, you have a 40% probability of developing cancer, right?
This is unacceptable.
And what he's doing is he's manipulating the data, right?
Across your entire lifespan, you know, looking at just the general statistics and the fact that our lifespan is in the 70-year range now, yeah, there's a 40% probability that you will develop cancer in your life,
but that ignores the fact that 0.5% of cancers are occurring in people under 40. He's suggesting that this is a bad thing when it's ignoring the
fact that the only reason we're contending with cancer is because we're not dying when we're six years old of infections anymore.
While cancer cells have metabolic changes, cancer is not a metabolic disease.
Cancer is a disease of mutation and aging.
And the metabolic changes of cancer cells are a function of the mutations and how the tumor has to survive in an abnormal environment.
Because normally cells have cues where when they...
Hit another type of cell, they stop.
This is called density-dependent inhibition.
And then when they make a flat layer, they stop.
And this is adhesion inhibition.
Normally, cells have these cues where when they hit other cells, they're like, okay, I did my job.
This is where I'm supposed to be.
Stop.
But cancer cells don't do that.
And that's why you have these solid tumors.
They grow on top of each other.
They grow in these balls because they don't listen to all those cues.
And so as a result, you have these regions in the tumor that...
Are deprived of things that normally cells would have access to.
And so they change their metabolism to survive in this environment.
But that's not what causes cancer.
That's not what determines whether someone's going to develop cancer.
It's a function of cancer survival.
They're not metabolic diseases.
But of course, Callie Means has zero scientific knowledge.
And Casey Means, she started an ear, nose, and throat.
And that has nothing to do with cancer, aside from cutting out potential throat cancers.
But nothing about cancer biology.
Well, the good news is RFK Jr. is going to stop infectious disease research, so we'll have more six-year-olds dying, which will lower cancer rates.
Yeah, no, it'll be great.
And then people ask, why is the U.S. life expectancy lower than other developed nations?
And then we can talk about how not only do we not have national health care and we have a huge wealth gap, but we're really shifting it down with all that childhood mortality.
What sort of work do you do in cancer immunology?
Yeah, so I work in life sciences.
So I work in biotech.
And what we do is we develop tools, assays, research methodologies to study cancer, both from kind of the early biology and also to help facilitate the development of therapeutics, of testing, of We work a lot with academic researchers.
We work a lot with governmental researchers.
We do work with pharma because they're the ones that are manufacturing your cancer treatments.
But we focus a lot on the cellular function.
So we're looking at, is this cancer treatment?
Killing the cancer that it's supposed to be killing and is it not killing other things we don't want it to kill, like other cells in our body?
Or is this, what's the dosage at which we start to see adverse effects, right?
Because your toxicology studies and potency studies, you're trying to find the optimal dose that is effective against targeting the cancer.
But not so high that you're leading to undesirable side effects.
And again, that math is dependent on what you're talking about.
Recently, we've been very heavily involved in cell and gene therapy, which is really kind of this emerging space where we're trying to harness, kind of like taking natural substances and tweaking them for chemotherapeutics, we're trying to harness the immune system to better recognize, target, seek, and destroy cancer cells.
One of the leading edges of that is CAR-T therapy.
So that's chimeric antigen receptor T cells.
So basically what we do is we genetically engineer a patient's immune cells, the T cells, to better recognize a cancer molecule.
And that's an antigen.
So it's something that the immune system will recognize.
And the reason we do this is because cancers down-regulate a lot of these molecules and they hide out from the immune system.
And so if we can...
Make the immune system more sensitive to recognize these by engineering them to express certain receptors for them.
Then you can infuse them back into the patient.
You're kind of like sending a seek and destroy missile against the cancer.
And you're utilizing your own existing immune system and you're tweaking it to make it...
More specific and more targeted.
And ideally, you can use these in lieu of chemotherapeutics or other types of treatments that maybe are more invasive.
So this is really a cutting-edge field.
And there have been many of these CAR-T therapies approved for a lot of blood cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, hematologic cancers.
Because one of the challenges is...
We have to make sure that it goes to where the cancer is.
So if it's a blood cancer, the cancer's in your bloodstream.
It's in your circulatory system.
So when you do an IV infusion, those T cells are going to be around the cancer cells.
But if we're talking about a solid tumor, particularly in immune-privileged sites like the brain, then you have to figure out how to get those immune cells to that site and also to penetrate that really dense tumor in a way that...
You don't lose T cells because these are going to have a finite lifespan before they get exhausted, before they're not functioning.
And so that's been a really heavy focus in this space is how do we target solid tumors in a similar way as we were able to target blood cancers?
And there are some interesting developments going on.
Well, you may have answered my final question, but...
If not, maybe there's something else that comes to mind.
What is some research that you're particularly excited about right now?
Yeah, so I was at a conference called American Society for Cell and Gene Therapy earlier this year.
And cell and gene therapy, we kind of lump it together, but there's different technologies that we use in that space.
But there's a really interesting technology that's in development right now where...
There's been some publications, and it's not at my company, but we've collaborated with some of the researchers that are working on this technology.
But basically what they do is they have the CAR-Ts, the cells, the immune cells, and then they have this kind of double-edged probe or a flag or a tag.
It's called a bispecific antibody where they can label the tissue type, so the tumor type that you want to specifically target, and then the other side of it would label or bind to the T cell.
So what you have is you have this flag that has two ends and it's going to go to the organ or the tissue where the cancer is and it's going to bind there and then it's going to call in the T cell.
And so it's a way to very specifically target the actual tumor type instead of...
Some of the more generic ways where you're kind of hoping that the T-cells will get to where they need to because they eventually sense that cancer protein and they'll get called in, but this is a way to more actively send them there.
And I think that's really clever because it utilizes, we use bispecific antibodies for other treatments in other conditions as immunotherapies, including in autoimmune diseases.
So you're kind of like merging these two.
And the goal would be to improve the specificity, be able to ultimately reduce the dosage, and it would ultimately reduce any off-target effects because you wouldn't have T-cells kind of trying to, you know, exert their effect on...
Tissues that didn't have a tumor in them.
So that's in kind of earlier stages, but there's some preclinical work, and I think there might be some early clinical trials going on now.
