Makes you wonder why we as humans don't prioritize cancer research more.

what stats?

​​@@potatochalbroIt's obvious mate. The rulers don't care. They r more interested in waging wars to satiate their ego n send common folks for slaughter in the name of patriotism.

@@LYJManchesterUnited 1 in 2

It’s really fantastic, isn’t it. Cant wait to see what amazing discoveries are made next.

HUMANS are to be feared. AI is Buddha reincarnated.

not that simple. under capitalism it will certainly lead to problems.

@@Dri_ver_ Under socialism it will only lead to absolute tyranny. Just look what China is doing.

yup its capitalism that makes ai problematic

I'm currently being treated with immune therapy for melanoma. Doctor said it's only been available for about 10 years.

My health care provider has low income assistance for cancer treatment. It's helping me.

I'm under going Immunotherapy for stage 3 melanoma. So far, so good.

They would have to get through the same rules that new therapies go through today. Already when looking for an overlap of trials with similar results it would be very results oriented..

@@ayoCC Yes and we know how accountable the medical industry is held. When they can't blame a "glitch" in the system.

Nope. You heard him incorrectly, he absolutely did not say that. He said the data they use is not in the public domain, meaning, they’re using their own data they’ve collected from years of experiments, etc.

He says their data used to train the AI models doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. Didn't say it was important to keep it out of the public domain. Although sadly, I suspect like most for-profit pharmaceuticals, they would rather it's kept outside the public domain to protect their moat.

@@asian1nvasion well, it sounds like the later as he should otherwise had said it was not trained on the proprietary data of others.

It’s age and diet related. People live longer - more chance of cancer mutations. Higher blood sugar - a better environment for cancer to develop.

@@Ch1kch1k 🤣

In the old days, let's say the Victorian era, the average person lived to 40-45, slightly longer if you were rich and healthy. People in that era might walk to work for 2 hours, put in a 10-12 hour day and then walk home. Healthy food and/or a varied diet were less available or affordable to the common man. Simple things such as clean drinking water, flowing water for personal hygiene were not easily accessible. There was no free healthcare, and modern medicine was a good 40-50 years away. Life was hard back then and many women died in childbirth. Moreover, there were no free government handouts like there are today for housing, food and bills. Nowadays, the average person lives to 75-85 which is almost double the average lifespan of the Victorians. We're living longer and healthier lives thanks to modern improvements to all these factors but especially modern medicines. Unfortunately, our bodies have a sell-by date and death finds us through disease. We have an inbuilt mutation system which means our bodies succumb more and more to disease as they break down and wear out. So, it may seem that we're more diseased than the Victorians but that's because they didn't live long enough to develop our geriatric diseases such as cancer and diabetes, and they didn't suffer the long term effects of drugs, alcohol, smoking, fast food or an indolent lifestyle.

@@messrsandersonco5985 There's an explosion of cancers in young people. Nice essay tho.

@@jonnsonsam it's just getting detected and diagnosed better. also there's a lot of carcinogenic artificial substances in our diet than say, 40 years ago. apparently, this aint the spicy answer with conspiracy touch you are looking for, is it.