undefined

points

[-]

I don't necessarily see a problem with it: if people want to try experimental therapy on themselves and can fund it, then as long as it's expensive, let them - that speeds up research. The problem with allowing anyone to opt out of safety trials is that it then creates pressure from doctors and family members to try, and then it becomes non-consensual in practice.

by 331c8c7114 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Yeah it's more like personalized therapy - often the only hope for rare diseases.

While AI has definitely helped quite a bit I am wondering how much all this research and treatments cost. Not sure the current health systems could sustain this for _everyone affected_. If ai enables it all the better.

by RandomLensman15 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

What's the success rate there?

by SyneRyder15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

At least in Sid's case, it went from the oncologist saying "I have no more drugs I would recommend, no trials available" (slide 7) to "I currently have no evidence of disease" (slide 18). I don't know beyond that or beyond Sid's case - or a similar story of an Australian who treated a cancer tumour their dog had with a similar AI / personalized vaccine process.

My understanding of what Sid's describing is that you do RNA sequencing, a whole genome sequencing, feed that into frontier AI (if it will still let you), and somewhere along the way give the information the AI finds to people who can use it make a personalized mRNA vaccine, specifically for you and your cancer.

Another link here about Sid's case, it explains it didn't go through trials: "made possible through a compassionate use allowance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)".

https://www.houstonmethodist.org/newsroom/houston-methodist-...

I am not medical, so I'm happy for someone who understands better to come in and explain all the myriad ways I am wrong.