Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

The most cancer-causing pathogen in the world is Helicobacter pylori. It lives in the stomach of about half the world's population. As the leading cause of stomach cancer, it's therefore responsible for about 5% of the total burden of new cancer cases globally. It's also the leading cause of... peptic ulcers. It's crazy to think that until H. pylori was discovered, ulcers were simply put down to stress; there was no real cure. ("Time to retire", etc.) Happily, H. pylori is eradicable with antibiotics. We didn't discover H. pylori until 1979. We could've discovered it decades earlier, but the relevant literatures were too siloed and there was an ironclad medical dogma that the stomach was sterile. Even after the link between H. pylori and gastritis / peptic ulcers / gastric cancer was established in the mid-1980s, it still took a full decade before it became mainstream consensus. It's an amazing reminder of how scientific knowledge diffuses much more slowly than you might expect. I had the honour of interviewing Barry Marshall (Barry Marshall), who (along with Robin Warren) won the 2005 Nobel Prize for discovering the bug and its link to gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. Barry is also famous for proving this causality by drinking the bacteria and making himself sick. Links below. Enjoy! Timestamps: (0:00:00) - Introduction. (0:01:53) - Was H. pylori behind Darwin's dyspepsia and Napoleon's cancer? (0:09:57) - Which cancer has killed the most in history? (0:12:18) - Why stomach cancer fell in the West. (0:15:05) - Why are duodenal ulcers and stomach cancer mutually exclusive? Both are caused by H. pylori. (0:26:15) - Quick gastrointestinal anatomy lesson. (0:30:15) - The "H. pylori enigmas" (Africa, India, Costa Rica, etc). (0:35:15) - Is there a "point of no return" in the cascade from H. pylori infection to stomach cancer? (0:43:11) - Joe does a urea breath test live on the pod! (1:08:40) - What Barry learned about manufacturing by trying to make millions of H. pylori tests in Perth. (1:16:50) - Four clues to the existence of H. pylori. (If you'd known these, you could have discovered it without even laying eyes on it.) (1:25:58) - How MEDLINE/the internet enabled the discovery. (1:31:45) - Why wasn't H. pylori discovered earlier than 1979? (1:37:45) - How fiberoptic endoscopes enabled the discovery. (1:38:44) - The 1954 Palmer null result and its fallout. (1:43:08) - Scientific knowledge diffuses more slowly than you'd expect (H. pylori as a case study). (1:44:49) - If H. pylori was discovered in 2015, would mainstream acceptance still have taken 10 years? (1:47:40) - Self-experimentation in science. (1:55:40) - Barry reflects on his partnership with Robin Warren (with whom he shared the Nobel). (2:07:09) - Benefits of H. pylori? (2:09:45) - Eradication prospects & vaccine timeline. (2:14:29) - Blurring infectious vs chronic disease.show more

Joseph Noel Walker

12,670 subscribers

296,469 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Здоровье и велнес Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

If you search for “stomach” in the letters of Charles Darwin (link below), you’ll see that for most of his life he was tortured by stomach pain. It made him miserable and a recluse. We now know the cause. In an exceptionally niche scoop for my podcast, Nobel laureate Barry Marshall (Barry Marshall) reveals that, according to a yet-to-be-published paper Barry coauthored with a friend, whiskers from Darwin’s beard were collected from his desk by his maid after he died and were preserved. Some of these whiskers came into the possession of Barry’s unnamed friend. PCR testing on the whiskers has revealed that Darwin was infected by the stomach bacterium Helicobacter pylori. His problems were most likely caused by this bug - not by the “nervous dyspepsia” his quack doctor put them down to. H. pylori was rampant in Europe in the 19th century, and was likely behind the stomach ailments of many famous figures, from Darwin to Alfred Nobel (who also suffered chronic stomach pain) and Napoleon (who was probably killed by stomach cancer at the age of 51). Today, it's eminently treatable, thanks to the work of Barry and his late collaborator Robin Warren. Makes you grateful to live in the modern world (also, PCR is truly an incredible technology).

If you search for “stomach” in the letters of Charles Darwin (link below), you’ll see that for most of his life he was tortured by stomach pain. It made him miserable and a recluse. We now know the cause. In an exceptionally niche scoop for my podcast, Nobel laureate Barry Marshall (Barry Marshall) reveals that, according to a yet-to-be-published paper Barry coauthored with a friend, whiskers from Darwin’s beard were collected from his desk by his maid after he died and were preserved. Some of these whiskers came into the possession of Barry’s unnamed friend. PCR testing on the whiskers has revealed that Darwin was infected by the stomach bacterium Helicobacter pylori. His problems were most likely caused by this bug - not by the “nervous dyspepsia” his quack doctor put them down to. H. pylori was rampant in Europe in the 19th century, and was likely behind the stomach ailments of many famous figures, from Darwin to Alfred Nobel (who also suffered chronic stomach pain) and Napoleon (who was probably killed by stomach cancer at the age of 51). Today, it's eminently treatable, thanks to the work of Barry and his late collaborator Robin Warren. Makes you grateful to live in the modern world (also, PCR is truly an incredible technology).

Joseph Noel Walker

63,963 просмотров • 1 год назад

A doctor drank a petri dish of bacteria to prove every expert wrong. He won the Nobel Prize. In 1982, every doctor on earth knew stomach ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. Patients were put on antacids for life. Zantac alone was a billion-dollar drug. Nobody questioned it. Then Barry Marshall and Robin Warren found a spiral bacterium called H. pylori living in the stomachs of ulcer patients. They said bacteria caused ulcers. The medical establishment laughed. Bacteria can't survive in stomach acid. Papers rejected. Mocked at conferences. So in 1984, Marshall drank a broth of H. pylori. Within days he was vomiting with severe gastritis. He biopsied his own stomach and proved the bacteria were there, destroying the lining. Then he cured himself with a two-week course of antibiotics. A two-week course of pills replaced a lifetime of antacids. The cure was cheaper than the disease. And that was the problem. The antacid industry was worth billions. A cheap cure was bad for business. It took a decade for the medical establishment to accept what Marshall had already proven with his own body. In 2005, Marshall and Warren won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Millions of ulcer patients are now cured with antibiotics instead of managed with pills for life. He poisoned himself to save millions. They called him crazy. Follow the money. Question everything. #NSNG #NoSugarNoGrains #QuestionEverything #FollowTheMoney #BigPharma

A doctor drank a petri dish of bacteria to prove every expert wrong. He won the Nobel Prize. In 1982, every doctor on earth knew stomach ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. Patients were put on antacids for life. Zantac alone was a billion-dollar drug. Nobody questioned it. Then Barry Marshall and Robin Warren found a spiral bacterium called H. pylori living in the stomachs of ulcer patients. They said bacteria caused ulcers. The medical establishment laughed. Bacteria can't survive in stomach acid. Papers rejected. Mocked at conferences. So in 1984, Marshall drank a broth of H. pylori. Within days he was vomiting with severe gastritis. He biopsied his own stomach and proved the bacteria were there, destroying the lining. Then he cured himself with a two-week course of antibiotics. A two-week course of pills replaced a lifetime of antacids. The cure was cheaper than the disease. And that was the problem. The antacid industry was worth billions. A cheap cure was bad for business. It took a decade for the medical establishment to accept what Marshall had already proven with his own body. In 2005, Marshall and Warren won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Millions of ulcer patients are now cured with antibiotics instead of managed with pills for life. He poisoned himself to save millions. They called him crazy. Follow the money. Question everything. #NSNG #NoSugarNoGrains #QuestionEverything #FollowTheMoney #BigPharma

Vinnie Tortorich

243,891 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

“Ulcers Healed with Vitamin C? The 30% Eradication Rate No One Talks About” Dr. Sarah Myhill dropped a gut health bombshell that deserves way more attention: In a fascinating 1998 Polish trial, researchers gave patients with confirmed Helicobacter pylori infection (the main driver of gastric and duodenal ulcers) nothing but 5 grams of vitamin C daily for 4 weeks. No antibiotics. No proton-pump inhibitors. Just high-dose vitamin C. The result? A full 30% of the treatment group completely eradicated H. pylori. Zero eradications in the control group. (Jarosz et al., Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998 – small study, but statistically significant and still unreplicated) Dr. Myhill points out something crucial: H. pylori is an upper-gut fermenter that thrives on carbs. Feed it sugar and starch → ulcers worsen. Starve it with strict keto while flooding the stomach with antioxidants and anti-inflammatories? She’s now watched multiple patients clear stubborn H. pylori (and heal their ulcers) using exactly this nutrition-first protocol: - High-dose vitamin C - Ketogenic diet - Targeted iodine + MSM All without the usual antibiotic cocktail that nukes the microbiome. “Nutrition can act like precision medicine when we understand gut ecology,” says Dr. Myhill. 30% ulcer-causing infection clearance from a vitamin alone is not noise — it’s a screaming signal we’ve ignored for over 25 years. Important caveats from Dr. Myhill: - Study was small (n=60) and old — needs modern replication - Won’t work for every case, especially severe or long-standing infections - Always confirm eradication with urea breath test or stool antigen - Bleeding/perforated ulcers are emergencies — seek immediate care if symptoms are severe - This is educational only, not personal medical advice But when 1 in 3 people ditch their ulcer bug with nothing more than vitamin C… isn’t it time we stopped defaulting to antibiotics first?

“Ulcers Healed with Vitamin C? The 30% Eradication Rate No One Talks About” Dr. Sarah Myhill dropped a gut health bombshell that deserves way more attention: In a fascinating 1998 Polish trial, researchers gave patients with confirmed Helicobacter pylori infection (the main driver of gastric and duodenal ulcers) nothing but 5 grams of vitamin C daily for 4 weeks. No antibiotics. No proton-pump inhibitors. Just high-dose vitamin C. The result? A full 30% of the treatment group completely eradicated H. pylori. Zero eradications in the control group. (Jarosz et al., Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998 – small study, but statistically significant and still unreplicated) Dr. Myhill points out something crucial: H. pylori is an upper-gut fermenter that thrives on carbs. Feed it sugar and starch → ulcers worsen. Starve it with strict keto while flooding the stomach with antioxidants and anti-inflammatories? She’s now watched multiple patients clear stubborn H. pylori (and heal their ulcers) using exactly this nutrition-first protocol: - High-dose vitamin C - Ketogenic diet - Targeted iodine + MSM All without the usual antibiotic cocktail that nukes the microbiome. “Nutrition can act like precision medicine when we understand gut ecology,” says Dr. Myhill. 30% ulcer-causing infection clearance from a vitamin alone is not noise — it’s a screaming signal we’ve ignored for over 25 years. Important caveats from Dr. Myhill: - Study was small (n=60) and old — needs modern replication - Won’t work for every case, especially severe or long-standing infections - Always confirm eradication with urea breath test or stool antigen - Bleeding/perforated ulcers are emergencies — seek immediate care if symptoms are severe - This is educational only, not personal medical advice But when 1 in 3 people ditch their ulcer bug with nothing more than vitamin C… isn’t it time we stopped defaulting to antibiotics first?

Camus

15,790 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Today: a 1.5 hour interview with the co-founders of Coherence Neuro: Ben Woodington and Elise Jenkins They are, as far as i can tell, the only (neurotechnology x oncology) startup that exists today. 'Neurotechnology? For cancer?' you may ask. Yes! As it turns out, tumors interact with the nervous system a fair bit, and you can use the very same neuromodulation toolbox that exists for neuropsychiatric conditions, for monitoring and treating cancer. Coherence has built an invasive device to place at the site of a tumor to do exactly this. Their first indication is a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma; one of the most fatal subtypes of cancer to exist today. The standard of care (with one exception that we discuss) has not changed in 25 years. If Coherence works out, and there is a very real chance they will, that may change. Most interesting of all is that Coherence believes that the bioelectric properties of cancer are not just worth poking at for brain cancers, but for all cancers. And maybe even for diseases outside of it! This conversation covers how Coherence’s first neurotech device (SOMA) works, the molecular reasons behind why neuromodulation affects cancer at all, what the biomarker readouts look like, the obvious Michael Levin comparison, and a lot more. Also: shout to Nicole for setting up the connection here in the first place! Crazy to think that a meeting in mid-2025 ended up leading to this Youtube/Spotify/Apple Podcasts links in replies 0:00:00 - Introduction 0:01:42 - How is SOMA different from Novocure’s Optune? 0:08:57 - Why does neuromodulation affect cancer at all? 0:13:28 - How was cancer-nervous system crosstalk first discovered? 0:15:42 - Anti-epileptics and beta blockers as accidental cancer drugs 0:17:38 - What is molecularly happening when you block cancer-neuron crosstalk? 0:19:50 - What is SOMA actually reading out as a biomarker? 0:20:44 - What does it mean that cancer is “very electric”? 0:22:02 - Can you derive universal biomarkers across patients? 0:23:09 - How is the device placed? 0:24:45 - How does the blocking stimulation regime work? 0:26:43 - Is it fair to say this is closed loop? 0:29:05 - Why not just spam the tumor with constant stimulation? 0:32:31 - Why MRI safety is non-negotiable for oncology devices 0:33:35 - Walk us through the patient journey from diagnosis to implantation 0:36:13 - The Michael Levin question: can you reprogram cancer back to normal? 0:42:29 - Efficacy, hospice settings, and the utility of the neuromodulation literature 0:45:52 - Why start with glioblastoma instead of an easier cancer? 0:48:57 - Regulatory strategy and the reimbursement threat 0:55:37 - How well does mouse-to-human translation work for neuromodulation? 0:55:57 - What do in silico models of neuromodulation look like? 0:58:09 - Why didn’t this exist 10 years ago? 1:01:48 - The founding story 1:06:38 - Why build your own device instead of using off-the-shelf arrays? 1:08:35 - Speaking with glioblastoma patients 1:12:04 - What was it like to raise money for this? 1:13:56 - Beyond cancer: TBI, lung disease, and the pan-disease argument 1:17:40 - Hiring at Coherence + what is the hardest type of talent to find 1:23:17 - What would you do with $100M equity-free? 1:27:15 - Are you a neurotech company or a cancer company?

Today: a 1.5 hour interview with the co-founders of Coherence Neuro: Ben Woodington and Elise Jenkins They are, as far as i can tell, the only (neurotechnology x oncology) startup that exists today. 'Neurotechnology? For cancer?' you may ask. Yes! As it turns out, tumors interact with the nervous system a fair bit, and you can use the very same neuromodulation toolbox that exists for neuropsychiatric conditions, for monitoring and treating cancer. Coherence has built an invasive device to place at the site of a tumor to do exactly this. Their first indication is a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma; one of the most fatal subtypes of cancer to exist today. The standard of care (with one exception that we discuss) has not changed in 25 years. If Coherence works out, and there is a very real chance they will, that may change. Most interesting of all is that Coherence believes that the bioelectric properties of cancer are not just worth poking at for brain cancers, but for all cancers. And maybe even for diseases outside of it! This conversation covers how Coherence’s first neurotech device (SOMA) works, the molecular reasons behind why neuromodulation affects cancer at all, what the biomarker readouts look like, the obvious Michael Levin comparison, and a lot more. Also: shout to Nicole for setting up the connection here in the first place! Crazy to think that a meeting in mid-2025 ended up leading to this Youtube/Spotify/Apple Podcasts links in replies 0:00:00 - Introduction 0:01:42 - How is SOMA different from Novocure’s Optune? 0:08:57 - Why does neuromodulation affect cancer at all? 0:13:28 - How was cancer-nervous system crosstalk first discovered? 0:15:42 - Anti-epileptics and beta blockers as accidental cancer drugs 0:17:38 - What is molecularly happening when you block cancer-neuron crosstalk? 0:19:50 - What is SOMA actually reading out as a biomarker? 0:20:44 - What does it mean that cancer is “very electric”? 0:22:02 - Can you derive universal biomarkers across patients? 0:23:09 - How is the device placed? 0:24:45 - How does the blocking stimulation regime work? 0:26:43 - Is it fair to say this is closed loop? 0:29:05 - Why not just spam the tumor with constant stimulation? 0:32:31 - Why MRI safety is non-negotiable for oncology devices 0:33:35 - Walk us through the patient journey from diagnosis to implantation 0:36:13 - The Michael Levin question: can you reprogram cancer back to normal? 0:42:29 - Efficacy, hospice settings, and the utility of the neuromodulation literature 0:45:52 - Why start with glioblastoma instead of an easier cancer? 0:48:57 - Regulatory strategy and the reimbursement threat 0:55:37 - How well does mouse-to-human translation work for neuromodulation? 0:55:57 - What do in silico models of neuromodulation look like? 0:58:09 - Why didn’t this exist 10 years ago? 1:01:48 - The founding story 1:06:38 - Why build your own device instead of using off-the-shelf arrays? 1:08:35 - Speaking with glioblastoma patients 1:12:04 - What was it like to raise money for this? 1:13:56 - Beyond cancer: TBI, lung disease, and the pan-disease argument 1:17:40 - Hiring at Coherence + what is the hardest type of talent to find 1:23:17 - What would you do with $100M equity-free? 1:27:15 - Are you a neurotech company or a cancer company?

owl

37,299 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

NEW EPISODE: The Metabolic Cancer Revolution with Dr. Thomas Seyfried, Georgi Dinkov Georgi D. and Dr Thomas N. Seyfried join me for a paradigm-shifting discussion on curing cancer through a radical understanding of metabolism. Is cancer a genetic disease? Can Dr Seyfried and Georgi Dinkov's approaches be combined? What would the social effect of defeating cancer look like? Watch the full episode to find out. Timestamps 0:00 Introduction 1:53 Failure of current medical system 8:55 Chronic disease and paleolithic biology 13:06 Is cancer a genetic disease? 16:14 What fuels cancer cells? 19:47 Reducing the fermentation 23:02 Vitamin B-1 and Aspirin 31:58 The protective mechanism 35:46 Opening the floodgates 36:10 Press-pulse therapeutic approach 37:07 Integration of various approaches 38:12 Apatone, Vitamin K 39:23 Clinical trials are needed 43:35 Two step process 44:57 Neurons, Parkinson's 47:31 The question of funding 49:23 Contradictions in the two approaches? 53:36 The great tragedy, censored studies 57:50 Disturbances due to paradigm shifts 1:00:00 Economic analysis 1:00:45 The transition has to be gradual 1:02:23 Message to HHS, iatrogenesis, environment 1:06:43 Financial toxicity 1:08:21 Groupthink 1:09:15 What needs to be done specifically? 1:13:53 Brain cancer 1:14:33 Institutions willing to do trials 1:16:35 Georgi's prostate cancer findings 1:20:28 Closing thoughts and plugs

NEW EPISODE: The Metabolic Cancer Revolution with Dr. Thomas Seyfried, Georgi Dinkov Georgi D. and Dr Thomas N. Seyfried join me for a paradigm-shifting discussion on curing cancer through a radical understanding of metabolism. Is cancer a genetic disease? Can Dr Seyfried and Georgi Dinkov's approaches be combined? What would the social effect of defeating cancer look like? Watch the full episode to find out. Timestamps 0:00 Introduction 1:53 Failure of current medical system 8:55 Chronic disease and paleolithic biology 13:06 Is cancer a genetic disease? 16:14 What fuels cancer cells? 19:47 Reducing the fermentation 23:02 Vitamin B-1 and Aspirin 31:58 The protective mechanism 35:46 Opening the floodgates 36:10 Press-pulse therapeutic approach 37:07 Integration of various approaches 38:12 Apatone, Vitamin K 39:23 Clinical trials are needed 43:35 Two step process 44:57 Neurons, Parkinson's 47:31 The question of funding 49:23 Contradictions in the two approaches? 53:36 The great tragedy, censored studies 57:50 Disturbances due to paradigm shifts 1:00:00 Economic analysis 1:00:45 The transition has to be gradual 1:02:23 Message to HHS, iatrogenesis, environment 1:06:43 Financial toxicity 1:08:21 Groupthink 1:09:15 What needs to be done specifically? 1:13:53 Brain cancer 1:14:33 Institutions willing to do trials 1:16:35 Georgi's prostate cancer findings 1:20:28 Closing thoughts and plugs

David Gornoski

130,187 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 Holy Moly! The Second Vice-President of Spain, Yolanda Díaz Pérez just THREATENED President Trump and the USA! Transcription of video IN ENGLISH here: (0:00) Good morning, thank you very much for these questions. (0:05) I am going to tell Mr. Trump that the so-called punishment that he wants to give to the Spaniards (0:11) is going to be very expensive for the Americans. (0:14) I want to explain myself. (0:16) I am going to give a bad news to Mr. Trump. (0:19) And it is that the commercial balance of Spain with the United States is deficitary. (0:26) We have to remind Mr. Trump. (0:27) This means something as simple as that if he practices these policies, (0:33) he is going to directly harm the Americans and the North Americans. (0:39) That is to say, if he took that threat, that policy of hate forward, (0:45) he would not punish our country. (0:47) He would directly repel the Americans and the North Americans. (0:52) The punishment is going to be very expensive for Mr. Trump. (0:55) And two, to be clear, if that happens, Spain is going to defend its productive sectors. (1:04) What do we mean? (1:05) That if we have to defend oil, automotive, wine, (1:11) the productive sectors that could be affected by this policy of punishment, (1:15) we are going to do it. (1:17) And a third question. (1:18) In Spain, the Spaniards rule. (1:22) Not Mr. Trump. (1:23) We are not his protectorate.(1:26) But I insist. (1:26) The so-called punishment is going to be expensive for the Americans and the North Americans. (1:32) Mrs. Ayula, what do you think if Isabel Díaz Ayuso calls the president of the government machito (1:37) for the issue of abortion? (1:38) Thank you. (1:40) And do you think that Avalos could go to prison? (1:43) I cannot make judgments of value on a judicial cause. (1:47) As you know, I respect the instruction that is made.

🚨 Holy Moly! The Second Vice-President of Spain, Yolanda Díaz Pérez just THREATENED President Trump and the USA! Transcription of video IN ENGLISH here: (0:00) Good morning, thank you very much for these questions. (0:05) I am going to tell Mr. Trump that the so-called punishment that he wants to give to the Spaniards (0:11) is going to be very expensive for the Americans. (0:14) I want to explain myself. (0:16) I am going to give a bad news to Mr. Trump. (0:19) And it is that the commercial balance of Spain with the United States is deficitary. (0:26) We have to remind Mr. Trump. (0:27) This means something as simple as that if he practices these policies, (0:33) he is going to directly harm the Americans and the North Americans. (0:39) That is to say, if he took that threat, that policy of hate forward, (0:45) he would not punish our country. (0:47) He would directly repel the Americans and the North Americans. (0:52) The punishment is going to be very expensive for Mr. Trump. (0:55) And two, to be clear, if that happens, Spain is going to defend its productive sectors. (1:04) What do we mean? (1:05) That if we have to defend oil, automotive, wine, (1:11) the productive sectors that could be affected by this policy of punishment, (1:15) we are going to do it. (1:17) And a third question. (1:18) In Spain, the Spaniards rule. (1:22) Not Mr. Trump. (1:23) We are not his protectorate.(1:26) But I insist. (1:26) The so-called punishment is going to be expensive for the Americans and the North Americans. (1:32) Mrs. Ayula, what do you think if Isabel Díaz Ayuso calls the president of the government machito (1:37) for the issue of abortion? (1:38) Thank you. (1:40) And do you think that Avalos could go to prison? (1:43) I cannot make judgments of value on a judicial cause. (1:47) As you know, I respect the instruction that is made.

MAGA Kitty

365,360 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Research suggests that up to 40% of cancer cases could be prevented through lifestyle changes. The evidence is now overwhelming: exercise is not just supportive—it’s a therapeutic intervention that recalibrates tumor biology, enhances treatment tolerance, and improves survival outcomes. Today’s interview features Dr. Kerry Courneya. With over 600 peer-reviewed studies, he is one of the most influential figures in exercise oncology. Even if you aren't someone who has personally experienced cancer in one form or another, you need to watch this episode. Episode 99 is Available now on X, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts. Chapters: 0:00 - Introduction 1:47 - Why exercise should be effortful 2:33 - How to meaningfully reduce risk of cancer 6:22 - What type of exercise is best? 7:59 - How exercise reduces risk—even for smokers and the obese 10:48 - Weekend-only exercise 13:49 - 150 vs. 300 minutes per week (more is better—up to a point) 16:03 - Why pre-diagnosis exercise matters 19:09 - Why resilience to cancer treatment starts with exercise 21:01 - Why low muscle mass drives cancer death 23:58 - Why BMI fails to measure true obesity 27:51 - Why daily activity isn't enough (structured exercise matters) 29:34 - Breaking up sedentary time—do ‘exercise snacks’ help? 31:50 - Supplements vs. exercise 32:32 - Where exercise fits with chemo and immunotherapy 35:30 - Why rest is not the best medicine 41:20 - Aerobic vs. resistance 42:13 - How weight training improves 'chemo completion' 44:41 - Why exercise creates vulnerability in cancer cells (limitations do apply) 47:09 - Why exercise might be crucial for tumor elimination 53:03 - Why cardio may be better at clearing tumor cells 56:18 - When cancer spreads quickly—and when it doesn't 57:43 - Why liquid biopsies may prevent over-treatment 1:02:56 - Exercise-sensitive vs. exercise-resistant cancers 1:06:06 - Prostate cancer therapy—why strength training matters 1:08:10 - When exercise is the only therapy—does it work? 1:09:26 - Why HIIT reduces PSA in prostate cancer 1:11:40 - Avoiding overtreatment—can exercise buy you time? 1:12:00 - Why high-intensity exercise boosts anti-cancer biology 1:13:11 - Turning a diagnosis into a wake-up call 1:16:11 - Why oncologists are rethinking exercise 1:18:50 - Why exercise eases anxiety about cancer—proven psychological benefits 1:25:00 - Before, during, and after treatment 1:27:02 - Why exercise is unique among cancer therapies 1:28:16 - Why cancer patients stop exercising—the risky mistake almost everyone makes 1:30:41 - How to get sedentary cancer patients exercising (realistically) 1:33:15 - The $1 million case for including exercise 1:34:56 - Why recurrence trials haven't convinced doctors—yet 1:37:36 - The bottom-line message 1:37:55 - The myth of a cancer panacea (exercise included) 1:44:07 - What's the best $50 investment for staying active? 1:44:40 - Only 15 minutes per day—what’s the best anti-cancer exercise?

Research suggests that up to 40% of cancer cases could be prevented through lifestyle changes. The evidence is now overwhelming: exercise is not just supportive—it’s a therapeutic intervention that recalibrates tumor biology, enhances treatment tolerance, and improves survival outcomes. Today’s interview features Dr. Kerry Courneya. With over 600 peer-reviewed studies, he is one of the most influential figures in exercise oncology. Even if you aren't someone who has personally experienced cancer in one form or another, you need to watch this episode. Episode 99 is Available now on X, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts. Chapters: 0:00 - Introduction 1:47 - Why exercise should be effortful 2:33 - How to meaningfully reduce risk of cancer 6:22 - What type of exercise is best? 7:59 - How exercise reduces risk—even for smokers and the obese 10:48 - Weekend-only exercise 13:49 - 150 vs. 300 minutes per week (more is better—up to a point) 16:03 - Why pre-diagnosis exercise matters 19:09 - Why resilience to cancer treatment starts with exercise 21:01 - Why low muscle mass drives cancer death 23:58 - Why BMI fails to measure true obesity 27:51 - Why daily activity isn't enough (structured exercise matters) 29:34 - Breaking up sedentary time—do ‘exercise snacks’ help? 31:50 - Supplements vs. exercise 32:32 - Where exercise fits with chemo and immunotherapy 35:30 - Why rest is not the best medicine 41:20 - Aerobic vs. resistance 42:13 - How weight training improves 'chemo completion' 44:41 - Why exercise creates vulnerability in cancer cells (limitations do apply) 47:09 - Why exercise might be crucial for tumor elimination 53:03 - Why cardio may be better at clearing tumor cells 56:18 - When cancer spreads quickly—and when it doesn't 57:43 - Why liquid biopsies may prevent over-treatment 1:02:56 - Exercise-sensitive vs. exercise-resistant cancers 1:06:06 - Prostate cancer therapy—why strength training matters 1:08:10 - When exercise is the only therapy—does it work? 1:09:26 - Why HIIT reduces PSA in prostate cancer 1:11:40 - Avoiding overtreatment—can exercise buy you time? 1:12:00 - Why high-intensity exercise boosts anti-cancer biology 1:13:11 - Turning a diagnosis into a wake-up call 1:16:11 - Why oncologists are rethinking exercise 1:18:50 - Why exercise eases anxiety about cancer—proven psychological benefits 1:25:00 - Before, during, and after treatment 1:27:02 - Why exercise is unique among cancer therapies 1:28:16 - Why cancer patients stop exercising—the risky mistake almost everyone makes 1:30:41 - How to get sedentary cancer patients exercising (realistically) 1:33:15 - The $1 million case for including exercise 1:34:56 - Why recurrence trials haven't convinced doctors—yet 1:37:36 - The bottom-line message 1:37:55 - The myth of a cancer panacea (exercise included) 1:44:07 - What's the best $50 investment for staying active? 1:44:40 - Only 15 minutes per day—what’s the best anti-cancer exercise?

Dr. Rhonda Patrick

219,973 просмотров • 1 год назад

I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.

I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.

TheLiverDoc™

1,924,232 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Big Pharma Is Profits Over People, Killing You For Profit & Vacations. Everyone In America Needs To See This ⛔️ “Cancer — Well, I will talk about that a better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer in the United States. And there was a study that was published, I believe it was in 1994. It was a 12-year program, 12-year study. They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer, but adult cancer, right? And this is the main types of cancer that we get here in the United States. They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo. And they looked at the results. And they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results? 97%. Of the time, chemotherapy does not work. 97% of the time, it doesn't work. So why is it still used? It's one reason and one reason only, money. If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection, and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000, you know of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, right? But he gets no direct remuneration. It's not with chemotherapeutic drugs. It's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. So if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less. The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. And there ought to be a lot. The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it. Period. It doesn't work. 97% of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No. This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us.”

Big Pharma Is Profits Over People, Killing You For Profit & Vacations. Everyone In America Needs To See This ⛔️ “Cancer — Well, I will talk about that a better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer in the United States. And there was a study that was published, I believe it was in 1994. It was a 12-year program, 12-year study. They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer, but adult cancer, right? And this is the main types of cancer that we get here in the United States. They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo. And they looked at the results. And they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results? 97%. Of the time, chemotherapy does not work. 97% of the time, it doesn't work. So why is it still used? It's one reason and one reason only, money. If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection, and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000, you know of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, right? But he gets no direct remuneration. It's not with chemotherapeutic drugs. It's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. So if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less. The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. And there ought to be a lot. The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it. Period. It doesn't work. 97% of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No. This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us.”

Wall Street Apes

339,878 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Dr. Sabine Hazan just issued a chilling warning about the explosion of cancers in young people — and she believes the gut microbiome is the missing link. Colon cancer at 18? Pancreatic cancer in young adults? Breast cancer rates surging since the 80s? She says something is fundamentally changing in humanity — and it's not just better diagnosis. Key points from the clip: - Colon cancer guidelines dropped from age 50 to 45 screenings because cases are appearing so much younger (she's seen an 18-year-old with it). - Rectal bleeding in a young person should trigger colonoscopy — anything less is malpractice in her view. - She suspects we're killing beneficial gut microbes (allowing harmful ones to dominate), creating an environment where cancers thrive. - Known links already exist: Epstein-Barr → Burkitt's lymphoma, HPV → cervical cancer, H. pylori → gastric cancer. - Her lab is now testing pancreatic cancer patients' stools for free ( to hunt for microbiome signals that could enable earlier detection. Her bold theory: In the future, we may discover all cancers are microbiome-related — or triggered by specific microbes. This is not fringe speculation from a researcher who has been sounding alarms on microbiome disruption for years. Are rising young-onset cancers a wake-up call about gut health — or something else entirely? If you or someone you know has pancreatic cancer, she’s offering free stool testing to search for signals.

Dr. Sabine Hazan just issued a chilling warning about the explosion of cancers in young people — and she believes the gut microbiome is the missing link. Colon cancer at 18? Pancreatic cancer in young adults? Breast cancer rates surging since the 80s? She says something is fundamentally changing in humanity — and it's not just better diagnosis. Key points from the clip: - Colon cancer guidelines dropped from age 50 to 45 screenings because cases are appearing so much younger (she's seen an 18-year-old with it). - Rectal bleeding in a young person should trigger colonoscopy — anything less is malpractice in her view. - She suspects we're killing beneficial gut microbes (allowing harmful ones to dominate), creating an environment where cancers thrive. - Known links already exist: Epstein-Barr → Burkitt's lymphoma, HPV → cervical cancer, H. pylori → gastric cancer. - Her lab is now testing pancreatic cancer patients' stools for free ( to hunt for microbiome signals that could enable earlier detection. Her bold theory: In the future, we may discover all cancers are microbiome-related — or triggered by specific microbes. This is not fringe speculation from a researcher who has been sounding alarms on microbiome disruption for years. Are rising young-onset cancers a wake-up call about gut health — or something else entirely? If you or someone you know has pancreatic cancer, she’s offering free stool testing to search for signals.

Camus

49,420 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Casey Means was a Stanford-educated surgeon. Her brother Calley was a lobbyist for pharma and the food industry. Both quit their jobs in horror when they realized how many people were being killed by the systems they participated in. This is an amazing story. (0:54) Who Are Casey and Calley Means? (10:16) Seed Oils and the Lies of the Food Pyramid (22:20) Vaccines for Newborns (34:41) Why Is the Medical Industry Ignoring This? (44:38) The Spiritual Crisis (52:23) Chemicals Linked to Cancer and Early Puberty (1:00:13) Ozempic (1:15:35) The Birth Control Pill (1:30:12) The Rise of Dementia (1:36:27) Why Obamacare Is Harmful and How to Fix the Medical Industry (1:50:55) Infertility (2:05:21) Michelle Obama’s Weaponization of Sugar in Schools (2:10:24) What Should We Be Eating? Includes paid partnerships.

Casey Means was a Stanford-educated surgeon. Her brother Calley was a lobbyist for pharma and the food industry. Both quit their jobs in horror when they realized how many people were being killed by the systems they participated in. This is an amazing story. (0:54) Who Are Casey and Calley Means? (10:16) Seed Oils and the Lies of the Food Pyramid (22:20) Vaccines for Newborns (34:41) Why Is the Medical Industry Ignoring This? (44:38) The Spiritual Crisis (52:23) Chemicals Linked to Cancer and Early Puberty (1:00:13) Ozempic (1:15:35) The Birth Control Pill (1:30:12) The Rise of Dementia (1:36:27) Why Obamacare Is Harmful and How to Fix the Medical Industry (1:50:55) Infertility (2:05:21) Michelle Obama’s Weaponization of Sugar in Schools (2:10:24) What Should We Be Eating? Includes paid partnerships.

Tucker Carlson

9,619,383 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Hepatitis B is a tiny virus with just 4 genes. But it kills hundreds of thousands globally per year, mostly by infecting babies and causing liver disease or cancer over the following decades. In a new episode of HARD DRUGS, we tell the story of the hepatitis B vaccine, which became the first of many milestones: It was the first viral protein subunit vaccine, the first recombinant vaccine, and the first vaccine to prevent a type of cancer. Key stats: • Hepatitis B virus has just 4 genes, some of which overlap, making it one of the most genetically compact human pathogens • It has a very unusual life cycle for a DNA virus: it forms a stable mini-chromosome (cccDNA) inside liver cell nuclei, and uses reverse transcription, similar to HIV. • It integrates itself into your liver cells' DNA, causes repeated cycles of cell damage and repair, and inflammation that eventually leads to cancer. • During infection, the virus produces ~500 quadrillion (5 x 10¹⁷) copies of its surface antigen in the bloodstream. They act as decoys, soaking up our antibodies and helping the virus evade immunity, and it sticks around in our cells for decades. Over time, it causes one of the most common and deadliest liver diseases and cancers: ~300 million people worldwide are living with chronic hepatitis B ~600,000 people die from hepatitis B each year, mostly from cirrhosis and liver cancer While only ~5–10% of adults infected develop chronic infection, ~90% of infants infected at birth do. Around a third of those infants will eventually die from liver failure, cirrhosis, or liver cancer. But there's a vaccine against it: the hepatitis B vaccine. It is so efficient that it helps us block the virus by training us to recognize just one protein (the surface antigen) quickly, before it can overwhelm us. The first hepatitis B vaccine (1981) was made from human plasma, through multiple brutal inactivation steps that kill other microbes and contaminants. The second hepatitis B vaccine (1986) was the first recombinant DNA vaccine ever, made by factories of yeast cells churning out the antigen in bulk. The payoff has been enormous. Large cluster randomized trials have shown that hepatitis B vaccination reduces liver cancer rates by 85% and deaths by 70%. Universal vaccination of newborns has led to massive drops in hepatitis cases, liver failure, and liver cancer in younger generations. As the first viral protein subunit vaccine, it was built upon a series of breakthroughs in immunology, advances in virology and vaccinology. In this episode, we trace the discovery of hepatitis, hepatitis B virus, the development of vaccines, and their impact. And we explore how we even got to subunit vaccines at all: the great battle of immunology, the discovery of antibodies and their incredible diversity, and how that understanding could be used to test, study, and build better vaccines. If you want to understand how modern vaccines actually came to be, or why hepatitis B vaccination still matters today, this one’s for you. Timestamps: 0:00:00 Introducing the hepatitis B vaccine 0:15:46 The mysterious trail of jaundice outbreaks and the search for an invisible liver pathogen 0:28:03 How a tiny virus causes cirrhosis and liver cancer, and the struggle to identify it 0:53:19 How Maurice Hilleman developed the safest, purest vaccine in history 1:17:36 Turning the hep B vaccine recombinant 1:29:14 The impact of hep B vaccination 1:39:27 How we got here: the 19th century battle for the soul of immunology 2:01:34 How the body builds an infinite library of defenses 2:19:25 Why scientists thought immunology was solved in the 1960s 2:30:57 How better immunology led to precise subunit vaccines 2:45:33 Conclusion

Hepatitis B is a tiny virus with just 4 genes. But it kills hundreds of thousands globally per year, mostly by infecting babies and causing liver disease or cancer over the following decades. In a new episode of HARD DRUGS, we tell the story of the hepatitis B vaccine, which became the first of many milestones: It was the first viral protein subunit vaccine, the first recombinant vaccine, and the first vaccine to prevent a type of cancer. Key stats: • Hepatitis B virus has just 4 genes, some of which overlap, making it one of the most genetically compact human pathogens • It has a very unusual life cycle for a DNA virus: it forms a stable mini-chromosome (cccDNA) inside liver cell nuclei, and uses reverse transcription, similar to HIV. • It integrates itself into your liver cells' DNA, causes repeated cycles of cell damage and repair, and inflammation that eventually leads to cancer. • During infection, the virus produces ~500 quadrillion (5 x 10¹⁷) copies of its surface antigen in the bloodstream. They act as decoys, soaking up our antibodies and helping the virus evade immunity, and it sticks around in our cells for decades. Over time, it causes one of the most common and deadliest liver diseases and cancers: ~300 million people worldwide are living with chronic hepatitis B ~600,000 people die from hepatitis B each year, mostly from cirrhosis and liver cancer While only ~5–10% of adults infected develop chronic infection, ~90% of infants infected at birth do. Around a third of those infants will eventually die from liver failure, cirrhosis, or liver cancer. But there's a vaccine against it: the hepatitis B vaccine. It is so efficient that it helps us block the virus by training us to recognize just one protein (the surface antigen) quickly, before it can overwhelm us. The first hepatitis B vaccine (1981) was made from human plasma, through multiple brutal inactivation steps that kill other microbes and contaminants. The second hepatitis B vaccine (1986) was the first recombinant DNA vaccine ever, made by factories of yeast cells churning out the antigen in bulk. The payoff has been enormous. Large cluster randomized trials have shown that hepatitis B vaccination reduces liver cancer rates by 85% and deaths by 70%. Universal vaccination of newborns has led to massive drops in hepatitis cases, liver failure, and liver cancer in younger generations. As the first viral protein subunit vaccine, it was built upon a series of breakthroughs in immunology, advances in virology and vaccinology. In this episode, we trace the discovery of hepatitis, hepatitis B virus, the development of vaccines, and their impact. And we explore how we even got to subunit vaccines at all: the great battle of immunology, the discovery of antibodies and their incredible diversity, and how that understanding could be used to test, study, and build better vaccines. If you want to understand how modern vaccines actually came to be, or why hepatitis B vaccination still matters today, this one’s for you. Timestamps: 0:00:00 Introducing the hepatitis B vaccine 0:15:46 The mysterious trail of jaundice outbreaks and the search for an invisible liver pathogen 0:28:03 How a tiny virus causes cirrhosis and liver cancer, and the struggle to identify it 0:53:19 How Maurice Hilleman developed the safest, purest vaccine in history 1:17:36 Turning the hep B vaccine recombinant 1:29:14 The impact of hep B vaccination 1:39:27 How we got here: the 19th century battle for the soul of immunology 2:01:34 How the body builds an infinite library of defenses 2:19:25 Why scientists thought immunology was solved in the 1960s 2:30:57 How better immunology led to precise subunit vaccines 2:45:33 Conclusion

Saloni

32,424 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Had so much fun chatting with Greg Kaplan (Greg Kaplan) and Michael Brennan of e61 Institute about Australia's stagnant productivity growth and how to fix it. The 2010s saw Australia's weakest productivity growth in 60 years. It was in many ways a lost decade. And it's dragging on—unlike the US, we haven't bounced out of covid with strong productivity growth. We discuss the extent to which this is being (i) caused by frontier-wide factors; (ii) caused by Australia-specific factors; and (iii) simply an artefact of how productivity is measured. We also go into a bunch of specific ideas, like: - why it could be better to densify Canberra than Sydney/Melbourne; - what should Albo do if he was bullish on AI; and - what we can learn from the stunning innovativeness of Australia's agricultural sector. And we discuss deeper questions around the role of government—as it's not really clear what levers the government currently has over productivity (at least for its *growth rate*). Links below. Enjoy! Timestamps: (0:00:00) - Introduction. (0:01:47) - Why has construction productivity stagnated—in Australia and the West? (0:08:38) - Can housing supply meaningfully grow just by improving construction productivity (without planning reform)? (0:12:50) - If construction and regulatory bottlenecks ease, what becomes the new supply constraint? (0:21:49) - Would densifying Sydney/Melbourne deliver big productivity gains—or should smaller cities scale? (0:29:48) - The most important limitations of GDP as a metric. (0:34:29) - Growth accounting in ~8 minutes: capital, labour, TFP. (0:43:04) - Is there a single “north-star” metric for policymakers? (0:47:12) - Should policymakers care more about TFP or labour productivity? (0:52:11) - Why revenue per worker is an imperfect proxy for firm-level productivity. (0:56:00) - Do these measurement critiques change what policy should do now? (0:58:25) - Stylised facts about the Australian economy. (1:04:01) - Status update on the health of the Australian economy. (1:06:43) - What would it take for Australia to be the richest country again? (1:11:23) - What growth rates are realistically achievable for Australia? (1:15:24) - How much GDP do we forgo over 10 years if weak productivity persists? (1:16:23) - Services, Baumol’s cost disease, and measurement. (1:29:18) - Lowest-hanging fruit for quality/productivity gains in services. (1:35:29) - Australia-specific vs frontier-wide causes of the slowdown. (1:39:51) - Best/worst Australian industries for TFP (i.e. “MFP”) growth over recent decades. (1:53:18) - Why has TFP slowed across almost every industry? (The chart behind the slowdown.) (1:59:41) - What is Australia’s “single most productive” company? (2:01:43) - Which industries have the biggest gaps between frontier and laggard firms? (2:07:53) - Is the median US firm more productive than its Australian counterpart, or is the US average skewed by superstars? (2:10:10) - What would Australian management look like if we converged on US practices? (2:13:15) - Why has the US—almost alone among rich countries—had strong recent productivity growth? (2:15:11) - How much of the US–Australia TFP gap is “culture”? (2:21:21) - Minimum reforms needed to restore 1–2% annual labour-productivity growth? (2:24:38) - Beyond Sydney/Melbourne: building (or scaling) new cities. (2:28:59) - If you were Anthony Albanese and bullish on AI, what would you do? (2:31:21) - How important is the CSIRO to Australia’s TFP? (2:33:02) - Three sensible reforms: tax; carbon pricing; road-user charging. (2:40:46) - Are the 1980s microeconomic reforms overrated? (2:44:33) - What levers reach the productivity growth rate—or is lifting levels the only game? (2:49:54) - Are we too concerned about the reform era ending? (2:56:12) - Most non-obvious lessons from the reform era.

Had so much fun chatting with Greg Kaplan (Greg Kaplan) and Michael Brennan of e61 Institute about Australia's stagnant productivity growth and how to fix it. The 2010s saw Australia's weakest productivity growth in 60 years. It was in many ways a lost decade. And it's dragging on—unlike the US, we haven't bounced out of covid with strong productivity growth. We discuss the extent to which this is being (i) caused by frontier-wide factors; (ii) caused by Australia-specific factors; and (iii) simply an artefact of how productivity is measured. We also go into a bunch of specific ideas, like: - why it could be better to densify Canberra than Sydney/Melbourne; - what should Albo do if he was bullish on AI; and - what we can learn from the stunning innovativeness of Australia's agricultural sector. And we discuss deeper questions around the role of government—as it's not really clear what levers the government currently has over productivity (at least for its growth rate). Links below. Enjoy! Timestamps: (0:00:00) - Introduction. (0:01:47) - Why has construction productivity stagnated—in Australia and the West? (0:08:38) - Can housing supply meaningfully grow just by improving construction productivity (without planning reform)? (0:12:50) - If construction and regulatory bottlenecks ease, what becomes the new supply constraint? (0:21:49) - Would densifying Sydney/Melbourne deliver big productivity gains—or should smaller cities scale? (0:29:48) - The most important limitations of GDP as a metric. (0:34:29) - Growth accounting in ~8 minutes: capital, labour, TFP. (0:43:04) - Is there a single “north-star” metric for policymakers? (0:47:12) - Should policymakers care more about TFP or labour productivity? (0:52:11) - Why revenue per worker is an imperfect proxy for firm-level productivity. (0:56:00) - Do these measurement critiques change what policy should do now? (0:58:25) - Stylised facts about the Australian economy. (1:04:01) - Status update on the health of the Australian economy. (1:06:43) - What would it take for Australia to be the richest country again? (1:11:23) - What growth rates are realistically achievable for Australia? (1:15:24) - How much GDP do we forgo over 10 years if weak productivity persists? (1:16:23) - Services, Baumol’s cost disease, and measurement. (1:29:18) - Lowest-hanging fruit for quality/productivity gains in services. (1:35:29) - Australia-specific vs frontier-wide causes of the slowdown. (1:39:51) - Best/worst Australian industries for TFP (i.e. “MFP”) growth over recent decades. (1:53:18) - Why has TFP slowed across almost every industry? (The chart behind the slowdown.) (1:59:41) - What is Australia’s “single most productive” company? (2:01:43) - Which industries have the biggest gaps between frontier and laggard firms? (2:07:53) - Is the median US firm more productive than its Australian counterpart, or is the US average skewed by superstars? (2:10:10) - What would Australian management look like if we converged on US practices? (2:13:15) - Why has the US—almost alone among rich countries—had strong recent productivity growth? (2:15:11) - How much of the US–Australia TFP gap is “culture”? (2:21:21) - Minimum reforms needed to restore 1–2% annual labour-productivity growth? (2:24:38) - Beyond Sydney/Melbourne: building (or scaling) new cities. (2:28:59) - If you were Anthony Albanese and bullish on AI, what would you do? (2:31:21) - How important is the CSIRO to Australia’s TFP? (2:33:02) - Three sensible reforms: tax; carbon pricing; road-user charging. (2:40:46) - Are the 1980s microeconomic reforms overrated? (2:44:33) - What levers reach the productivity growth rate—or is lifting levels the only game? (2:49:54) - Are we too concerned about the reform era ending? (2:56:12) - Most non-obvious lessons from the reform era.

Joseph Noel Walker

128,950 просмотров • 1 год назад

The next decade may be the most consequential longevity window of our lives. In a brand-new episode of the FoundMyFitness podcast, I sit down with immunologist and aging researcher Dr. Derya Unutmaz (Derya Unutmaz, MD) to explore a provocative possibility: AI may accelerate medicine fast enough to change what aging, cancer, and disease prevention look like within our lifetimes. Derya is not making these predictions from the sidelines. OpenAI has repeatedly featured his work as evidence that frontier models can contribute to real scientific discovery—including a case study in which GPT-5 helped his lab solve a three-year-old immunology mystery. We discuss how AI is already compressing months of biological analysis into hours, how digital twins could personalize treatment and shorten clinical trials, and whether disease could be predicted years before symptoms appear. We also get into: • Why he believes the next 10 years could add decades to human lifespan • Why cancer is so difficult to cure—and why he thinks that may change • When avoiding AI support could become medically irresponsible • What supercentenarians reveal about engineering greater resistance to aging • How cellular reprogramming might restore younger biological function • How to begin building a simple “mini digital twin” from your own health data You do not have to agree with every timeline to appreciate the stakes. This is one of the most ambitious conversations we have had about the future of biology and medicine. The episode is available now on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts. Links in the comments below. Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 1:27 - Add 50 years to your life? 5:35 - Months of analysis in minutes 11:06 - Trials in weeks, not years 13:42 - How safe is safe enough? 17:57 - Have we hit AGI? 23:39 - The case for AI optimism 29:51 - Crossing the intuition threshold 36:32 - Is avoiding AI malpractice? 42:35 - Can AI catch cancer's next move? 46:09 - Which AI models to trust 51:45 - Claude vs. GPT in diagnosis 55:15 - Generalist vs. specialist AI 58:41 - Cancer's self-vs-self problem 1:02:35 - The end of cancer? 1:06:46 - A dog's custom cancer vaccine 1:08:47 - Can AI prevent overtreatment? 1:11:44 - Predicting disease years early 1:18:06 - Biology goes exponential 1:23:15 - Why prevention beats reversal 1:29:07 - Engineering aging resistance 1:34:23 - One gene, many outcomes 1:38:28 - Reverse-engineering the lucky 1:40:38 - From Dolly to Yamanaka factors 1:45:12 - Full-body rejuvenation 1:53:00 - What if AI thinks for a month? 1:55:42 - The biosecurity dilemma 2:00:28 - Limits of epigenetic clocks 2:06:51 - The cells that won't retire 2:09:38 - Can brain aging be reversed? 2:16:06 - The ultimate longevity prompt 2:18:06 - How to build a digital twin 2:27:42 - The personal health wiki 2:30:50 - When lab ranges mislead

Dr. Rhonda Patrick

239,751 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

No author has shaped my worldview more than Nassim Taleb (Nassim Nicholas Taleb). I stumbled on The Black Swan eight years ago, then inhaled the rest of the Incerto. I've increasingly come to appreciate the importance of its ideas to prolonging the human story. Was an honour to speak with Nassim on the podcast. Hard to summarise our conversation, but the timestamps below capture the gist. Enjoy! Timestamps: (0:00:55) - Heuristics for knowing when you're in Mediocristan versus Extremistan. (0:06:06) - Are certain tail exponents intrinsic? (0:10:30) - Why hasn't Universa's tail hedging strategy now been fully priced in? (0:11:52) - Does the power law distribution of startup returns mean VCs should concentrate their bets, or spray and pray? (0:15:20) - Nassim's 30-minute take on the field of behavioural economics. (0:48:57) - Nassim's 20-minute take on superforecasting. (1:11:03) - The Precautionary Principle and AI. (1:17:28) - What are LLMs doing? (1:23:10) - War, violence, & "the empirical mean is not the real mean". (1:39:17) - Covid, & how Western governments think about tail risk. (1:43:38) - What's the most important thing people in social science get wrong about correlation? (1:52:58) - How does Nassim explain the perspicacity of the Russian school of probability? (1:55:56) - Why doesn't Hayek's knowledge argument extend to prediction markets? (1:58:26) - If mean absolute deviation is a better measure than standard deviation, why has the latter become commonplace? (2:01:09) - Nassim's next book, and what he's up to at the moment.

No author has shaped my worldview more than Nassim Taleb (Nassim Nicholas Taleb). I stumbled on The Black Swan eight years ago, then inhaled the rest of the Incerto. I've increasingly come to appreciate the importance of its ideas to prolonging the human story. Was an honour to speak with Nassim on the podcast. Hard to summarise our conversation, but the timestamps below capture the gist. Enjoy! Timestamps: (0:00:55) - Heuristics for knowing when you're in Mediocristan versus Extremistan. (0:06:06) - Are certain tail exponents intrinsic? (0:10:30) - Why hasn't Universa's tail hedging strategy now been fully priced in? (0:11:52) - Does the power law distribution of startup returns mean VCs should concentrate their bets, or spray and pray? (0:15:20) - Nassim's 30-minute take on the field of behavioural economics. (0:48:57) - Nassim's 20-minute take on superforecasting. (1:11:03) - The Precautionary Principle and AI. (1:17:28) - What are LLMs doing? (1:23:10) - War, violence, & "the empirical mean is not the real mean". (1:39:17) - Covid, & how Western governments think about tail risk. (1:43:38) - What's the most important thing people in social science get wrong about correlation? (1:52:58) - How does Nassim explain the perspicacity of the Russian school of probability? (1:55:56) - Why doesn't Hayek's knowledge argument extend to prediction markets? (1:58:26) - If mean absolute deviation is a better measure than standard deviation, why has the latter become commonplace? (2:01:09) - Nassim's next book, and what he's up to at the moment.

Joseph Noel Walker

578,089 просмотров • 1 год назад

New episode with Francis Fukuyama (Francis Fukuyama). While The End of History and the Last Man is arguably the most influential work in political science of the past half-century, I wanted to focus on one of Frank's lesser-known books: Our Posthuman Future. In that book, he considers biotech and its potential to usher in a new, post-human history. I check in to see how his views have evolved since it was published (2002), then ask him about AI and its potential to restart "History". The goal was to discuss topics that are important and on which Frank has spoken little until now. Frank also gives me a preview of his forthcoming book, and shares some ideas on delegation and state capacity. (0:00:00) - Introduction. (0:00:41) - Are new biotechnologies restarting History? (0:03:52) - Why Fukuyama thinks life extension is a bad idea. (0:06:47) - Which biotechnology is most likely to drive transhumanism? (0:07:34) - Political orders are downstream of technology. (0:10:31) - Would Fukuyama have denied political rights to Denisovans or Neanderthals? (0:13:56) - Transhumanism and longevity's unintended consequences. (0:18:55) - Assortative mating vs. gene editing. (0:20:00) - How should we adjudicate disagreements between different sets of natural rights? (0:24:03) - How is Fukuyama thinking about AGI and ASI? (0:27:31) - Granting AIs political rights? (0:37:23) - Best political order for a society of non-thymotic AIs? (0:40:44) - Could an ASI design a better political order than liberal democracy for today's world? (0:44:08) - Why Asian cultures are more permissive of biotechnology. (0:47:04) - Do LLMs represent a victory of American soft power in China? (0:49:17) - If humanity is made economically redundant, where will megalothymia be channelled? (0:51:58) - Can Trump and Musk's relationship endure their mutual megalothymia? (0:53:23) - A future without work? Kojève's 1959 trip to Japan, & the early-modern landed gentry. (1:00:41) - Hegel vs. Kojève: wars after history? (1:02:26) - What more would have to happen for China to falsify the end of history thesis? (1:03:39) - What Fukuyama learned from having his thesis chronically misunderstood. (1:06:37) - Fukuyama's advice for public intellectuals who want sustainable careers. (1:08:52) - A sneak peek at Fukuyama's next book. (1:10:32) - Delegation in armies and bureaucracies. (1:15:48) - Why Fukuyama thinks DOGE was misguided. (1:17:53) - The relationship between talent, delegation and state capacity. Watch full episode on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc. Transcript at my website jnwpod dot com. Enjoy!

New episode with Francis Fukuyama (Francis Fukuyama). While The End of History and the Last Man is arguably the most influential work in political science of the past half-century, I wanted to focus on one of Frank's lesser-known books: Our Posthuman Future. In that book, he considers biotech and its potential to usher in a new, post-human history. I check in to see how his views have evolved since it was published (2002), then ask him about AI and its potential to restart "History". The goal was to discuss topics that are important and on which Frank has spoken little until now. Frank also gives me a preview of his forthcoming book, and shares some ideas on delegation and state capacity. (0:00:00) - Introduction. (0:00:41) - Are new biotechnologies restarting History? (0:03:52) - Why Fukuyama thinks life extension is a bad idea. (0:06:47) - Which biotechnology is most likely to drive transhumanism? (0:07:34) - Political orders are downstream of technology. (0:10:31) - Would Fukuyama have denied political rights to Denisovans or Neanderthals? (0:13:56) - Transhumanism and longevity's unintended consequences. (0:18:55) - Assortative mating vs. gene editing. (0:20:00) - How should we adjudicate disagreements between different sets of natural rights? (0:24:03) - How is Fukuyama thinking about AGI and ASI? (0:27:31) - Granting AIs political rights? (0:37:23) - Best political order for a society of non-thymotic AIs? (0:40:44) - Could an ASI design a better political order than liberal democracy for today's world? (0:44:08) - Why Asian cultures are more permissive of biotechnology. (0:47:04) - Do LLMs represent a victory of American soft power in China? (0:49:17) - If humanity is made economically redundant, where will megalothymia be channelled? (0:51:58) - Can Trump and Musk's relationship endure their mutual megalothymia? (0:53:23) - A future without work? Kojève's 1959 trip to Japan, & the early-modern landed gentry. (1:00:41) - Hegel vs. Kojève: wars after history? (1:02:26) - What more would have to happen for China to falsify the end of history thesis? (1:03:39) - What Fukuyama learned from having his thesis chronically misunderstood. (1:06:37) - Fukuyama's advice for public intellectuals who want sustainable careers. (1:08:52) - A sneak peek at Fukuyama's next book. (1:10:32) - Delegation in armies and bureaucracies. (1:15:48) - Why Fukuyama thinks DOGE was misguided. (1:17:53) - The relationship between talent, delegation and state capacity. Watch full episode on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc. Transcript at my website jnwpod dot com. Enjoy!

Joseph Noel Walker

15,483 просмотров • 1 год назад

How did we wind up at war with Iran? Scott Horton explains. (0:00) The History of Why Iran Is Such a Global Focal Point (11:16) The Jimmy Carter Doctrine (22:29) The Brutality of the Iraq/Iran War (29:40) The First Iraq War Was a Massive Mistake (41:32) Bill Clinton’s Fatal Mistake That Drove America Into the Middle East (47:44) The Truth About Osama bin Laden’s Motives (50:08) What You Don’t Know About the 1990s Terror Attacks (1:02:15) The History of the Israel/Iran Relationship (1:09:50) Why Osama bin Laden Was Happy When George Bush Was Elected (1:14:53) Why Is There So Much Persecution of Christians in the World? (1:16:22) Scott Horton’s Partnership With Darryl Cooper (1:24:13) Foreknowledge of 9-11 (1:31:02) The Real Meaning of the Word “Neocon” (1:38:47) Israel’s Clean Break Strategy (1:46:46) The Oil Pipeline Between Iraq and Israel and Why Israel Cut It Off (2:01:50) Barack Obama’s Role in Stoking Foreign Wars (2:10:36) Corporate Media’s Sudden Pivot on Assad (2:14:43) How Obama Paved the Way for Islamic Rule of Syria (2:23:11) The Truth About Iran’s Nuclear Program (2:33:32) How Effective Was Trump’s Bombing Campaign on Iran? (2:43:46) What Happens if There Is Regime Change in Iran? (2:50:18) Is Horton Hopeful for America’s Future? Includes paid partnerships.

How did we wind up at war with Iran? Scott Horton explains. (0:00) The History of Why Iran Is Such a Global Focal Point (11:16) The Jimmy Carter Doctrine (22:29) The Brutality of the Iraq/Iran War (29:40) The First Iraq War Was a Massive Mistake (41:32) Bill Clinton’s Fatal Mistake That Drove America Into the Middle East (47:44) The Truth About Osama bin Laden’s Motives (50:08) What You Don’t Know About the 1990s Terror Attacks (1:02:15) The History of the Israel/Iran Relationship (1:09:50) Why Osama bin Laden Was Happy When George Bush Was Elected (1:14:53) Why Is There So Much Persecution of Christians in the World? (1:16:22) Scott Horton’s Partnership With Darryl Cooper (1:24:13) Foreknowledge of 9-11 (1:31:02) The Real Meaning of the Word “Neocon” (1:38:47) Israel’s Clean Break Strategy (1:46:46) The Oil Pipeline Between Iraq and Israel and Why Israel Cut It Off (2:01:50) Barack Obama’s Role in Stoking Foreign Wars (2:10:36) Corporate Media’s Sudden Pivot on Assad (2:14:43) How Obama Paved the Way for Islamic Rule of Syria (2:23:11) The Truth About Iran’s Nuclear Program (2:33:32) How Effective Was Trump’s Bombing Campaign on Iran? (2:43:46) What Happens if There Is Regime Change in Iran? (2:50:18) Is Horton Hopeful for America’s Future? Includes paid partnerships.

Tucker Carlson

5,362,988 просмотров • 1 год назад

Really enjoyed chatting with Michael Nielsen about how we recognize scientific progress. It's especially relevant for closing the RL verification loop for scientific discovery. But it's also a surprisingly mysterious and elusive question when you look at the history of human science. We approach this question stories like Einstein (who claimed that he hadn't even heard of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which is supposed to have motivated special relativity, until after he had come up with the theory), Darwin (why did it take till 1859 to lay out an idea whose essence every farmer since antiquity must have observed?), Prout (how do you recognize that isotopes exist if you cannot chemically separate them?), and many others. The verification loop on scientific ideas is often extremely long and weirdly hostile. Ancient Athenians dismissed Aristarchus's heliocentrism in the 3rd century BC because it would imply that the stars should shift in the sky as the Earth orbits the sun. The first successful measurement of stellar parallax was in 1838. That's a 2,000-year verification loop. But clearly human science is able to make progress faster than raw experimental falsification/verification would imply, and in cases where experiments are very ambiguous. How? Michael has some very deep and provocative hypotheses about the nature of progress. One I found especially thought-provoking is that aliens will likely have a VERY different science + tech stack than us. Which contradicts the common sense picture of a linear tech tree that I was assuming. And has some interesting implications about how future civilizations might trade and cooperate with each other. So many other interesting ideas. Hope you enjoy this as much as I did. 0:00:00 – How scientific progress outpaces its verification loops 0:17:51 – Newton was the last of the magicians 0:23:26 – Why wasn’t natural selection obvious much earlier? 0:29:52 – Could gradient descent have discovered general relativity? 0:50:54 – Why aliens will have a different tech stack than us 1:15:26 – Are there infinitely many deep scientific principles left to discover? 1:26:25 – What drew Michael to quantum computing so early? 1:35:29 – Does science need a new way to assign credit? 1:43:57 – Prolificness versus depth 1:49:17 – What it takes to actually internalize what you learn Look up Dwarkesh Podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.

Really enjoyed chatting with Michael Nielsen about how we recognize scientific progress. It's especially relevant for closing the RL verification loop for scientific discovery. But it's also a surprisingly mysterious and elusive question when you look at the history of human science. We approach this question stories like Einstein (who claimed that he hadn't even heard of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which is supposed to have motivated special relativity, until after he had come up with the theory), Darwin (why did it take till 1859 to lay out an idea whose essence every farmer since antiquity must have observed?), Prout (how do you recognize that isotopes exist if you cannot chemically separate them?), and many others. The verification loop on scientific ideas is often extremely long and weirdly hostile. Ancient Athenians dismissed Aristarchus's heliocentrism in the 3rd century BC because it would imply that the stars should shift in the sky as the Earth orbits the sun. The first successful measurement of stellar parallax was in 1838. That's a 2,000-year verification loop. But clearly human science is able to make progress faster than raw experimental falsification/verification would imply, and in cases where experiments are very ambiguous. How? Michael has some very deep and provocative hypotheses about the nature of progress. One I found especially thought-provoking is that aliens will likely have a VERY different science + tech stack than us. Which contradicts the common sense picture of a linear tech tree that I was assuming. And has some interesting implications about how future civilizations might trade and cooperate with each other. So many other interesting ideas. Hope you enjoy this as much as I did. 0:00:00 – How scientific progress outpaces its verification loops 0:17:51 – Newton was the last of the magicians 0:23:26 – Why wasn’t natural selection obvious much earlier? 0:29:52 – Could gradient descent have discovered general relativity? 0:50:54 – Why aliens will have a different tech stack than us 1:15:26 – Are there infinitely many deep scientific principles left to discover? 1:26:25 – What drew Michael to quantum computing so early? 1:35:29 – Does science need a new way to assign credit? 1:43:57 – Prolificness versus depth 1:49:17 – What it takes to actually internalize what you learn Look up Dwarkesh Podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.

Dwarkesh Patel

291,443 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

one thing that has saved my projects more time than I can count is evals boy was I excited when florian, quite literally an expert in benchmarks, agreed to hop into a ~2h interview to do a walkthrough of what the eval landscape looks like in 2026 (and also answer my personal business questions on the subject) given that now running frontier model through benchmarks is a vector for hacking other systems in order to avoid doing work (looking at you sol), I think it's more important than ever to educate folks on the evals situation. had a lot of fun throughout this session and I hope that you learn a thing or two! enjoy! 🌹 table of content: 0:00:00: are AI Benchmark broken? 0:05:45: Florian Brand background 0:09:00: what motivates florian to work on evaluation? 0:13:33: what is the mirrorcode benchmark about? 0:18:20: cheating in agent benchmark is insaneeeee 0:24:08: LLM benchmarks in era of agents 0:26:30: what’s up with the pelican man 0:28:27: evals are about capabilities 0:31:46: components of running evals 0:35:30: the volume of things to audit is huge!!! 0:40:20: expert answers are wrong hahahaha 0:46:00: api providers aren’t the same 0:48:00: benchmark narrow capabilities (synthetically) 0:50:56: link between eval and environment 0:53:45: small validated benchmark or massive bench? 0:56:11: what is your flow to review a benchmark? 0:58:30: tracking work capabilities with evaluation 1:00:20: slide deck in industry is all vibecoded 1:03:30: harness impact in the evaluation 1:07:39: hardware/sandboxes impact evaluation too! 1:11:00: “is it going to get worse?” 1:12:40: all components influence the final score 1:13:50: training models on different harnesses? 1:17:20: is the model just the weights or it’s all of it? 1:19:30: how to craft benchmark that prevent to cheating and undereliciting models in 2026 1:23:19: ways agents cheat and steal 1:26:00: correct elicitation of capabilities is important 1:36:00: building evaluation on prime intellect 1:45:10: how do you design interactivity benchmarks? 1:48:40: do you think evals are well set to reflect real world performance? 1:52:50: what will the benchmarking landscape will look like in 1 year

Yacine Mahdid

12,923 просмотров • 1 месяц назад