Great talk, a true visionary, considering this was 2011. This is where things are moving towards now!

@harendrasingh_22

Жыл бұрын

And the guy is the computer scientist! :D Gotta appreciate the cross industry understanding of Danny

Fantastic Talk. One of the main problems in research is getting the same result for the same issue. For Danny cancer is something we do not something we have, Cancering. His technique will allow us to predict the best treatment for EACH person and also will bring us a revolution in the way we see the body because we no longer see it in parts but as a whole. Drugs should solve the origin of the disease rather than alleviate symptoms. To understand the origin we must see the body as a whole.

This talk was very well delivered. Thank you so much!

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. It's amazing to be alive today and see all the progress happening in all different areas around us. Onwards, humanity!

one of the most terrific ted talks ive seen, and ive seen a lot, christopher hitchens should watch this

I'd like to nominate this for best talk this year. For the ideas, research and presentation.

whered the 720p go? for such good quality content the video quality is always shit

Great talk with great analogies of paradigm shifting ideas, this is what TED is all about

Extremely insightful - thank very much to uploader! Beginning a course in genomics & proteomics course in a couple hours and this has pumped me up! Haha :)

2nd! Finally an approach that makes sense and works on the source level not on the symptom! A presentation that spreads hope!

absolutely brilliant.

@De4sher He does say that he didn't know anything about cancer until he worked on this project- at around 12+ minutes.

A true visionary!

although he seemed nervous, he maintained his composure and speech level relatively well throughout. Proteomics has multiple steps and is ever-expanding (whether characterizing the transcriptome-all of RNA that is present in cell or tissue, alternative splicing, etc). That is why it is essential to understand the proper functioin of proteins. Especially in clinical proteomics where disease-linked proteins serve as marker molecules for disease stages, there are multiple steps in locating diseases that are present in different organs (liver, brain, cardiovascular system, etc). It's amazing how proteomics can possibly cure cystic fibrosis through replacing delocalized proteins, a disease harming many people to this day.

@RazielKain proteins don't just move between cells, they move within the cells first (in fact, that's where almost all are made) - and cancerous tissues produce different proteins from healthy cells. Not insanely different, but different enough that being able to track proteins at this resolution probably lets them identify pre-cancerous cells much earlier in the process, and therefore provides more information about what causes it in the first place.

Good on him - you have to try - i have herd of people changing there diet and the cancer gos away

Yay for alternative thinking :) this man is truely thinking outside the box

"Danny Hills makes " TED, you've spelled his name wrong in the video description.

@RazielKain To give you an example: cancer cells secrete angiogenesis factors that promote the growth of blood vessels to bring blood to the conglomerate of cancer cells. This is one of the most important key factors that allows a cancer not only to further develop, but to also spread itself trow the blood vessels to other organs and so metastasizing. In your body cancer cells will always develop...and it is up to extracellular factors (and intracellular for that matter) to annihilate them.

I didn't really understand how are we treating Cancer through proteomics? Can someone explain please?

@Neylonx nice question! May I suggest you read 'Accelorando' by Charles Stross (available free in digital copies online). My own opinion is that it WOULD count as life (and I suspect that early AI will be something along these lines), but I don't think it will necessarily be an exact copy of whoever is being modelled. Such a model of me I do not think it would be able to 'predict' my actions, else I would have to stop believing in free-will and would become a mechanical determanist...

@richardcadbury as far as I know you are correct. He got confused as he though it would dilute favourable traits over time, not concentrate them....

To me, the approach is not entirely surprising What was, was the ability for 2d gels to be read at the level of isotope specificity ... Does anyone know how long that has been around?

All right! Let's cure cancer!

@tbyte the modern scientific community is able to think pretty alternatively about things. maybe paradigm shifts were difficult a hundred years ago, but now science has improved to largely eliminate personal difficulties with adapting to new frameworks. old farts nowadays are up to date, perhaps even more than the new farts, generally speaking.

@twistedbass15 Is tasty and nutritious, but what about it?

@Ko252 This is funny but I've had a change of heart. Our discussion of course will go nowhere as they always do. But I've been self-reflecting, and I was like, so what if I don't like snobbishness, why do I have to point it out? Why do I care? Isn't it snobby of me to point out the snobbiness in others? I must be really insecure to be so offended by it in the first place. Who cares if I think someone is snobby? You're right, that doesn't contribute anything either. Ah well, life is life.

what role does nutrition play in the body healing its self of cancer?

@consummateVssss doesn't it seem to you like the guy didn't actually know a lot about what he was saying? I mean i feel i know a lot more about canced than he did. His idea was great! simulate your personal cells with your personal proteins, and see how you can get them to do the natural thing your body does the sad thing is we don't really have the computational power for that now. Maybe in a few decades. At this time, we're using hundreds of thousands of PC's to simulate not really that much

@Ko252 Awesome. I bet you'll be on TED one day with an even more promising cancer theory. But why advertise whether one is impressed or not by some talk bc of disagreements over details that don't really matter all that much to the main thesis of the presentation? What is one's thoughts over the promise of proteomic vs genomic approach to cancer theory? Mentioning whether one is impressed or not is just ego inflation and snobby and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

i think im going to study biotechnology :D

Wait, did the guy at 7:10 just drink water in the lab? O.O

I was watching this video thinking "Where the hell do I know this guy from?" Then it suddenly hit me! This guy was friends with Richard Feynman. Watch the video "No Ordinary Genuis" on KZread--a documentary about Feynman, and Daniel Hillis does an interview.

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Good luck with your inner study. Hope it produces fruit, as well.

@De4sher it seemed like he was dumbing down everything so a layman could understand it, like cmon he was the one that built that machine you think he would know something about how it works. I think he was talking about using the data from the machine he built to compare cancer patients and their treatments, not to create a simulation of protein intra and extra-communication using cloud computing

@ dalyom37: it's not a stretch. This isn't actally "new;" it's the direction things are already going. Thanks for your insight. With folks like you, we'll never learn to survive cancer. As for "many cancers" being the result of translocations of genes: I believe that only CML has been shown as such; there's a translocation at 9:22. Can you name others? Or are you assuming? Possibly exaggerating? I further disagree that you must know the "source if you are to find a cure." Not so.

@Reasonabledoctor Well if you wanted to be really pedantic you would say that genes are the blueprints for the protein. The expression of proteins is controlled to a large extent by signal transduction pathways, assembly of transcription factors, epigenetics and of course post-translational modification. In fact the only way in which a gene could control its expression is through its promoter region either causing increased or diminished transcription.

@ThisSentenceIsFalse contribute with?

@RazielKain You're almost completely mistaken. Remember: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

@Ko252 Good luck on your research. Hope it produces fruit.

@Neylonx I'm not religious, but I do believe we have a certain amount of freewill. I personally suspect it comes from the complexity of interrelated systems. I'm not a mechanical determanist though either, which would require I believed that if we re-set the universe and replayed it would all end up the same. Minute changes would lead to larger changes all up the line. This is 'chaos theory' I suppose. Some of the universe is probabilistic and I think that gives the gap for free will....

This is kind of backwards... Music videos get many, many views from one person. These kinds of videos are basically guaranteed to get only one or two per person. They're not the same thing at all. 'Views' is the same idea, but KZread is a broad place.

Only 4188 views in such an awesome video and millions and millions of views in a Justin Bieber video?! Something is wrong with the world...

@tbyte i can only speak for biologists and they are perhaps slightly more stubborn than an average worker (secretary, mineworker, businessman, you name it) but that is in the interest of science. if a theory doesnt work, nobody will stick to it, especially good scientists. good science is to be impersonal about the result. from what i've seen in the field of microbiology, there are so many more good scientists than there used to be 20 years ago. i am assuming the trend exists for all of science.

@Charles33333 omg you are actually the first person I have ever seen a comment of on youtube who actually is first @ commenting and saying so! most people are second or third lol :P people who watch newscientist video's should watch this.

@tbyte you sound like a british soccer mom :o)

@tbyte you sound like a soccer mom now :o)

@consummateVssss no, it's not. This is what you want TED to be about, it is what all the people who comment saying TED talk A or B sucks cuz it doesn't have scientific concepts and new ideas... TED talks include technology, entertainment and design. If you set your mind that this is the way all TED talks should be, then you are bound for disappointment...

@tbyte huh?

If in fact your lifestyle has contributed to this present health condition and it's not what you want, what do you have to loose. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It's the only thing you DO have control over. I am now a retired vegan and numbers have not gone up, I believe I did this.

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Cheers for our snobbishness.

10th!

This is weird, it's like watching a truck driver discussing quantum mechanics...

This smart and likable Danny Hills knows all kinds of stuff about proteins except that he is eating too much proteins (and fats) himself and is creating an unhealthy body that is more prone to cancer and other diseases. Here is another approach: how to prevent it? How about eating mainly the healthiest food (fruits and vegetables), exercise, relaxation, toxic free foods and environment, sun, equal distribution of wealth and resources and living in balance with the environment and each other?

@uiuiuiseraph All cancers will eventually curable for the individual, at least for those with money. But as the technology progresses, it will filter down to the "average" person.

how cancer happens...if we really be able to understand that, we be able to find a cure for...

btw. It isn't a surprise he doesn't have any background in biology at all, it shows.

@NikeshalovesCasey Some would say the largest part. Then come social activity and physical activity. But this isn't western medicine's model, which is why so many people die from degenerative diseases.

@InMooseWeTrust WHAT WHAT WHAT

The bum bum bum bum bum is like taking infinite pictures and putting them togehter.

@Charles33333 No your not!

the talk is good but he speaks through he was underwater or something it annoys the hell out of me and makes me physically feel uncomfortable a bit.

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Or my study is.

Hmm... I'm going to start smoking. By the time I get cancer, there will be a cure. I love this century!

@tbyte 99% of medicine focuses on the body healing itself. i dont think you are serious when you say that the 'old generation of doctors' want to find a cure for disease that works like an *antiserum*. i also dont think you are resourceful enough to understand cellular biology. you phrase it as if alternative medicine is absolutely more superior to pharmacological solutions, which is almost never the case.

This makes too much sense. It needs to be rejected immediately, or at least put off 75 years. The pharmaceutical industry isn't finished yet.

@sinprelic Brits my be offended but the other notion don't even know what the hell soccer is anyway. For the other part I can only say - Dreams :)

This sounds expensive. I don't think this will be the medicine for the average people, but for the richer ones. =/

I hate to say it, but I wasnt that impressed by this talk, even though I liked the lecturer and his idea. The reason is because he seems to be incorrect on some points. For instance, cancer is not divided by organ, but by cells. Further, it is arranged by immunnohistochemical properties. Further on, we know the reasons (or partly) of some cancer, like retinoblasoma and cervix cancer, etc.

4th

Well, he was wrong about genetics; genes are NOT the parts list, it does say how things are connected and where which bodypart goes. Maybe he is making a statement about embryology but even then it's wrong. He's also entirely wrong about Darwin depending on Mendel, Darwin never even knew his work, which is obvious when reading "on the origin of species". And it's not the only theoretical construct that turned out to be true. Germ theory?

@tbyte sorry for the ad hominem but from my experience only really adolescent brits are offended by the soccer/football simile. now again, excuse me, but i will assume that if you are juvenile enough to be irritated by a simile, you are ignorant enough about the realities and every-day workings of the scientific community that i am part of. aye. science is so much better than it was 20 years ago, and 20 years before that - let alone since the middle ages, which you are obviously caricaturing.

Poor Dannys having a hard time catching his breath

@tbyte you are making a huge misconnection here. good scientist =/= genius ; science =/= public belief ; bad scientist =/= majority opinion. i'm afraid you are judging by medieval standards. i've recently entered the world of the scientific community and those people are just far more brillant than the random shmuck off the street, and in amazingly huge numbers too. the problem i think is that you do not have a subscription to any serious journal and i think you are judging via past prejudices.

He really thinks that theories rarely turn out to be true in biology, this is false, this happened and still happens a lot. Danny really tries his best undermining the science of biology while he doesn't really understand it. He even uses straw man arguments for genetics, this guy is sad. TED has been going down lately, this video fits perfectly in the downward spiral.

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Perhaps I will be. Regardless my advertisement. Do you lecture everybody else, that might be impressed by this lecture and make a statement about it, also? Diagreements over detail that dont matter? Of course they matter. He is promoting an idea to change the way medicine understands cancer. When his argumentations, regardless of how good they might be, are incoherent with the current understanding,they doesnt seem that impressive. What does your ad hominem attack

I'm even more disappointed when seeing how many people like this video and think it's a great informative talk. TED should again be ashamed for asking someone who's good at presenting instead of someone who's actually giving a meaningful talk. This guy is presenting a lot of nonsense and trying to ridicule established facts. He doesn't know what he talks about.

@Charles33333 No one cares.

his breathing is annoying. sounds like he's choking on air.