Cardiothorqcic surgeon, tumor immunologist. Conceptualizing cancer ecologically
Montréal, Québec
Joined February 2020
- Tweets383
- Following368
- Followers327
- Likes597
jonathan Cools retweeted
Interesting, I wonder if this explains the long term “immunologic scar” observed in patients cured of their cancer. Once the non-cancer cells survive the stress of cancer and therapy they “lock in” on a state that is ultimately maladaptive once the cancer is gone. @JonathanCools
jonathan Cools retweeted
A new preprint introduces aDISCO, a DISCO-based clearing approach that makes whole archival FFPE human tissues transparent and antibody-compatible, enabling true 3D light-sheet histology across brain and multiple organs at cellular resolution. Adriano Aguzzi and Fritjof Helmchen teams.
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/…
#DISCO #clearing #3Dimaging #lightsheet #HumanTissue #FFPE #Histology
jonathan Cools retweeted
If you’re interested in the therapeutic potential of Neutrophil Extracellular Trap directed therapy in cancer, have a look at this excellent review by @MHShahzad5 @ronirayes and @JonathanCools in @NatureRevCancer. After 15 years of investigation, we are closer than ever to clinical implementation! nature.com/articles/s41568-0…
jonathan Cools retweeted
One of the most provocative studies in immuno-oncology - published @NatureMedicine. This is an important Ph3 that shows that earlier IO infusion time may result in superior PFS and OS - and the peripheral blood flow cytometry data are thought provoking
🤔I have SO MANY questions 👇🏾
The time of day for cancer immunotherapy is associated with major outcomes. Early is better. Results from a randomized trial of lung cancer, backs up the importance of our circadian rhythm and immune system
nature.com/articles/s41591-0…
jonathan Cools retweeted
“If you’re like a five-year-old and you do that thing where you keep asking 'But why? But why?'—if you keep asking 'But why?' long enough, eventually, you always end up in the math department.”
— Dr. Michael Levin (@drmichaellevin)
Listen to my interview with Dr. Michael Levin:
tim.blog/2026/01/21/dr-micha…
We sort of deify science today. It’s a bit scary. Science is just a formal way of asking questions so we can all talk to each other from a common reference point… that’s it. Last time I checked it’s pretty hard to empirically prove “meaning”
“As far as we can tell from a purely scientific viewpoint, human life has absolutely no meaning. Humans are the outcome of blind evolutionary processes that operate without goal or purpose. Our actions are not part of some divine cosmic plan, and if planet earth were to blow up tomorrow morning, the universe would probably keep going about its business as usual. As far as we can tell at this point, human subjectivity would not be missed. Hence any meaning that people inscribe to their lives is just a delusion.”
― Yuval Noah Harari in "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind"
jonathan Cools retweeted
“As far as we can tell from a purely scientific viewpoint, human life has absolutely no meaning. Humans are the outcome of blind evolutionary processes that operate without goal or purpose. Our actions are not part of some divine cosmic plan, and if planet earth were to blow up tomorrow morning, the universe would probably keep going about its business as usual. As far as we can tell at this point, human subjectivity would not be missed. Hence any meaning that people inscribe to their lives is just a delusion.”
― Yuval Noah Harari in "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind"
jonathan Cools retweeted
Imagine: Two animals run the exact same distance.
One chooses to. One is forced.
The voluntary runner gets healthier—better heart rate, blood pressure, glucose.
The forced runner? Gets sicker.
Andrew Huberman says the same rule destroys or upgrades your stress, your workouts, even your life.
And the craziest proof: People who watched hours of Boston bombing news coverage suffered MORE acute stress than those who were actually there.
Your mind doesn’t know the difference between experiencing and relentlessly consuming.
So… what “have-to” in your life are you ready to reframe as a choice?
This 1:58 clip just rewired my brain.
jonathan Cools retweeted
Patient-reported outcomes, such as higher health status and lower symptom burden, are independently associated with improved overall survival in cancer patients. ja.ma/43MpzeQ
How do you feel about these tic boxes on reviewer websites for consideration of merit of your review? More metrics? Also … why would some ask if ai was used in the review. Do you think the journal should read the review and decide if it’s reasonable?
Really nice work! Guess we should just take out the thing ;)
Here are the surgical outcomes data from KN671! A valuable read to better understand the impact of perioperative immunotherapy for patients with resectable disease! @moisheliberman @JonesDavid2013 sciencedirect.com/science/ar…
RT @LocasaleLab: The goal of an thoughtful article is not to capture the broadest audience possible. It is to do solid work for a specific…
This quoted post is unavailable.
This is an interesting read. On one hand impactful discoveries are built on huge amounts of research from many people. Sometimes the “anomaly” reflects things going well in an institution. At the same time, the way science is communicated at every level would benefit from more transparency.
My latest article in The National Review @NRO on what 60 Minutes got wrong about Harvard and the biomedical research industrial complex, and why the deeper issues in science can’t be fixed by throwing more money at broken institutions.
nationalreview.com/2025/11/w…
jonathan Cools retweeted
My latest article in The National Review @NRO on what 60 Minutes got wrong about Harvard and the biomedical research industrial complex, and why the deeper issues in science can’t be fixed by throwing more money at broken institutions.
nationalreview.com/2025/11/w…
I’m so glad more people are talking about this. If something is important you find it making people produce basically fictitious research plans to justify their existence seems like a giant waste of time when they could be pursuing research. Results guide subsequent steps, the best laid plans survive zero minutes in reality.
Academic publishing is perhaps the greatest scam perpetrated on intelligent people
1) Write grants (unpaid)
2) Do research
3) Write papers
4) Peer review (unpaid)
5) PAY up to $12K to publish
6) Need publications to get grants (back to step 1)
Publishers: 38% profit margins
I am a bit conflicted about this episode of 60min. While there is no disputing the impact he has had and the utility of his discoveries, funding methods didn’t “make” them real. Is 60 minutes going to have an honest discussion about how at a practical level “science” is produced in the lab setting or how it is communicated after discovery ? Somehow I doubt it. Of course I believe we should fund science but that’s such a bal let weird statement it shuts down any discourse about what federally funded really means. To that end I’ll ask one question. What percentage of government money allocated to science reaches the individual lab/scientist at the end of the process?
I would strongly advise every American leader and policymaker to listen carefully to @davidrliu - the most important scientist and innovator of our lifetime and the person who invented both Base editing & Prime editing - the 2 top leading modalities of Gene editing, when he describes in @60Minutes the grave danger which the American BioTech ecosystem is facing due to insufficient federal funding. America is already losing its technological and innovative edge! $BEAM $PRME
I mean the more evidence i see the more i feel a bit silly. Oddly enough the things that seem to keep people healthy are social interactions good nutrition physical activity and I guess obviously regular sexual activity. Sometimes I feel like we’re trying to re invent the wheel in medicine …
jonathan Cools retweeted
Sex is more than pleasure or reproduction — it’s health.
• Regular sexual activity = better cardiovascular outcomes
• Arousal & orgasm improve vascular function
• Low sexual frequency → ↑ 45% CVD risk (Mass. Male Aging Study)
• Sexual wellness = whole-body wellness
jonathan Cools retweeted
What a loser! Tu peux déplorer tout ce que tu veux! Si vous créez des conditions nulles les gens quitteront. Qu’ils soient français ou anglais ou autre, les gens quitteront lorsque les conditions dans leur profession sont rendues nulles par l’ingérence du gouvernement québécois. Ces règles de vie ne s’appliquent pas juste au domaine médicale…
On avait un message à envoyer à @fordnation aujourd'hui.
La motion que j'ai présentée a été adoptée à l'unanimité.
« Que l'Assemblée nationale déplore les actes de maraudage et d'ingérence inacceptables de l'Ontario qui cherche à s'approprier les ressources humaines du réseau de la santé québécois.
Que l'Assemblée nationale condamne les propos du Premier ministre de l'Ontario qui a appelé les médecins québécois à quitter le réseau de la santé du Québec et qui a affirmé qu'il s'impliquerait personnellement dans le recrutement de médecins québécois. »
Le PM ontarien en recevra une copie.
jonathan Cools retweeted
Vous avez raison. La rémunération des médecins doit évoluer. Peu importe le choix de l'évolution à adopter, il y aura des avantages et désavantages. Il y a des abus et divergences entre spécialités qui ne tiennent pas la route. C'est l'approche que vous avez adoptée qui est inacceptable. Il faut trouver un modèl qui rend le Québec attrayant comme place où établir une pratique médicale. La nationalisation de la main d'oeuvre n'est pas la bonne route sur un continent où les libertés professionelles des médecins est le standard. Le blame publique de l'inefficience du système sur une main d'oeuvre ultra éduquée, mobile et motivée, qui béneficie d'un mode de rémunération qui favorise déja la prise en charge à haut volume des malades est non plus la bonne route. Vous avez fait beaucoup d'erreurs dans votre approche au problème. Ce sont les coûts de moderniser le système et de créer une capacité sur les plateformes techniques qui vous coutera très cher. La rémunération du personnel, que ce soit les médecins, le personnel infirmier ou les professions alliées, n'est pas où vous aller changer de façon mesurable l'efficience du système.
unavailable