@boneGPT
when people tell you we need to stop AI, show them this
Viral tweet analysis: Australian used AI and $3,000 to design an mRNA cancer vaccine for his rescue dog. Summarizes public sentiment, ethics, risks, and debate.
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
What the community is saying — both sides
no degree, a chatbot, ~$3K and a DIY mRNA vaccine halving a dog’s tumor. Replies celebrate that "you can just do things" and promise rapid, grassroots medical innovation.
g. , proposed NY rules) could criminalize asking AI medical questions or otherwise choke off access, turning breakthroughs into administrative limbo.
Big Pharma and the medical gatekeepers are being vilified — many replies argue the industry prefers chronic customers over cures, and that centralized institutions will resist decentralizing cures for profit and control reasons.
a clear consumer market (owners will pay), plus lower-red-tape countries moving faster.
Traditional expertise is being disrupted — experts who relied on expensive tools are “gobsmacked”; replies stress that access to tooling — not mystique — created previous barriers, and that those roles will change or become obsolete.
work within the system or sidestep it — some call for funding startups to partner with regulators, push "Right to Try" and fast-track approvals; others push open-source, decentralized approaches and warn against letting institutions lock innovation down.
Big Pharma will suppress or neuter any cheap cure — many replies argue the industry’s profit motive means cures get buried, delayed or monetized rather than widely deployed.
mRNA is unsafe or discredited — a large strand of reaction rejects mRNA tech outright, calling it dangerous, linked to harm, or permanently tarnished by COVID vaccine controversies.
The dog anecdote doesn’t prove anything — critics say it’s likely coincidence, spontaneous tumor regression, or an unconvincing human-applicability story rather than scientific evidence.
Regulatory, patent and cost barriers block translation to humans — commenters point to ethics approval, clinical trials, patent lawsuits and prohibitive pricing (estimates like ~$300k) as practical roadblocks.
This could be propaganda or a PR play for mRNA — some see the piece as an attempt to rehabilitate or market mRNA technology rather than a rigorous breakthrough.
AI and gatekeepers will be used to stop DIY cures — several replies predict tightening rules on chatbots/AI medical advice and efforts to keep “peons” from bypassing institutions.
g. , ivermectin + fenbendazole + fasting) and accuses mainstream medicine of suppressing them.
Prevention and lifestyle over techno-solutions — some responses call for diet, exercise and public-health measures instead of expensive biomedical fixes.
Conspiratorial and hostile reactions — a minority pushed extreme narratives (bioweapon fears, antisemitic accusations, claims of deliberate suppression or retaliation), reflecting deep distrust rather than evidence-based critique.
Supportive but cautious voices — a few defend the story as plausible or noteworthy (noting collaboration with scientists, reported tumor shrinkage), while still acknowledging human translation isn’t guaranteed.
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
when people tell you we need to stop AI, show them this
Makes you realize how evil big pharma is. Can't wait for the entire healthcare industry to be replaced by AI tbh
Vibe coding RNA ... what a time to be alive
You’re mistakenly concluding that Big Pharma gives a fuck about patient health and ‘curing’ anything Of course they’re not working on it Human sickness is their recurring revenue model Why the fuck would they give that up? They’re literally disincentivized from doing so
the problem is that the industry isn’t incentivized to drive cost down…
Things like this are why NY is trying to ban AI from delivering medical/legal/etc information. Can’t have the peons fixing problems themselves.