Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant | Shaswat Hospital, Rajkot | RGCIRC, New Delhi, MD Int Medicine(LTMMC Sion).
Rajkot, Gujarat
Joined July 2015
- Tweets1.5K
- Following1K
- Followers597
- Likes15.1K
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
Just saw a young patient with myelofibrosis seeking HCT.
She had consulted 3 hematologists but not heard the word cure! Or that, with her large family, she will probably have a related donor.
As physicians, we should see the glass half full. Our patients are already painfully aware of the empty half.
Prepare for every outcome. But never stop being an optimist!
#BMTsm #MPNsm
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
Dear Temple Team,
Doctors are asking for scientific evidence, not your financial history, personal sacrifices, or business credentials. Stop calling legitimate scientific scrutiny “rage.”
You have responded to questions about medical accuracy with investment figures, return policies, personal reputation, and promises of future studies. None of these constitutes scientific validation.
A few simple points:
1.A 14-day return policy is not scientific validation. Patients can feel better on placebo treatments too. Subjective satisfaction cannot establish medical accuracy.
2.Spending $30 million doesn’t prove efficacy. Medical history is full of expensive technologies that failed rigorous testing.
3.Personal reputation is not evidence. Science doesn’t become more credible because a successful entrepreneur believes in it.
4.Customer investment is not independent validation. Financial confidence and scientific credibility are two different things.
5.Promising future publications doesn’t validate present claims. If you make health-related claims today, doctors are justified in asking for evidence today.
6.Individual experiences cannot replace properly designed validation studies. We need accuracy, reproducibility, clinically meaningful outcomes, and independent testing.
And one final point:
Doctors are not against innovation. We are against asking the public to trust medical claims before the evidence is available.
If Temple delivers what it promises, doctors will be among its biggest supporters.
But science is not a popularity contest, and criticism is not “rage.”
You cannot answer questions about scientific evidence with a balance sheet, a biography, and emojis.
Publish the data. Let independent researchers examine it. Let the evidence speak.
That’s all we’re asking.
@theliverdoc
Dear Concerned Indian Doctors,
I see your rage against Temple on X. I have a few points
to make:
1. First and foremost, a business lesson: if Temple were a scam, and any of what we said weren't true, people would know it in just a few days of using Temple. We have 14-day, no-questions-asked returns (which even Apple doesn't offer in India). If the product doesn't work, it fails out of the gate and the company dies before recovering a tenth of its R&D.
2. We have already spent $30m building Temple, $20m out of which is my own money. Selling a few thousand devices recovers a small fraction of this investment. A scam that pays nothing is not a scam anyone would run.
3. I left the Eternal CEO role to chase purpose with Temple. This is not about money. I have enough of it to last for generations. My incentives are fully aligned with getting the science right. I am not staking a reputation earned over 20 years on making a quick buck.
4. Our employees bought into our round a few months ago. The round we're raising now is mostly our customers. Scams don't build that cap table.
5. Most wearable companies start with internal studies. Whoop shipped its band in 2015, and the first published validation followed a few years later. We hold ourselves to a higher standard; pre-prints are a step prior to peer reviewed publications, and they are coming up.
6. At some point you have to stick your neck out and say: we believe in our science, and the product is now valuable enough for people to pay for and use. We believe we are there. More validation continues in public.
7. We are confident that we are building something that the world is going to be positively astonished with. We stand by our science and our methods. Each of our claims is easily verifiable by individuals and institutions alike, and you will see a lot of independent studies come up on their own when the device becomes available to use.
Last but not the least, the most ground breaking features in Temple are not even public yet. And some of them, thankfully, have nothing to do with doctors 🤭
Hope this addresses some or all of your concerns. If not, keep raging 😘🤗
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
I noticed something
People who have traveled a lot tend to judge less. Not because they became nicer, but because they've seen too many versions of what's "normal."
In one country, it's normal to eat with your hands.
In another, it's normal to stay quiet at the table.
In a third, it's normal to hug strangers
When you've seen 30 different versions of "the right way,
you stop believing yours is the only one.
Travel doesn't just teach geography.
It teaches tolerance
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
NPM1 mutations are considered good risk in AML, but variant allele frequency (VAF) matters!
A VAF > 31.44% suggests that the mutation has a wide clonal penetrance, making the AML more chemo-sensitive with greater chance of cure with intensive treatment
However, if VAF < 31.44%, then the mutation is not in the predominant clone, and usually some other mutation or mutations are at play that will mediate future relapse ashpublications.org/blood/ar…
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
In comparison of DEC vs AZA, there was no difference in OS or LFS for patients with #MDS. There were no major differences in transfusion dependence or QoL metrics for patients treated with DEC vs AZA. Read in Blood Neoplasia: ow.ly/pes050ZZ33A
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
Today, we’re introducing the next chapter of Concurrence and the world’s greatest leap toward Superintelligent Care.
When I was 13 I lost my mom to cancer that should’ve been caught earlier.
We’re building a system that sees every patient’s future in time to change the outcome
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
The drug class we are developing, Claromers, kill nearly all known germs (bacteria, viruses, fungi, and biofilms) with one simple devastating mechanism that has avoided microbial resistance for over 200 million years.
Claromers mimic a natural defense peptide in the human body called LL-37. Each Claromer molecule is very small, only dozens of atoms big - about 1/3 the size of the natural peptide. It is like a spear - a destructive end and a holding shaft or tail end. The shaft side is hydrophobic, which means it is water-avoiding and does not like to touch water. The other side - the pathogen destroyer - is highly positively charged (called “cationic” in science literature), like a powerful magnet that pulls toward anything negatively charged (called “anionic” in science).
Stanford bioengineering Assoc Prof Barron and colleagues wrote in a recent study of Claromers: “These amphipathic peptoids self-assembled in different ways, as determined by small-angle X-ray scattering; some adopt helical bundles, while others form core−shell ellipsoidal or worm-like micelles.” That means the groups form either short twisted bundles, like worms, or small oval shapes like a football. 🏈
The self-assembly into these nano structures I. the watery fluids of the body because the water-avoiding shaft-tails point inward toward each other , away from the water. The positive pathogen-killer ends stick outward like sharpened spears. The molecules stick together on their own into tight groups.
These groups attack like a three-dimensional Greek phalanx, a tight formation of soldiers. Like a football made of spears. The spears face out. Because each molecule is so tiny its mass is almost zero. When the positive killer ends feel the pull of the germ’s outer covering they accelerate from standing still to nearly the speed of light with almost no friction, like lightning bolt ⚡️ leaping towards the pathogen. The killer-football formation hits all at once the with huge kinetic energy and blows apart the outer membrane of the pathogen.
The germ cannot survive. It is destroyed in a microsecond.
Barron and colleagues also wrote: “While self-assembly correlated overall with antibacterial efficacy... Certain self-assembled morphologies seem better-suited for antibacterial activity.” The football 🏈 hits harder.
We choose the super effective oval shapes that mass the spears for the strongest hit.
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
Ooo, supportive care. Easy win for patients.
Looks like swapping olanzapine out for mirtazapine significantly reduces nausea. Relevant to every oncologist.
Randomized trial from India at #ESMO26. 120 chemo-naive patients starting highly emetogenic chemo, randomized 1:1. Both arms got fosaprepitant + palonosetron + dex. Fourth drug was mirtazapine 15 mg vs olanzapine 5 mg, days 1–4.
Mirtazapine vs olanzapine:
Acute 78.5% vs 56.4%, p=0.01
Delayed 52.3% vs 25.5%, p=0.003
Overall 46.2% vs 21.8%, p=0.005
Major differences
120 patients? Minimal risk? I'm sold. The day after the paper comes out, I'll swap.
@realbowtiedoc thoughts?
@OncoAlert @TheGutOncLab @Onco_Nexus
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
#Glofitamab with #polatuzumab vedotin in relapsed/refractory CNS #lymphoma: retrospective single-institution series, n=9, including chemorefractory Burkitt #lymphoma and TP53-mutant mantle cell #lymphoma.
ORR 100%, CR 89%. Responses in both brain parenchymal and leptomeningeal disease, with flow cytometry showing clearance of #lymphoma cells from CSF within days of treatment.
n=9, retrospective, short follow-up... so this is a signal rather than proof but enough to justify more evaluation in trials.
#CNSL #lymphoma
#lymsm
doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvance…
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
> Be Ali Khokhar
> Mom finds a lump when you're 10
> Takes a year to diagnose her breast cancer
> Watch her go through chemo, surgery and radiation
> Lose her when you're 13
> Grow up, become a product leader at Google
> Still can't stop thinking about her
> Leave Google, co-found Concurrence
> Hire a Stanford cancer surgeon as your Chief Medical Officer
> Build AI agents that talk to patients between visits and catch what charts miss
> Give every patient a digital twin so their doctor sees the full picture before making the call
> Every outcome makes the hospital smarter for the next patient
🤝 Paid partnership
When I was 13, I lost my mom to breast cancer. I still wonder if it could have been prevented.
When she found the lump, she did everything right.
She went to her primary care doctor, and he told her it was nothing. My mom wasn’t convinced, so she went to a women’s health specialist for a second opinion and was told the same thing. A year passed before she saw a third doctor who was shocked that nothing had been done and ordered tests the same day.
By the time she was diagnosed, the cancer had already spread.
For the next three years, she went through chemo, surgery, and radiation. Specialist after specialist, asking the same questions again and again.
After she passed away, there were two thoughts I couldn’t out of my head:
(1) Somewhere, a doctor must have seen a case like my mom’s and caught it early.
(2) Nothing that doctor learned had any way to reach her.
Healthcare runs in my family. All four of my sisters are nurses or pharmacists, and my fiancée spent the pandemic working in a multi-organ transplant recovery ward.
I’ve seen how hard clinicians work, and how much of that work requires understanding the patient and recognizing patterns from past cases.
That’s why a doctor can practice for 30 years and get better every year, while a hospital can treat millions of patients without getting much better at treating the next one.
What’s missing in healthcare is the infrastructure for it to learn from its own experience. If we don’t examine the cause and outcome of every interaction, how do we get better at knowing which signs to watch for?
I spent years at Google and Upwork building AI from human expertise, then eventually left big tech to work on the one problem I couldn’t stop thinking about.
I started a company called Concurrence (@concurrencehq) and raised $24M to build data and AI systems that enable healthcare orgs to learn from every patient they treat. Nothing learned is lost, and it reaches the next patient who needs it.
We’ve already supported care for over 10 million patients worldwide.
My mom deserved a doctor who had seen her case a thousand times. Every patient does.
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
A trial from Lucknow just made curing Hepatitis C a month shorter. And I have not seen many talking about it.
In India, nearly 6M people carry the Hepatitis C virus. The standard cure, sofosbuvir-velpatasvir, takes 12 weeks. Doctors at SGPGI Lucknow asked a simple question: what if 8 weeks is enough?
So the ICMR ran a trial called RESOLVE.
880 patients, 5 govt hospitals, 2 each in Lucknow and Delhi, 1 in Varanasi. Half got 12 weeks, half got 8.
The result, published this month in The Lancet: 98.8% cured on 8 weeks Vs 99.0% on 12. Statistically identical. Not one drug-related serious side effect.
The maths that follows is the real story...
A 12 week course costs around Rs 15,000 at market prices. 4 fewer weeks saves about Rs 5,000 per patient, a 3rd of the cost.
India runs a national hepatitis elimination programme. Multiply that saving by the millions still waiting, and the same budget treats far more people.
The honest limits: this holds only for patients without cirrhosis. For them the evidence is now hard data, not a hunch. The same team is already funded to test whether patients with cirrhosis can drop from 24 weeks to 12.
Bharat is rising. 🙏🙏
Sources: RESOLVE trial, The Lancet, 17 October 2026 (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01380-2)
Photo 1: Dr Rakesh Aggarwal, the trial's corresponding author (Professor of Gastroenterology, SGPGI Lucknow)
Photo 2: The Lancet's own abstract page, highlighted: 880 enrolled, 98.8% cured on 8 weeks vs 99.0% on 12, and "No participant had any drug-related serious adverse event."
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
It is very nice to see we can cure Ph+ B-ALL without a drop of chemotherapy and allogeneic transplant.
Original Article: Ponatinib–Blinatumomab or Imatinib–Chemotherapy for Adult Ph-Positive ALL (phase 3 GIMEMA ALL2820 trial) nej.md/4scorw0
Editorial: Chemotherapy-free Treatment of Ph-Positive ALL nej.md/3VIVUC8
#Hematology #CancerResearch
ALT Three graphs showing event-free survival (the primary end point) in the intention-to-treat analysis among patients in the intervention group (who received ponatinib plus blinatumomab) and in the control group (who received imatinib plus chemotherapy) (Panel A), along with molecular event-free survival (which was defined as an absence of measurable residual disease) (Panel B), and overall survival (Panel C).
ALT A Sankey plot shows the molecular response to treatment in the intervention group and the control group.
Sujay Rainchwar retweeted
Blood cancer treatment is moving beyond conventional chemotherapy. Our conversations with patients need to reflect that.
Today, the family of a newly diagnosed myeloma patient came to our OPD. Feared starting “chemo.”
Hair loss. Mouth ulcers. Vomiting. That was the picture in their minds.
But Dara-VRd works differently. It combines targeted medicines, immune-based treatment and a steroid.
It contains no conventional chemotherapy drugs.
The side effects they feared are not inevitable.
This change extends beyond myeloma:
1. Follicular lymphoma: EHA guidelines out today highlight more chemo-free options, especially at relapse.
2. Ph-positive ALL: new NEJM update of GIMEMA ALL2820 study supports targeted medicine plus immunotherapy, without conventional systemic chemotherapy.
These treatments still have risks.Careful monitoring remains essential.
Treatment is evolving. The way we explain it should too.
