Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
Microsoft's AI can now detect cancer from a $10 tissue sample. For context, every time tumor cells are tested, doctors create a basic microscope slide to study tissue up close. These slides show cell shapes and structures, but they can't reveal which immune cells are actually fighting the cancer.... show more
43,728 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)
20 Comments
Research paper link: I break down stories like this every day in my free newsletter. Keep up with the latest in AI/Robotics in 5 min a day:
the $10 part is wild. half the reason rural hospitals miss stuff is they cant justify sending slides out for specialized analysis. if this works across tissue types thats huge for places without a dedicated pathologist on staff
This is the shift people miss: AI isn’t only creating new capabilities, it’s upgrading the value of existing infrastructure without changing the hardware.
这技术能普及就太好了，10刀真的不贵
@grok how can this be implemented in hospitals
This is the true potential of AI: moving beyond chatbots to high-precision execution. When we bridge the gap between AI analysis and real-world results, everything changes. Precision in diagnostics today means precision in every industry tomorrow. Great breakdown, Rowan.
I love this. But hospitals can’t even fill in basic paperwork. How are they going to run an open source model?
The $10 part is what nobody's mentioning. → Current cancer diagnosis: $1,000+ test + specialist → With AI: commodity hardware + computer vision = same result This is the Path to Abundance playbook for healthcare. GPT moment for diagnostics is closer than you think.
Rowan with another banger
For this technology to reach its full potential, the hospitals need an easy and intuitive user interface and clear step-by-step instructions. Is this already planned!?
The $10 barrier is huge for accessibility, but I'm curious — how confident are doctors in relying on AI scores vs traditional pathology reviews? Trust is the bottleneck, not the cost.
wildest part is every hospital already had these slides sitting around. the data existed, nobody could extract signal from it without a model trained on 40M cells. classic case where the product isn't new data, it's new inference on old data
...which is exactly where the regulatory conversation gets complicated in ways this framing skips over. Detection accuracy is not the same as regulatory readiness. A system that performs well in a controlled research setting still has to clear premarket review, demonstrate performance across diverse patient populations, and answer the liability question nobody has resolved yet: when the AI flags a false negative and a patient goes untreated, who owns that outcome? Current frameworks weren't built for this. The FDA's SaMD classification can technically accommodate a cancer detection tool, but the harder problem is what happens when that tool learns from new data after approval. Post-market surveillance assumes a relatively static product. Adaptive systems break that assumption, and neither the FDA's AI/ML Action Plan nor the EU MDR has fully worked out how to handle a model that shifts its own decision boundaries over time. The $10 price point matters, but it creates a second problem. Cheaper access at scale means deployment in settings with less clinical oversight, which pushes the tool further toward the autonomous end of the spectrum. That's where risk-based classification frameworks start to strain, because the same tool can be low-risk in a hospital with backup review and high-risk in a remote clinic where the AI output is the final word. Cost democratizes access. Regulatory gaps democratize harm too.
This advancement is truly impressive! Harnessing AI to enhance cancer detection can significantly improve early diagnosis and treatment. I also found a helpful video explaining how to transfer Bitcoin to PayPal:
Full gist
Huge breakthrough. If it holds up at scale, this is real-world AI impact.
Watched this space for 2 years. Real unlock: → $10 vs $500+ traditional pathology → Same tech already being applied to lung and breast cancer detection The bottleneck isn't the AI — it's hospital procurement. 18-24 month integration cycles. Opportunity window is right now.
🙏🏽
Microsoft has finally done something positive for the world
cancer detection for 10 bucks fr
![The Remarkable Cancer-Fighting Benefits of Ivermectin • “Ivermectin can actually kill cancer stem cells,” which are often resistant to chemotherapy. • “It can also reverse resistance that cancer cells develop to chemotherapy,” making treatments more effective. • “It makes cancer cells susceptible to radiation treatment as well. And so it’s a radiosensitizer.” • Patients are seeing “tumors shrinking down to almost nothing, liver metastases disappearing, [and] brain metastases disappearing.” “There are over 100 papers on the success of ivermectin and cancer,” but much of this research has been ignored because the drug is off-patent, meaning “no one’s going to make money on it.” Dr. Makis has treated over 1,000 patients using combinations of ivermectin, fenbendazole, and other therapies. Many of his patients, told by their doctors that there was “nothing they can do for them,” are now “cancer-free” or have their “cancer under control.” The success stories are undeniable, and the hope is spreading. MakisMD](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1904028214013673899/ext_tw_video_thumb/1904028052801339392/pu/img/ktc9WylShFAJ7dOR.jpg)
![Can people in power/ authority kindly stop with this absolute BS on "fasting killing cancer cells" and citing religious nonsense to appeal to peoples emotions? Fasting is really quite dangerous for cancer patients in real life. Let me explain and bury this myth once and for all, especially for science illiterates like this guy. [1] The most common argument is that fasting "starves" cancer by cutting off its sugar (glucose) supply. While it is true that cancer cells consume vast amounts of glucose, they are biologically aggressive survivalists. If you stop eating, your body eventually switches to burning fat and breaking down muscle for energy. Cancer cells are highly adaptable; when glucose is low, many types of cancer can mutate to feed on other fuel sources, such as lactate, amino acids (from your muscles), or fatty acids. You cannot simply "starve" a tumor without starving the patient first. [2] Fasting is dangerous for cancer patients because of cancer cachexia - a wasting syndrome where the body loses muscle and fat rapidly. Cachexia is responsible for up to 30% of cancer deaths. Cancer puts the body in a hyper-metabolic state (burning energy fast). If a patient fasts, they risk accelerating muscle loss and weakening their immune system. A weak body cannot tolerate life-saving treatments like chemotherapy or radiation, nor can it fight off infections. [3] Most claims about fasting curing cancer come from studies on mice or cells in a petri dish. In a dish: You can kill cancer cells with almost anything (lemon juice, bleach, starvation, even shooting a bullet at it at close point or using a grenade to destroy the entire lab) because they have no immune system or body to protect them. In a human: The biology is infinitely more complex. Human metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, and tumor micro-environments mean that what shrinks a tumor in a mouse often fails completely in human trials. [4] Proponents often cite "autophagy" (the body's cellular recycling process triggered by fasting) as the cure. They claim it cleans out cancerous cells. Science shows that autophagy is a double-edged sword. -In all people, autophagy is a normal physiological process - whether fasting or not, which help in cleaning up damaged cells. -But in patients with cancer, once a tumor exists, cancer cells can actually hijack autophagy to survive stress (like chemotherapy) and repair themselves. In this context, fasting could theoretically help the cancer survive the treatment intended to kill it. [5] "Cancer" is not one disease; it is over 200 different diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell growth. Some cancers are driven by hormones, some by genetic mutations, and some by viruses. A fasting protocol that slows down one specific type of breast cancer might have zero effect on pancreatic cancer, or worse, accelerate a different type. The most lethal aspect of this misinformation is the delay in treatment. Cancer is a time-sensitive disease. While a patient spends months trying to fast the cancer away based on religious or alternative advice, the cancer often metastasizes (spreads) to other organs. Once cancer spreads, it often moves from being curable to being terminal. Relying solely on fasting wastes the critical window where medical intervention could have saved a life. Suggesting a single "ancient cure" for 200 complex genetic diseases is scientifically illogical... ...and generally stupid, as this video proves.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2011663028648026498/amplify_video_thumb/2011661209100304388/img/DJHOW69erAX5Hmbo.jpg)
![Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "The turbo cancers after the COVID vaccines do respond to the antiparasitics, and they respond very well... [And] why do these antiparasitics work?" Todd Callender: "Cancer's a parasite?" Makis: "That's one possibility." This clip of Dr. Makis (William Makis), a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from an interview with attorney Todd Callender posted to the VaxxCHOICE (VaxxCHOICE) Rumble channel on November 21, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- Dr. Makis: "The turbo cancers after the COVID vaccines do respond to the antiparasitics and they respond very well. This is, you know, whether it's ivermectin, fenbendazole or mebendazole, these patients are responding. "Now this is very important because patients who've developed cancer after taking Covid vaccines, they don't respond usually to conventional treatments. That's one of the hallmarks of turbo cancer is they present at a very late stage. These are extremely rapidly growing tumors. They're coming in at stage four. And it's whether it's young women with breast cancer, women in their 20s, something we've never seen before, young women with, men and women with colon cancer in their 20s and 30s. "Again, we've never seen—" Callender: "Two- year-olds, I've heard of two- year-olds with colon cancer—" Dr. Makis: "—we've never seen this before. That's the incredible part. And they're not responding to conventional treatments. So, they're not responding to chemo, they're not responding to radiation therapy, immunotherapy, or if they do response, they have a very, very short response time or remission time. And then the cancer comes roaring back. "And in a lot of these tragic cases, the patient dies within six months. This is another one of the features of turbo cancer is the prognosis is extremely poor if you go the conventional route. So you need something else. Now when you're using antiparasitics, for cancer, the dose is higher than the dose you would use to treat parasites or to treat Covid. So I give just a rule of thumb for ivermectin, for example, it's about five times the dose that you would need for cancer, about 5 to 10 times the dose than if you were just treating parasites or viruses. "And to go into the— why does it work? Why do these antiparasitics work?" Callender: "Cancer's a parasite?" Dr. Makis: "Well, that's one possibility. But there's more to it than that because, out of the 400 papers that have been published, a lot of those researchers look at the mechanisms. They are trying to identify the mechanisms of how ivermectin is treating these cancers. "And you've got, for example, there was one study published a few years ago, Mexican researchers, again, you're not going to see this done in the United States, Mexico. Mexican researchers took 28 different cancer cell lines, applied ivermectin to them, and all of them responded. Now to various degrees, you had breast cancer and ovarian cancer actually responding the most to ivermectin. You had the most cancer cell killing when they were exposed to ivermectin. "But when they look at the mechanisms, they've identified a number of interesting things. For example, ivermectin shuts down and kills cancer stem cells. Now, this is important because cancer stem cells are the reason chemotherapy doesn't work. When you have stage four pancreatic cancer, stage four ovarian cancer, and you go to your oncologist, they will tell you, we will give you chemo, but we can't cure you. It's palliative chemo. It'll buy you an extra six months, an extra 12 months of life. "The reason why they say that is why the chemo is palliative, not curative. It's is because chemo cannot kill cancer stem cells, which are not rapidly dividing. Chemo will kill everything that's rapidly dividing, but cancer stem cells are not rapidly dividing. And so the chemo will kill the rapidly dividing tumor cells, and it'll leave the cancer stem cells alone, while the cancer stem cells will start rapidly dividing a year later, two years later, they're going to spread to other parts of the body. Suddenly you've got recurrence, you've got metastases. Ivermectin will shut down and kill cancer stem cells. "So imagine you, added to your chemo regimen, and now you've essentially turned what's palliative chemo or a palliative situation to potentially a curative situation. And I really do believe I've come to the point, having helped over 7,000 cancer patients in the last year, I've come to the point where I could confidently say that stage 4 pancreatic cancer is curable, stage 4 ovarian cancer is curable, stage 4 colon cancer, lung cancer. These cancers are curable. I think if you add repurposed drugs, you add antiparasitics, you can turn these into curable situations. "Now, of course, we have to prove that. We have to do the research, do the publications. But in the meantime, I say stage 4 cancer patients don't have 10 years to wait for mainstream oncology or mainstream medicine to catch up with what we're seeing already clinically, in practice."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1993127013713166353/amplify_video_thumb/1993124339852754944/img/m5izGyXtNBTWkWd4.jpg)
![🚨Big problem! Dr. Suzanne Humphries: "Here's the real sucker punch... the Covid jabs lead to increased cancer susceptibility... but SV40-associated cancer won't respond well... to chemotherapy... [in fact,] radiation makes SV40 cancer far more aggressive...." This clip of Dr. Humphries (Dr Suzanne Humphries), a medical doctor, board-certified internist, nephrologist, and co-author of Dissolving Illusions, is taken from a presentation posted to the Children's Health Defense (Children’s Health Defense) Rumble channel on November 12, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "And here's the real sucker punch. So you remember how SV40 knocks out that p53 gene and protein, which I talked to you before, the cancer suppressor. And that means that not only can the Covid jabs lead to increased cancer susceptibility, right? But SV40-associated cancer won't respond well at all to chemotherapy. "And conventional cancer treatments are likely to make cancer actually go wild and not regress because p53, it actually directs cancer cells to die off. It's necessary for chemo and especially for radiation to do the killing that they're supposed to be doing. And the fact that radiation makes SV40 cancer far more aggressive is the entire reason it was used in the Get Castro project, right? You know, radiating the animals first and then doing the gain of function with radiation. That's why they did it. "So you know, this is some older material, just to show you that they've known for a long time that SV40 blocks the effect of cancer treatments. And so there have been children who have died of SV40-related brain tumors. And the parents go and they do research. And this is what they have found. And so these are articles from like 1997. "So again, this is not something that top scientists should have bypassed. So the other brain cancers and solid cancers have been found to contain the SV40. And that the SV40 binds with the tumor-suppressor gene at p53, and it actually stops those tumor cells from undergoing what's called apoptosis, A-P-O-P-T-O-S-I-S, which really means programmed cell death. And that's how you're able to get cancer to regress, you know, when you're doing whatever you're doing traditionally. "Like, even if it's like, look, we know radiation does make tumor cells regress. Do they come back later? Most of the time, yes, they do cancer, you know, chemotherapy. Like, my father got chemotherapy when he had tumors all over his body. We got nine extra months with him, so I was okay with that. But did they all come back to kill him? Yes, they did, but I got an extra nine months. "But the point being that, you get that programmed cell death. But then if there's a P— If it's an SV40-related cancer especially, you're going to wind up with probably a turbo cancer at that point. "Yeah, I'm just going to read this to you because when I said that people knew about this and there were, you know, parents of children who developed brain tumors and testified in front of Congress. This was one of the very well-educated parents. Exposing SV40-positive cancer cells to chemo and radiation does not kill the cells, but simply creates more genetic mutations, making the cancer more aggressive. The bottom line is that SV40 causes human cancer, stops orthodox cancer treatments like chemo and radiation from providing any benefit and can make the cancer even more aggressive."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1995343450158547189/amplify_video_thumb/1995341157581324288/img/0ZSx3GyaVnAq0C3O.jpg)
