Okay, adding my vote to have her on the pod for a full show. Damn Dr. Nicole is good! Also, I have to say how amazing it is that I can be sitting in my little studio, and listen to someone of Dr. Nicole's caliber speak for 30 minutes...for free. Absolutely amazing.
Discarding the whole night vision superpowers bs, if you are at stage 4 cancer getting injected with some virus that has the chance to cure you seems like a pretty good idea. worst case scenario you're going to die anyway
Definitely had some pitch-like moments, but I don't blame her for trying to take advantage of the stage that she was on. Not easy to squeeze in any real data given the time constraints, the general audience and the ground she was likely asked to cover. I think I saw her on another panel back when she was still at UCSF, maybe at ASGCT. Unfortunately, she didn't really address the shortcomings of AAV that Chamath tried to bring up. Felt like a dodge to me. Just say, "It has some limitations like a small payload and poor cell specificity, but these can be addressed by using mini-genes or dual vector strategies and capsid engineering. It also has many strengths, and is well suited to target multiple diseases, as evidenced by current FDA approvals, including the diseases that we are targeting." Granted, I have the luxury of typing this on RUclips and she was up on the stage seated between Friedberg, J-Cal, Chamath and Sacks in front of an audience. I probably wouldn't have been as eloquent. I am glad she circled back around and acknowledged Friedberg's question about the manufacturing bottleneck. It's a big problem, particularly as the field moves to treat larger patient populations and conditions that need larger dosages than required for disorders of the eye.
Would love to see and hear more of this in long form on the pod instead of weekly current events… maybe 1-2 a month would be nice. We have lots to learn from these brilliant folks
If you can encode logic in the medicine the term "stomach bug" gets a whole other meaning 🙈 Great talk! I'd like to hear more from her. She explains stuff in an easy digestible way.
As somebody who invests heavily in these companies (and has a background in biology) and watches a lot of these CEOs speak, she strikes me as a more concerning Elizabeth Holmes type. If you want to know what reasonable gene therapy researchers sound like, listen to Jennifer Doudna (Nobel prize winner and co discoverer of CRISPR)
Was thinking the exact same thing. She presented this science in a very twinkling light and completely left out any drawbacks and serious challenges to this area of science. Very delusional presentation.
@@theresanarasimhan5911 Definitely. The references to being able to easily modify out the need to sleep long hours and do a lot of gene edits with the tech we have right now is definitely divorced from reality. It took over 5 years to get exa-cel to the point that it can proven to work in humans safely and be presented to the FDA for approval. And that's a simple knock-out edit. We have no idea what genes are involved with sleep and how complex they are and what types of edits would be involved. I'm sure she doesn't know either. We also don't know what the ramifications might be from making these edits. Crazy claim to make.
All IN guys done awsome job not just focusing on hot sectors like fintech crypto but other sectors like Bio-Tech and damn Dr. Nicole Paulk is freaking awsome speaker explaining super complex biology to someone who hates it !
I'm not saying this is the cause (ie correlation != causation), I just noticed (correct me if I'm wrong or you disagree) there is a negative correlation between All-in video views and female present in the video (thumbnail). I would say it's those people's loss for not viewing the videos because this video is one of my favourite all-in video and Mar Hershenson last year's was one of my favourite videos as well. I'm curious what others think.
@@knkootbaoat6759 there’s definitely something there. Personally i think she was toeing the line of woowoo and a bit too, i guess, unordinary with presentation. I cant wait to learn more, but with a least a bit of expected misogyny from viewership those kind of things will cause more unfounded negativity
They already have the cure for you ready. They want to make it legal to sell it to you first. That's why you don't have it yet. That's what this whole talk is about. Once you understand, you will see our civilization is mentally ill, unethical, and selfish to the exclusion of rationality. You deserve better.
AAv delivery has not achieved tissue or cell type specific precision. Most disease are polygenic, meaning not a single gene mistake caused the disease. She is way oversimplify the complexity of disease biology. Perhaps for the layman finance audience. Sounded like a found raising pitch😂
Seriously, out of the 12 major AAV serotypes and sub variants, tissue tropism is barely selective. AAV is too small to deliver large genes. Production is super complex and needs major purification. Something as simple as titering assays to determine dose have huge error bars, like 80% relative standard deviation. There are several FDA approved AAV gene therapies, but only for rare diseases and cost like $400,000 per dose.
Most excellent! Also, this gives me a flashback to about 2005 watching OG Ted talks and seeing Craig Venter introduce human genome editing with CRISPR - these have a great OG TED vibe - with more entrepreneurs and more open discussion at the end.
The "OG" Teds were great. As stated on the All-In pod, the summit was formed to bring back positivity because Ted has now turned into a platform for social warriors.
If a person had the HDEC2 gene therapy for 4 hours of sleep, assuming they’d live to 100, that’s ~16.5 extra years of conscious life gained. Not to mention the health benefits from not being sleep deprived. If everyone got that therapy it would also boost the economy due to increased productivity and consumption.
Literally unbelievable. As in i do not believe the claims made. There were no discussions of risks or tradeoffs. I would bet my net worth that there are major downsides to "naturally" sleeping 4 hours a night, for longevity if nothing else.
30 years to gene therapy augmentation lol. I wish her research the best but there's no way in hell. Until we have absolute control over the adaptive immune system, we're extremely limited in our capacity to move forward on stuff like this or gene therapies that correct normal diseases. Not to mention all the other hurdles she mentioned regarding adoption by the FDA.
I only work adjacent to this field so definitely don't have the full in and out picture of things but day to day I've seen many of these working their way through the clinical trial process. Additionally there's several that have already made their way through approvals including several cancer and eye sight treatments. There are serious safety standards that these treatments need to treat for and test for and rightfully need to achieve because these are serious and in many cases permanent changes being made but there is a lot of work being done here to make this happen. so regardless if it is the next 5.10.20. or 30 years This is important work being done. Although that's just my opinion,
I mean sure @@9spr. Ultimately though a lot of what she's doing is raising funds. Seems a bit unfair to set expectations that are essentially impossible to meet. The eye and the brain are immunologically privileged sites, ergo don't have nearly as many of adaptive immune system problems. For cancer do you mean like ex-vivo CAR T? If so again able to get around immune system problems because making changes to cells outside the body. If you mean treating cancer via gene therapy in vivo, I'd love to check it out if you have a reference or an article on it.
@alexwillenbrink8069 I don't think that that's accurate. In Leukemia for instance, the first patients were treated 10 years ago with CAR-T cell therapy and 2 of them are still cancer free. There are 500 CAR-T cell therapies in clinical trials. It is likely these will translate into new medicines.
My understanding is the AAV guys are using something like a directed evolution technique. So instead of naturally occurring AAVs they develop ones for particular types of cells (like brain cells). The rest of the idea is if you can increase delivery to the particular cells you can decrease the dose and therefore decrease immune response without sacrificing efficacy.
Not sure if they can be compared. David Sinclair also conducts experiments with mice and says they have fixed blindness in mice, but somehow I do not trust him fully. In general people who present their research obviously tend to overstate the state of their research.
Great work as always! I raise an eyebrow when she says "night vision is easy". Beware of those with more answers than questions. Assuming there will not be any untoward effects from manipulating the human genome....... bad idea. A negative side effect may be worth it when you are fixing a true genetic handicap such as blindness or curing cancer. When you are attempting to "enhance" the human body it would stand to reason that the average patient will not be willing to tolerate any negative side effects or problems since their aim was to improve themselves rather than downgrade things.
Holy crap then she goes on to say she can "restore joy" and that mental health problems are usually single variables. The subjective nature of the human experience, sorrow and suffering, restored by gene therapy....... If despite access to current antidepressant meds depression rates in the US continue to soar it implies we still don't understand "mood" that completely. This is a gross oversimplification of the nature of many things. Yall should definitely have her on for two hours and have Friedberg ready to push back. I put her on par with the AI experts that say there is "nothing to worry about". They haven't thought hard enough about it.
I think the mechanism behind how this works is not quite clear. I was under the impression we get baseball sized tumors because our immune system is going blind, not because the tumor found a way to be invisible. It’s a subtle but important point and explains why people in optimal health will usually beat cancer whereas unhealthy individuals have a much worse shot at it
It's simple enough in concept let me take a crack at it. Cancer cells evolve the same way any living thing will under selection pressure. Your immune system has a few ways to detect and kill them, thus naturally selects for any that have mutations that make them more likely to survive. 2 key mutations that allow them to survive despite your immune system's best efforts: To express chemicals that downregulate the immune cells close to them. To stop expressing "alarm" proteins that tell your immune system that something has gone wrong in the cell. Your immune system is fine, cancer just evolved to evade.
Is anyone going to address the elephant in the room? mRNA covid vaccines got approved for widescale use in humans in one year but this stuff needs 18 months just to even begin testing? Am i missing something?
Yup and they reduced mortality rates by an order of a magnitude. It turns out that when push comes to shove, regulation can be safely bypassed. Makes you wonder how much of it is completely useless.
People comparing her or the company to Holmes and Theranos are way off base. She has a PhD, many peer reviewed publications, held a faculty position at one of the best universities in the world and has been in the AAV field for over a decade. Hardly a 19 year old college dropout with no technical skills that liked to cosplay as Steve Jobs. Yes, I thought that some of what she said was overstated. However, that was limited to the rate of progress in the field of gene therapy and what applications people might use it for. I suspect some of that was to punch up the talk and highlight how powerful gene therapy could be. And sometimes it's good to turn off your filter and just imagine crazy possibilities. That being said, nothing she stated about her own work, or that of the company, came across as vaporware or outside of current technical capabilities. There's a lot of potential in the field and a lot of work, creativity and yes, money, will be needed to realize that potential. I hope she is successful.
The most often used term in modern medicine is “game changer” and yet none of those promises have lived up to their hype. A decade ago it was stem cells that was going to make new organs possible until they discovered many of these stem cells became tumors. This ended this field overnight. Then it was PCSK9 inhibitors which were supposed of make heart disease obsolete by lowering LDL Cholesterol to near zero and yet heart disease remains the number killer. Then immunotherapy and yet most therapies offer a few months of life and sadly most people with cancer have to rely on 80 year old chemo and radiation. It’s time medicine actually starts delivering rather than just hyping about false promises.
The improvements are incremental and slow. They never live up to the hype because the “hype” is almost always misinformed and driven by journalists/click seekers that do not understand things. The improvements are there if you know where to look. If you had metastatic melanoma in early to mid 2000s, it’s a death sentence within months. We now have 10+ year follow up survival data (cure) with metastatic melanoma immunotherapy patients. It’s time we encourage science education amongst the populace instead of push exaggerated misinformed narratives and then complaining when things don’t live up to your originally misinformed initial expectations.
I think you're being far too critical of new medical technologies. Medicine isn't like consumer devices or apps. Biology is extremely complicated, and everyone's bodies are slightly different. That means that treatments for complex diseases like cancer or Parkinson's might work for one person, but not for another. Or they might cause side effects for one person, but not another. If you expect a new technology to be a panacea, you're going to be disappointed. However, these new technologiee still improvement many people's lives. As per your comment on stem cells, you're wrong. STEM cells transplants are a proven and effective treatment for several conditions. STEM cells transplants are used to repair torn ACLs and scratched corneas. Additionally, the standard treatment for leukemia is to use chemotherapy to destroy the mutated bone marrow, and then inject new bone marrow STEM cells into the patient's bones to resume blood cell production. While immunotherapy doesn't work for all patients, there are studies that indicate that 30-40% of patients are eligible, and 10-15% respond to the treatment. While that might not seem like a lot, it's estimated that about 2 million people are treated for cancer each year. That means immunotherapy is improving the lives of at least a couple hundred thousand people and their families each year. That's worth something. Additionally you forgot to mention a lot of the medical advancements in the last few decades that have had an immense positive impact, such as in vitro fertilization that has given numerous couples the opportunity to be patents, rapid genome sequencing for detecting genetic diseases, recombinant DNA that allows insulin to be mass produced by E coli, monoclonal antibodies that can be used for numerous applications like anti VEGF therapy that can preserve the eyesight of people suffering from AMD, and last but not least mRNA vaccines that were used to fight Covid.
@@andrewcornelio6179you had me until you said the vaccine cured Covid. Covid is still alive and well. Multiple studies have shown that it boosts immunization for a few months but it does not cure Covid. There is even some studies being done that show the vaccine accelerated the mutation response of Covid 19 as well as creating more side affects for younger adults that took the vaccine. Also don’t forget the concept of herd immunity. We have years of evolution and our cells continue to evolve with or without vaccines.
Bro bring her in for a two hour podcast - this was awesome
Agreed amazing she should be a science corner regular
I concur. Would love to hear her thoughts on rejuvenation and new wave of bio-hacking
This one should have been longer. Please get her on the pod.
+1. So many questions she answered with, literally, 5-word responses. They should be 5 minute + answers!
We need Dr. Nicole Paulk on the podcast for an episode or two!
This was my fav. Talk and it was difficult this year to pick a favourite, her work is IMPRESSIVE
Remember when TED was good? Thank goodness for this summit to learn new things.
Most DEFINITELY bring her back on the Pod. Spreading the word on these efforts can’t be understated.
After watching this talk, I want to take a leveraged short postion on this company
Okay, adding my vote to have her on the pod for a full show. Damn Dr. Nicole is good!
Also, I have to say how amazing it is that I can be sitting in my little studio, and listen to someone of Dr. Nicole's caliber speak for 30 minutes...for free. Absolutely amazing.
What an inspirational talk! You can’t help but be excited for the future of humanity when you hear talks like this.
This sounds great. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.
NOTHING AT ALL. Trust the science.
Discarding the whole night vision superpowers bs, if you are at stage 4 cancer getting injected with some virus that has the chance to cure you seems like a pretty good idea. worst case scenario you're going to die anyway
Best in class. By far and away my favourite lecture so far. Bravo Sultan.
This lady is amazing. She knows how to sell her stuff leave alone being genius.
Definitely had some pitch-like moments, but I don't blame her for trying to take advantage of the stage that she was on. Not easy to squeeze in any real data given the time constraints, the general audience and the ground she was likely asked to cover. I think I saw her on another panel back when she was still at UCSF, maybe at ASGCT.
Unfortunately, she didn't really address the shortcomings of AAV that Chamath tried to bring up. Felt like a dodge to me. Just say, "It has some limitations like a small payload and poor cell specificity, but these can be addressed by using mini-genes or dual vector strategies and capsid engineering. It also has many strengths, and is well suited to target multiple diseases, as evidenced by current FDA approvals, including the diseases that we are targeting." Granted, I have the luxury of typing this on RUclips and she was up on the stage seated between Friedberg, J-Cal, Chamath and Sacks in front of an audience. I probably wouldn't have been as eloquent. I am glad she circled back around and acknowledged Friedberg's question about the manufacturing bottleneck. It's a big problem, particularly as the field moves to treat larger patient populations and conditions that need larger dosages than required for disorders of the eye.
Would love to see and hear more of this in long form on the pod instead of weekly current events… maybe 1-2 a month would be nice. We have lots to learn from these brilliant folks
This was so amazing cannot wait to hear her on the podcast in more detail
Awesome. I worked with bioreactors and separation in my Chen eng degree back in 2005.
Oil and gas paid better and didn’t need a PhD.
Engaging and delightful to hear from Dr. Nicole Paulk. A single prompt starts a cascade of pithy responses, vow! Thanks, All-In team.
If you can encode logic in the medicine the term "stomach bug" gets a whole other meaning 🙈
Great talk! I'd like to hear more from her. She explains stuff in an easy digestible way.
As a scientist, I am very sceptical for her claims. But I also understand that she sure knows who are her audiences. Great show BTW.
Incredibly impressive! Thanks for sharing, deeply appreciate
This is bananas and absolutely incredible. What a time to be alive
What…more awesome interviews?! This is a monday even Garfield would love ❤. Many thanks!
Best talk of the Summit, not even close.
That woman is absolutely on fire 💥
As somebody who invests heavily in these companies (and has a background in biology) and watches a lot of these CEOs speak, she strikes me as a more concerning Elizabeth Holmes type. If you want to know what reasonable gene therapy researchers sound like, listen to Jennifer Doudna (Nobel prize winner and co discoverer of CRISPR)
Was thinking the exact same thing. She presented this science in a very twinkling light and completely left out any drawbacks and serious challenges to this area of science. Very delusional presentation.
@@theresanarasimhan5911 Definitely. The references to being able to easily modify out the need to sleep long hours and do a lot of gene edits with the tech we have right now is definitely divorced from reality. It took over 5 years to get exa-cel to the point that it can proven to work in humans safely and be presented to the FDA for approval. And that's a simple knock-out edit. We have no idea what genes are involved with sleep and how complex they are and what types of edits would be involved. I'm sure she doesn't know either. We also don't know what the ramifications might be from making these edits. Crazy claim to make.
She talks about the potential market size lol I smell greed
We need to make money with healthy people. Think about what she says. We need such a summit for energy healing.
Thanks besties!!
Wow!! Awsome presentation, please have Dr. Paulk on again in the future.
Great presentation. Modern medicine is a human-made miracle
Chamath never disappoints man, and Friedberg is the man...
She’s just amazing!!
Get her on the pod - she makes the future sound bright. We can all get behind that.
Love her energy..
Enjoyed this so much! Phenomenal preso.
I tune in for the All-In music
This was the best biology lesson, I ever had
This is my favorite presentation of this summit
Fantastic! Really loving the science corner talks
All IN guys done awsome job not just focusing on hot sectors like fintech crypto but other sectors like Bio-Tech and damn Dr. Nicole Paulk is freaking awsome speaker explaining super complex biology to someone who hates it !
Thank you thoroughly enjoyed
I love her
Phenomenal presentation!! Wow!
Wow - wonderful.
Thanks for this optimistic guest
no i'm speachless wow
I don’t know why this didn’t get more views! The implications for curing disease are gigantic.
Rhythm was off a bit. Nicole/her platform are very impressive
I'm not saying this is the cause (ie correlation != causation), I just noticed (correct me if I'm wrong or you disagree) there is a negative correlation between All-in video views and female present in the video (thumbnail).
I would say it's those people's loss for not viewing the videos because this video is one of my favourite all-in video and Mar Hershenson last year's was one of my favourite videos as well.
I'm curious what others think.
People generally don’t care about the future until it’s here.
More likely it's cuz this one is only 30 mins @@knkootbaoat6759
@@knkootbaoat6759 there’s definitely something there. Personally i think she was toeing the line of woowoo and a bit too, i guess, unordinary with presentation.
I cant wait to learn more, but with a least a bit of expected misogyny from viewership those kind of things will cause more unfounded negativity
A good talk! Very smart woman
Been waiting for a cure to my blindness in my left eye 😢 less goooo
They already have the cure for you ready. They want to make it legal to sell it to you first. That's why you don't have it yet. That's what this whole talk is about. Once you understand, you will see our civilization is mentally ill, unethical, and selfish to the exclusion of rationality.
You deserve better.
So good
Her mind moving so fast, speaking so fast!
AAv delivery has not achieved tissue or cell type specific precision. Most disease are polygenic, meaning not a single gene mistake caused the disease. She is way oversimplify the complexity of disease biology. Perhaps for the layman finance audience. Sounded like a found raising pitch😂
Seriously, out of the 12 major AAV serotypes and sub variants, tissue tropism is barely selective. AAV is too small to deliver large genes. Production is super complex and needs major purification. Something as simple as titering assays to determine dose have huge error bars, like 80% relative standard deviation. There are several FDA approved AAV gene therapies, but only for rare diseases and cost like $400,000 per dose.
Most excellent! Also, this gives me a flashback to about 2005 watching OG Ted talks and seeing Craig Venter introduce human genome editing with CRISPR - these have a great OG TED vibe - with more entrepreneurs and more open discussion at the end.
The "OG" Teds were great. As stated on the All-In pod, the summit was formed to bring back positivity because Ted has now turned into a platform for social warriors.
@@jeffcal007 Indeed.
I should be sleeping right now, would love that 4hr sleep gene edit.
The Q&A reminds me of the villain’s hubris in a Marvel movie, right before their experiment goes wrong 😂
That’s the best.
I feel that she’ll either be the next Elon Musk or Elizabeth Holmes of biotech. Only time will tell.
Elisabeth 😅
Hey fabulous 4.. get this dynamo on for a long segment. This is next level interesting
Incredible talk.
Wow! I’m excited for the future. I wouldn’t mind having night vision 😎
Great Job Sacks!
If a person had the HDEC2 gene therapy for 4 hours of sleep, assuming they’d live to 100, that’s ~16.5 extra years of conscious life gained. Not to mention the health benefits from not being sleep deprived. If everyone got that therapy it would also boost the economy due to increased productivity and consumption.
This was freeking awesome!
BEST Talk of the show! Chammi shaking the arena as a PRO like always! Jason get OFF-WHITE now!
Any path to setup shop in Cuba or elsewhere to get this ball rolling quicker?
I'm getting Elizabeth Holmes vibes from her.
I’m so glad there is no downside to gene therapy
exactly, and wonder why no one ask the million dollar questions, the ethical view on the smart gene etc.
😂😂😂😂 Hit the nail on the head. All our troubles will soon be gone just give me your money please...
gene therapy causes cancer because you’re putting foreign genes into your body and your natural immune system reacts to that.
Literally unbelievable. As in i do not believe the claims made. There were no discussions of risks or tradeoffs. I would bet my net worth that there are major downsides to "naturally" sleeping 4 hours a night, for longevity if nothing else.
I think this one was the highlight of the conference, not Bill Gurley's talk (don't get me wrong, I thought Bill Gurley's talk was amazing too).
She is a doctor, wow wow
Awesome
I wonder if we will be able to make a specefic body part larger...
where you can have access to this types of treatments? i mean the ones that are already aprove
I want to hear more of this. This was too short
30 years to gene therapy augmentation lol. I wish her research the best but there's no way in hell. Until we have absolute control over the adaptive immune system, we're extremely limited in our capacity to move forward on stuff like this or gene therapies that correct normal diseases. Not to mention all the other hurdles she mentioned regarding adoption by the FDA.
I only work adjacent to this field so definitely don't have the full in and out picture of things but day to day I've seen many of these working their way through the clinical trial process. Additionally there's several that have already made their way through approvals including several cancer and eye sight treatments. There are serious safety standards that these treatments need to treat for and test for and rightfully need to achieve because these are serious and in many cases permanent changes being made but there is a lot of work being done here to make this happen. so regardless if it is the next 5.10.20. or 30 years This is important work being done. Although that's just my opinion,
I mean sure @@9spr. Ultimately though a lot of what she's doing is raising funds. Seems a bit unfair to set expectations that are essentially impossible to meet.
The eye and the brain are immunologically privileged sites, ergo don't have nearly as many of adaptive immune system problems. For cancer do you mean like ex-vivo CAR T? If so again able to get around immune system problems because making changes to cells outside the body. If you mean treating cancer via gene therapy in vivo, I'd love to check it out if you have a reference or an article on it.
just declare a pandemic and you can roll out whatever gene therapy you want lol
@alexwillenbrink8069 I don't think that that's accurate. In Leukemia for instance, the first patients were treated 10 years ago with CAR-T cell therapy and 2 of them are still cancer free. There are 500 CAR-T cell therapies in clinical trials. It is likely these will translate into new medicines.
My understanding is the AAV guys are using something like a directed evolution technique. So instead of naturally occurring AAVs they develop ones for particular types of cells (like brain cells). The rest of the idea is if you can increase delivery to the particular cells you can decrease the dose and therefore decrease immune response without sacrificing efficacy.
Please bring David Sinclair, expert in anti-aging onto the show. His work is extraordinary
Not sure if they can be compared. David Sinclair also conducts experiments with mice and says they have fixed blindness in mice, but somehow I do not trust him fully. In general people who present their research obviously tend to overstate the state of their research.
@@bernios3446 he is clearly being suppressed by trad pharma. I attended medical school for 4 years
When she said improving the human gene with viruses, my mind kind of brought up umbrella
Major Theranos vibes
Running at .75 speed makes her much easier to listen to.
I wish these were 1 hr instead
Can someone link the industry prospectus at 8:40? Can't seem to find it online.
does anyone have a link to where we can get the "where are we now" graphic at 8:50 ?
Great work as always! I raise an eyebrow when she says "night vision is easy". Beware of those with more answers than questions. Assuming there will not be any untoward effects from manipulating the human genome....... bad idea. A negative side effect may be worth it when you are fixing a true genetic handicap such as blindness or curing cancer. When you are attempting to "enhance" the human body it would stand to reason that the average patient will not be willing to tolerate any negative side effects or problems since their aim was to improve themselves rather than downgrade things.
Holy crap then she goes on to say she can "restore joy" and that mental health problems are usually single variables. The subjective nature of the human experience, sorrow and suffering, restored by gene therapy....... If despite access to current antidepressant meds depression rates in the US continue to soar it implies we still don't understand "mood" that completely. This is a gross oversimplification of the nature of many things. Yall should definitely have her on for two hours and have Friedberg ready to push back. I put her on par with the AI experts that say there is "nothing to worry about". They haven't thought hard enough about it.
Sometimes it's just more efficient and safer to eat the leaf!
EDIT, CRSP, PACB, ILMN will be big soon.
As a gentleman, I would like to compliment her beauty as well. Since enough said of her intelligence 😁
She would be a great female regular on the pod! Super bright and interesting!
Major theranos vibes. Wish I'm wrong though
Long #CRSP!
This is not enough. I need more. He needs to come back at least one of the two hours❤
When are you guys gonna talk about DeSci
I think the mechanism behind how this works is not quite clear. I was under the impression we get baseball sized tumors because our immune system is going blind, not because the tumor found a way to be invisible. It’s a subtle but important point and explains why people in optimal health will usually beat cancer whereas unhealthy individuals have a much worse shot at it
It's simple enough in concept let me take a crack at it.
Cancer cells evolve the same way any living thing will under selection pressure. Your immune system has a few ways to detect and kill them, thus naturally selects for any that have mutations that make them more likely to survive.
2 key mutations that allow them to survive despite your immune system's best efforts:
To express chemicals that downregulate the immune cells close to them.
To stop expressing "alarm" proteins that tell your immune system that something has gone wrong in the cell.
Your immune system is fine, cancer just evolved to evade.
She first needs to make something that will help her not stay out of breath while giving presentations
@Lex Fridman needs to bring her on his pod, and let the robot to human conversation take place
Is anyone going to address the elephant in the room? mRNA covid vaccines got approved for widescale use in humans in one year but this stuff needs 18 months just to even begin testing?
Am i missing something?
stop paying attention and consume tiktok
Yup and they reduced mortality rates by an order of a magnitude. It turns out that when push comes to shove, regulation can be safely bypassed. Makes you wonder how much of it is completely useless.
Give her the money if she can really do such bio engineering improvements!! The US will be able to defend itself!
5 to 10 years in science means 50 to 100 years
People comparing her or the company to Holmes and Theranos are way off base. She has a PhD, many peer reviewed publications, held a faculty position at one of the best universities in the world and has been in the AAV field for over a decade. Hardly a 19 year old college dropout with no technical skills that liked to cosplay as Steve Jobs.
Yes, I thought that some of what she said was overstated. However, that was limited to the rate of progress in the field of gene therapy and what applications people might use it for. I suspect some of that was to punch up the talk and highlight how powerful gene therapy could be. And sometimes it's good to turn off your filter and just imagine crazy possibilities.
That being said, nothing she stated about her own work, or that of the company, came across as vaporware or outside of current technical capabilities. There's a lot of potential in the field and a lot of work, creativity and yes, money, will be needed to realize that potential. I hope she is successful.
Can viral gene therapy be used for in vivo data collection?
The most often used term in modern medicine is “game changer” and yet none of those promises have lived up to their hype. A decade ago it was stem cells that was going to make new organs possible until they discovered many of these stem cells became tumors. This ended this field overnight. Then it was PCSK9 inhibitors which were supposed of make heart disease obsolete by lowering LDL Cholesterol to near zero and yet heart disease remains the number killer. Then immunotherapy and yet most therapies offer a few months of life and sadly most people with cancer have to rely on 80 year old chemo and radiation. It’s time medicine actually starts delivering rather than just hyping about false promises.
The improvements are incremental and slow. They never live up to the hype because the “hype” is almost always misinformed and driven by journalists/click seekers that do not understand things.
The improvements are there if you know where to look. If you had metastatic melanoma in early to mid 2000s, it’s a death sentence within months. We now have 10+ year follow up survival data (cure) with metastatic melanoma immunotherapy patients.
It’s time we encourage science education amongst the populace instead of push exaggerated misinformed narratives and then complaining when things don’t live up to your originally misinformed initial expectations.
I think you're being far too critical of new medical technologies. Medicine isn't like consumer devices or apps. Biology is extremely complicated, and everyone's bodies are slightly different. That means that treatments for complex diseases like cancer or Parkinson's might work for one person, but not for another. Or they might cause side effects for one person, but not another. If you expect a new technology to be a panacea, you're going to be disappointed. However, these new technologiee still improvement many people's lives.
As per your comment on stem cells, you're wrong. STEM cells transplants are a proven and effective treatment for several conditions. STEM cells transplants are used to repair torn ACLs and scratched corneas. Additionally, the standard treatment for leukemia is to use chemotherapy to destroy the mutated bone marrow, and then inject new bone marrow STEM cells into the patient's bones to resume blood cell production.
While immunotherapy doesn't work for all patients, there are studies that indicate that 30-40% of patients are eligible, and 10-15% respond to the treatment. While that might not seem like a lot, it's estimated that about 2 million people are treated for cancer each year. That means immunotherapy is improving the lives of at least a couple hundred thousand people and their families each year. That's worth something.
Additionally you forgot to mention a lot of the medical advancements in the last few decades that have had an immense positive impact, such as in vitro fertilization that has given numerous couples the opportunity to be patents, rapid genome sequencing for detecting genetic diseases, recombinant DNA that allows insulin to be mass produced by E coli, monoclonal antibodies that can be used for numerous applications like anti VEGF therapy that can preserve the eyesight of people suffering from AMD, and last but not least mRNA vaccines that were used to fight Covid.
@@andrewcornelio6179 agreed. This original commenter has no idea what he’s talking about.
@@andrewcornelio6179you had me until you said the vaccine cured Covid. Covid is still alive and well. Multiple studies have shown that it boosts immunization for a few months but it does not cure Covid. There is even some studies being done that show the vaccine accelerated the mutation response of Covid 19 as well as creating more side affects for younger adults that took the vaccine. Also don’t forget the concept of herd immunity. We have years of evolution and our cells continue to evolve with or without vaccines.
that’s because it’s all about the $$$$
Chamath didn’t explain how the biotech market and funding status …
Something about her that screams sketchy and I might accidentally create something that’ll kill a lot of people.