I would accept this premise if people were prone to declaring "I'm peeing in the pool!". People do it because it's not easily detectable, if it were, people wouldn't do it because it actually isn't socially acceptable.

Good bot

If the recipient is immunosuppressed, yes. Such as an organ donor recipient who takes immune suppressing drugs in order to not reject the donor organ.

Under normal circumstances, your immune system will see the cancer as someone else's cells and mark it for destruction. In the 20th century before medical ethics was really a thing, there were experiments done on prisoners where tumours were transplanted from one person to another. The immune system identified the tumours as foreign, and they became necrotic. Your body is also frequently identifying potential tumours from your own mutated cells and destroying them, when some dysregulated, immortal cells avoid detection by the immune system, then you can send up with a tumour or a cancer.

https://www.cancer.org/treatment/survivorship-during-and-after-treatment/long-term-health-concerns/can-i-donate-my-organs.html

Looks like it flattens out just below 2
It's been a long time since I've done any stats, does it make sense to do a linear regression when the effect appears to have a ceiling like this?

With a few exceptions, almost every cell in almost every tissue is no further than 50-100 micrometers away from a capillary. For scale, the largest human cell is an egg(oocyte) which is 100 micrometers in length. This is because diffusion rapidly declines with distance. Those exceptions to this distance, as mentioned by others, tend to be cells that have very low metabolic activity.

An example of where this limitation causes problems is when people have chronic swelling of a tissue, such as oedema in the legs resulting from right sided heart failure. The swelling of the tissue increases the distance between the capillaries and the tissue, leading to atrophic skin, loss of hair follicles, etc. In left sided heart failure, you get swelling in the lungs, increasing the distance the oxygen has to travel from an alveolus to a capillary, and you can probably infer the consequences of that.

Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522213/

The immune system has a number of checks and conditions that should be met before an immune response is elicited. Things like anaphylaxis and atopy are what occur when this system fails.

But obviously you don't react violently to everything you eat, or everything that touches your skin, so we shouldn't expect drugs, especially oral ones, to do the same. Others have mentioned other limitations, such as molecule size. But also there are things called PAMPS and DAMPS. Pathogen/Damage Associated Molecular Patterns. These are molecules that are typically found in an infection, or during injury, that alert the immune system that previously unseen antigens may be worthy of provoking an immune response.

The regulation of the immune system against unnecessary activation is why inactivated vaccines tend to need an 'adjuvant', something that tells the immune system to take notice. injecting a syringe is a very clean and non injurious insult to the body, especially if you compare it to something natural like an actual wound with active pathogens invading the tissue.

Writing a fantasy novel based on cultures other than your own, especially marginalised ones, is a good way to attract an hate mob to get your book removed from shelves for racism and cultural appropriation.

>Nocebo in Latin means "I will not please"

"I will harm" is a more accurate translation.

though the phrase "Primum non nocere" translating to "First, don't not please" would be kind of funny.