I'm really excited for this, Neil.
Thanks for joining me today.
For now.
Thank you.
Yeah, of course, man.
And if can you give us a bit of an intro for our audience, and then we'll take it from there.
Absolutely.
Well, my pleasure to be here.
Um, I've heard a lot of things about your podcast and, uh, privileged to be able to talk to you, find out more about myself.
That's why I love about these sort of interviews is I get to learn something new about myself and walk away thinking, huh, I really messed up.
But, uh, so, uh, I'm a family doctor who practices in Warlu, Ontario.
Um, I'm originally from Scarborough.
Um, and just took this, uh, interesting journey about self discovery along with med school, residency, and finding my place in the health tech world.
Um, so, you know, from med school, I went over to Ireland.
My sister went to med school in Ireland and I was like, all right, that's pretty cool.
I, uh, I don't want a desk job.
Funnily enough, I have a desk job now.
Uh, I don't want a desk job.
Um, I want to, I want to do something that has impact.
And so I was like, yeah, let's go be a doctor.
And so I followed my sister over to Ireland, did my med schooling there, uh, got into residency in Newfoundland where I did the, something called the Nenafam program.
So it's six months in Nenavits, uh, and the rest of it in the Maritime provinces.
Um, did my residency out there and then had a decision, uh, had a choice between coming back to town here in Warilu, going out to Kingston, uh, staying in the Calvates or going over St.
John's and chose Warilu for the tech.
And here I am with tech.
Tell me about your journey with tech.
How did you get involved with tech and how do you see tech influencing healthcare in the future?
That was good. Uh, so I was a chicken becker, uh, on the keyboard, like not the 10 finger typing.
I was very much like two fingers tapping away.
And, you know, who does my sister again?
Uh, she saw that she's like, what's wrong with you?
Go do a typing class, but I was a lazy kid.
And so I was like, nah, the two fingers work great.
I'm typing at 20 words per minute.
Why would I ever need to go faster than that?
Um, so she convinced my mom and I was pissed off at that time, but now looking back was one of the best things she did.
Convinced my mom to send me to a computer course where they teach you how to program,
teach you how to become a Microsoft C plus plus certified, um, a troubleshooter for a computer and how to build and disassemble computers and fix them.
Did that for three years and it was.
It was mind boggling about how much different computers are to us, but yet how similar they are.
And one of the basic tenets is, okay, stop in a restart computer, but two, it's also if the computer goes wrong and you've checked all the parts, the problem is in the computer, it's you.
And it really taught me on user experience and user interface being like, was the process wrong?
I mean, obviously there couldn't be a problem.
In the issues, but for the most part, it's a process wrong and why am I making a mistake along the way?
And that's really changed the scientific methodology of how I think.
So then that led me into the whole world of programming, um, automation into my, you know, back in, that was 12, 13, automating stuff on my computer.
I was doing remote robotic process automation, uh, through mouse, but I was doing a lot of things.
So robotic process automation, uh, through mouse movements back when I was 14, because I was getting bored of having to convert all my photos over to a different format.
And then when I got back from residency and throughout Metsville and residency, I was the tech guy continuously.
We got back from residency. It was like, what do I want to do with my life?
Um, and I totally saw the innovation, the fast paced nature as being the foundation of the future.
Um, AI was just starting in terms or it was for around for a while, but was just coming into the public sphere again after going through that, that moment, the 10 years of silence.
I forgot what the term is, but 10 years where nobody heard anything about AI and then they came back up.
Um, I was like, you know what?
What's medicine going to be? Do I memorize everything from that textbook from Metsville? Absolutely not.
I think computers are just smarter and they keep getting smarter. And I think we have this tendency of thinking, well, we're at the peak of our civilization. We can't be smart. No, no.
We have a long way to go. And that's actually one of the reasons why I have this image in my background as a Dyson ring, because this is, you know, a Kardashev two civilization of the four Kardashev levels there are.
We are nowhere near that. We're a Kardashev zero. And so it really like science fiction has really showed us that we're still continuously innovating.
And technology is going to be a part of that. And so as a physician, where am I going to be? Am I going to be that clinician who says, Nope, technologies where it's at, it's not going to get better.
It's all about that human to human interaction. Or is it going to be all technology where it's, Hey, we don't need humans anymore. Or is it going to be a hybrid version in between?
I think the truth is most likely can be a hybrid version. And I want to be a part of that journey and help to figure out what that pathway looks like.
And so I was like, All right, I want tech. Where do I go for that? My sister again was living in Warloo. And she's like, Why don't you come to Warloo, check out the scene, figure out what you want to do.
And concern moving here. She had her other reasons too for wanting to want me to come to town and stuff like that. So I came here, love the entire ecosystem.
And from there, me myself, a couple of business cards are different from my office business cards and went out to hackathons and conferences and stuff. And it just took off from there.
Oh, and became an advisor for a couple of not for profit organizations.
And I think what's interesting there, the future of tech and of healthcare in general may incorporate tech to human interactions versus human to human interactions.
I think most of us would say that AI now can pass the touring test, especially on a chatbot. It's very difficult to differentiate if you're talking to a human or not.
So, I think that's a good question.
So, what's on completely AI guided mental health counselor. Do you think it's a net positive net negative and how do you navigate a future where there is no human interaction and healthcare for specific in this is our disease processes.
And you really hit, you know, there's, there's a few different parts on this one. Let's take the basic and easy one.
If I were to have high blood pressure.
There are five different classes of medication.
Each class of medication has anywhere from two to 15 candidates within it all over the world.
What a typical clinician does is they memorize one to two drugs per class.
And rinse and repeat for every patient, and we have an order right we hit the ace ARB is first and we'll throw in a custom channel blocker then we'll throw in a beta blocker then we'll throw in an alpha.
And we just rinse and repeat.
But how do we know that right drug is for the right person.
You know, for me it can't a certain may be an okay drug, but some sort would have been way better, but for you it would have been completely different we don't know that, because we don't do phenotyping we don't do genotyping.
I think that's where the value of a human to AI or humans technology piece comes into play.
So I would throw my genotype and phenotype into pattern recognitions that go beyond what a human can do, like as a clinician human, and actually do the best evidence based medicine we could possibly do.
So that instead of just rinse giving kind of certain to every single patient if that fails give time a certain, we're gonna say hey you know you know what Neil you need almost certain.
And Rashad, you know, just avoid that entire class of medication we're going to jump over to ace and heritors and go for a roundup for X, Y and Z.
Because study a show that patients in this category with your feet on type had these issues. That's something I can do mentally.
As I was only I don't think any human can do mentally and it's just pattern recognition between. So we're going to get to this point where the common conditions that we know a lot about, we're going to be able to do over and over again.
Then that's going to translate over to, well what about surgeries and the hands on approach of things. Well we have antemocular variants in the body.
We have different conditions and the way they spread and how they affect it. So a lot more complex.
But again, as we learn more and as we start doing video and image to knowledge generators.
And that's really going to start peeling away as well. And I don't even argue that we might even be able to deviate away from most surgeries through newer and newer medication discoveries like we've heard about FDA's at the FDA approving organoids on the chip as an alternative to regular animal trials,
and human trials. We've heard about Alpha fold folding new proteins and you know both of us know the newest trend right now is monoclonal antibodies and all these specific receptor targeted medications.
Let's look at some aglotide specifically hits g lp one receptors.
When we look at his appetite g lp ones and g i p ones. And so we're starting to hit receptor level accuracy without causing all the additional side effects, as we start building these proteins and being able to fold them better.
Virtually digitally, we can actually start interacting with it and so now we're starting to say hey you know what do we really need bariatric surgery, or can we deviate this and go towards medication do we really need to do a rectal cancer excision.
Well that was a study from 2000.
Don't call me on this I think it's like 2019 2020. It represents 4% of all rectal cancers with a specific type of mutation, but they showed 100% remission.
Phenomenal.
Now when we hit mental health mental health is so weird in the, not that conditions are weird I'm saying it's weird from a tech point of view, because now you can actually feed it your entire email history calendar everything and they can start to learn more about you.
Is it better is it not well somebody people get disturbed by it, or have we just discovered our forever doctor.
No, the chat MD is the joke I go by, which is, here's a doctor that understands your cultural issues, your personal issues can age with you, and is a face that you trust.
So, I'm probably going to say yeah you know what, text probably be better than what I can do as a human. I think, like any good beard it's going to be ugly as it grows, but once you get a nice and big it's nice and bushy it looks gorgeous.
I have, I think about 30 questions here.
I'll start with the, with an easier one. If you had a one way ticket to Mars for yourself and your loved ones to start a healthcare system there would you go.
Me yes wife. No, she's already said no I've asked for this question. I, my first love is not medicine my first love is actually being an astronaut. Always my journey in life and that's I, you know when I started dating my wife.
I told her that on the I think the first or the second day being like, look, this is my passion, I can go to space I'm going. It's still a point of contention between us.
The problem of AI and medicine of personalized medicine and some of the things you mentioned isn't a technical problem at this stage. It's a regulatory problem and a reimbursement problem from my perspective.
Who do you think will be liable if this AI makes a mistake will there be shared liability between the AI and the patient and what do you see reimbursement looking like.
And you know what I think we make mistakes as well. I know I have before.
I think from a from a reimbursement point of view that's one of the harder ones. I think right now.
I think AI makes my life easier. I'm more likely to pay for it at this point and do I expect somebody to pay for my use of an AI. No, because as a clinician in the, in the public sphere right now.
I think we're actually more more contract based and so anything that makes me more efficient gives me that advantage. Think about salaried and you're trying to improve my efficiency. Well then I don't have to really worry about reimbursement I'm more worried about just being replaced at that point.
So, regulatory aspects. Yeah, that's probably the only thing that's protecting many clinicians. I don't you wrong. I don't think AI has reached that point of accuracy just yet that we do see mistakes I've seen it make mistakes in both prototypes that haven't hit markets yet as well as hey you know what the
ambient AI is I use still can't parse through some of the natural language that we use.
And so when we look at the regulatory piece.
My personal opinion as a reflection on what's happening around the world. We're most likely going to see the introduction of AI in areas where they don't have clinicians at all.
And it's just pure scalability.
So we can log on and for 20 cents analyze whether or not they have tuberculosis versus a bacterial pneumonia versus a viral pneumonia, which by the way the technology exists, there's plenty of papers are published on this.
In nature.
Then.
Yeah, I'm going to do that rather than having to have somebody listen to my lungs with the stethoscope and get an extra and get exposed to radiation.
And then you know what it's just a VPN away. There's tons of VPNs that are available and so if you have somebody who comes to a country where they don't have access to primary care.
But you know you have this cough you work an hourly job and you don't have time to take time off to go see a clinician who only works nine to five, and can't do it after hours and you're living paycheck to paycheck.
And you know, another country has this technology and we put geographic limitations on it because of regulations. Well what stops me from actually just VPNing into a server in that country downloading the app, coughing into the cat cough analyzer and saying you know what's viral good.
I don't need to do this anymore, knowing that that's more sensitive and specific than one of our tests are.
And so I aren't be using the technology if it exists.
I don't have an answer for you. I think there's a couple problems here right in Canada our population so small at 30 million people were not a big enough market.
What we have in value is more so the fact that we are, you know, a developed country with a public healthcare system that will pay for this for stuff.
But we do have regulations around our health care products and stuff like that which is for good don't get me wrong, we need those regulations because there are also a lot of technologies out there that don't work that we need to protect ourselves from.
And so, part of the reason is what does that process look like do we allow for easy entrance for the right companies. Well make sure we read out the ones that we don't want that don't pass our the muster.
And then. So, so going back to the example, I could easily be pinned into a country and use a bad that doesn't give me the right analysis that puts my health at risk.
So I think we protect ourselves a lot more those regulations but the question is that balance between are we actually slowing down innovation and adoption versus and versus are we protecting humans at the same time.
I work in urgent care, I'm sending people for x rays I'm doing TV tests all day. It seems like if a cough detection tuberculosis technology exists that's an easy. Yes, but let's table that discussion for later date.
Do you think we have a soul, or are we millions and millions of synapses interacting in specific patterns.
Okay, so don't get wrong, I do believe we're synapses that that interact in specific patterns and consciousness is a combination of our entire universe working together, or our entire brain working together with the universe, whether or not we have a soul as the
what is a soul, and that is more of a ethereal idea. I think there's more to the universe than what we perceive in our four dimensions. We know mathematically that there are 11 dimensions to our universe.
M theory shows that string theory shows that we know we don't interact in these other, you know, x seven dimensions so we do length with height and time, more about the other seven.
So the question then is, is, if there is or is not a soul then the question also is, is there is there not also living, and is living exist as death exist.
Does that's just mean you move on to another dimension. Are we all just living in a matrix, am I actually just the byproduct of a dream and all of you guys are just characters in my in my other dimensions brain right.
So in theory I was just reading the other day about grab black holes, and each black hole you pass through is a dimension lower dimension lower supplier to fall into a black hole am I going to two dimensional space and my dad at that point or my alive at that point, or the different
other ways. And so I think the idea of a soul and whether or not there's dimensions a whole different concept.
And do I think there's more to the universe and we know absolutely we know that mathematically, have we discovered it yet. No, and that's what makes it so much excited and more exciting.
But I'm not going to wait around for it. There are people who are suffering and dying right now. My chemical organic brain can make it happen can can do good.
I know what the goal is, but I'm still going to just go out and do what I think is right by the people.
Is that a word there, which I cannot define, and I'm hoping you can define consciousness.
Self awareness.
The best quote I've heard of consciousness is the universe itself trying to figure itself out. I think that's why I see consciousness as is us trying to figure out consciously what the universe is.
Do you think AI can possess consciousness. Yes.
It's the same reason why I think an octopus has consciousness to it's not a human specific trade. It's a combination of synapses.
Yeah, sorry. Is it a trade specific to a carbon life form, or can a silicone life form possess consciousness.
I think a silicon life form can possess consciousness and scientifically same level of the periodic table. We can keep going down that entire level.
It doesn't have to be silicon. Can it be gold? I don't know. It depends on how DNA gets formed and what consciousness really is. But it'd be plasma. All it is is just synapses working together.
Okay, so in our reality as humans, our rights and laws apply generally to conscious beings or living things.
How do you think about the rights of AI as we build these machines or these systems which quote unquote possess consciousness and maybe have emotions.
Yeah, how do you think of AI rights.
I think we need to probably tackle that sooner than later. You know, it was really like about 10 years ago I remember reading an article about India recognizing dolphins as conscious and sentient.
A really interesting article and kind of got me thinking reflected back on a Star Trek episode about data, the Android, and whether or not it's conscious alive and should have its own self determination and self will.
Essentially, there was a scientist asked Starfleet that wanted to disassemble data. The argument was no, you're actually killing a unique life form. A life form that self that wants to live discover has curiosity and wants to, you know,
move forward in life, do something new with its life, make an impact.
And the argument was that yeah, you know what data this Android is alive and has consciousness, and therefore has a right to self determination and self will, and is not the owner of any person, and we're about to hit that.
Maybe in five years being 10 years being 20 years by thinking our lifetime we're going to hit that.
And that's a scary proposition for humans as a species, because for the first time ever we're starting to see something of almost equal intelligent potentially more intelligent that we are that we created that we've never experienced before.
We haven't experienced aliens we haven't met another sentient being in living consciousness living memory. I don't know about our predecessor, the homogenous but in living memory that we don't have that.
And so I think that's what scares people being like did we just create our replacement.
And so the future is hybridization. That's why I'm a big fan of narrow link, it is the merger of technology and silicon life with carbon life.
And I think AI hasn't seen the adoption and medicine that it has the potential to is because we limited to things that make sense to us.
We say, look at the Harvard variability and see if this patient is sick.
But perhaps what they need to look at is the back of their heel.
And by that they can save the patient is six there.
There are things which don't make sense to us that I will discover we look at an x-ray and diagnose diabetes.
We'll have no idea how I did that and we cannot understand maybe we're limited by our senses.
Maybe it's looking at the seventh dimension who knows what it's doing, but it will analyze things in a way which just do not make any sense for us.
Now our colleges have come out with a framework for explainability in AI.
They're saying, you know, you must be able to somewhat hype and you don't have to exactly explain because AI is a black box by definition, but you must be able to say, okay, if it's from an x-ray of your first metacarpal joint, it's this AI saying your triglyceride is eight.
You know, how do you see about the future here with AI coming up with things like that? And how do you see regulation fitting in there?
And do you think we should kind of just just see what AI does?
And if you know AI is seeing we have diabetes based on an x-ray and we do an HVAC and we have diabetes and we do 20,000 of these in the sensitivity and specificity is 99.9%.
Then the new test for diabetes is an x-ray and not HVAC. How do you see that evolving?
You agree with you. It's not an inferiority. The moment could show that an AI can do it in a non-inferior way to what we have and potentially even to a superior methodology.
It replaces it. And that's my love with the scientific method. It has nothing to do with the human attachment of this is a human way of doing it.
The question is more so, do we have a better way of doing it?
If we have a better way of doing it, fantastic. It doesn't matter if I'm hurt that I can't look at an A1C or a cholesterol panel anymore and we're using an x-ray instead.
Science is science and it makes no judgment one way or the other.
What I think is really interesting here though is, I mean, it's at earlier in regards to how do we see the division of AI and what happens then is if we start protecting ourselves because we're a human based interaction rather than a computer based interaction.
We're losing. The fact that we have to justify a position because of us being humans is a losing battle. It's always what the best science is. And that's it.
All right. So when we look at like, hey, what does AIC that we don't see? I love that. Yes.
I question because there's a great experiment called the double pendulum experiment. Essentially what we did was we've, and by we I mean humans as the scientists, but it all the known physics laws that we had and asked it to create a formula and it created almost a very similar formula to what we have to explain a double pendulum.
But then what they did was they actually said, all right, cool, we're going to reset the whole thing. And we're actually going to remove all the variables that humans have described and that would they want the AI to predict how many variables would explain this double pendulum swing.
And they described more variables than we know.
And the problem with the black box, though, is we can't ask it what it found. But what we do know is it found more laws of physics than we could describe the test and they're like, yep, no, it's consistently finding new variables that we can't explain.
So it sees something that we don't see.
And one of the most common things I've heard from AI skeptics is, well, have you heard that story about when they analyze wolves versus dogs and what it did was it looked at the snow behind it and determined that's what cause was that's a 2012 study.
We've moved so far past that now.
I don't think that's a valid argument unless you're using a really poor model on AI.
I think we are moving towards that piece of AI does see things and no things that we don't, whether or not it can describe it is a whole different story.
But there's papers out now where they actually have AI self interrogating or interrogating another AI to ask him about those black boxes.
And then we have a hypothesis that our organic brain is actually just a multitude of different interrogation processes of we hypothesize.
We test, we reformulate, and that testing piece gets us to self criticize our own models, and then rinse and repeat and we refine it over and over again and we see that in our kids as well right when somebody's learning how to walk.
On the trip they fall, then it refines it, then the child gets better and better, and then becomes second nature, and then great then we move on to another skill.
And that's what we do with all things.
In terms of our daily life, what we went through med school what we learned through writing. Okay, that's not how you write the letter ABC is not CBA or something that what's that refine and rinse repeat.
So do you think we should value things more if a human made them.
Oh, this is funny. It's funny you raise up ahead this debate with a friend of mine yesterday about what is value. And do we need to be afraid of AI disturbing that value.
And also, what is money and why do we value money.
And what I realized at the end was it's all subjective value is based off of what we want. There's at one point those non tangible funds are something that are something that where people are buying and selling art.
And at one point it was considered viable during the pandemic and we realized it was always the money values variable.
And whether it's human base versus non human base I think that's determined by society.
And I think that's important that we value the Olympics because it's a drug free.
Not a competition of the best athletes in the world, but there is a non.
There's a drug, sorry, drug full hyper enhancing Olympics as well that exists and people are starting to catch on to that.
So I'm talking about value. And specifically let's talk about if an AI makes a medical device versus an AI makes a song or a painting.
Yeah, you know what I don't think human based one would be any more valuable. In fact, there's an argument here that some people may say an AI device is better than a human device.
And if a human device is structural or whatever uses an alloy that we haven't discovered yet or a ceramic we haven't discovered yet.
We already see it in advanced material manufacturing. I subscribe to a newsletter that talks about all things AI material science.
Oh my God, the stuff that's creating my job on laboratory we haven't hit mass manufacturing. That's where all the starts.
We're going to see that as well in our battery technology. We're seeing unique annals and cathodes using ceramics being produced that are hitting that near manufacturing level and it's going to change the way we run our practice or sorry our world.
Those are AI designs.
So that's why human foundations are going to be wrong. And somebody's going to say well all the way down it was humans. Yeah. But before humans are other homo sapiens and before that there was a whole different species so all the way down and it actually wasn't even us all the way down to amphibians.
Let's come back to healthcare.
We are both physicians in our day job. And talk to me about the future of physicians in healthcare. How do you see I playing a role and how do you see private and government innovation playing a role in healthcare.
So, I see AI starting off as what you see it right now, taking over the tasks we don't want, writing notes, billing referral letters all the stuff that annoys us.
Where I see it moving towards and this is where it goes from like a class one to a class two healthcare device is where it starts making recommendations. It's not going to start prescribing things but it starts to say hey you know what have you considered this drug this drug this medication this laboratory test.
It just takes it to the next level. And I see that as a win from a government point of view, a healthier and a healthier population is a more engaged population. It also means less cost on the system as a whole.
And so I don't see that being the barrier I think the bigger role that the government plays and all of this is just how do we let the innovation happen, while putting up some guard rails that ensures privacy and security exist.
I have a thing on privacy and security so for example I don't believe privacy exists I think security exists. So as an example, I want my health care team to have my data.
And in that team there might be one person five people 100 people, in which case privacy for me does not matter what I want is security that only the people who need to be seen who need to see my records are seeing it.
I was, you know, it's been brought up in the healthcare all the time that just because we close the curtains in emergency room that the bed next to that person can't hear the diagnosis.
So privacy, that's not privacy. Right, that's just poor security.
What we need to do is augment security now again personal opinion on all of that.
But yeah, we need to tackle security first and that privacy is a byproduct of that. And so that's where government comes into play regulations, put some guard rails up so that we don't veer off course but some recommendations of, you know how we have a data nutrition
label.
Food and drinks and stuff like that. Well, why can't we have an AI nutrition label that says by the way this was tested on Southeast Asians in the age group of 20 to 40 year olds, and should not be used outside of that.
And what we're doing is we're putting that plain language of what can I as a clinician do, but that data nutrition label is mandated by a government. And so as a result, we had that innovation and we have all those perfect things but now we know hey you know what,
I don't, this is the wrong AI model to use for detecting skin cancer, because my training data, or my type of people, you know, brown skin South Asian was not in that test subject group so therefore this is not a reliable AI.
So I think that for the government, I think from a healthcare perspective, it's scalable. You can get it to the masses you can diagnose a whole bunch of things could you imagine if we could suddenly get rid of all tuberculosis, or get rid of all, you know, STDs as sexually
transmitted diseases in the community because we could do it at home tests that can tell us immediately whether or not we have a condition. We would be at a whole different level as a civilization.
So go back in time 10 years and give yourself one piece of advice. What would you tell yourself.
Stop listening to your own voice.
Slow down. Listen to what others have to say. I think that was the dumbest thing I ever did as a kid.
There are smart people around don't get me wrong there are people who think they're smart. And that took me time to realize that just because you are old or have a position or something bad that you automatically are smart that's not true.
But there are smart people around and so one age makes no difference. You can have a smart 12 year old you should probably listen to them.
You also have a smart 90 year old you should probably listen to them as well. But equally so, just like how there are, you know, good clinicians bad clinicians, you know, good something bad something else.
Listen first then speak. Don't try and jump into a conversation. That was a that was a big lesson I learned about eight years ago.
As you part of the personal development was living in Nunavut and interacting with people who aren't scientific who aren't in it for the glory they're there to simply live and be human and enjoy life and that was one of the best moments of my life was living in Nunavut.
And I think it's something beautiful about, you know, the satellite being the wrong position relative to the sun and therefore the entire city's internet gets cut out for two, two hours.
Right. And, you know, your cell phone signal being so poor that when you ask me hey pass me your number we can, you know, hang out later on, like, no just see out wing that Wednesday.
And I was at the same pub at the same time there's something beautiful about the social interactions and just talking to somebody. And there's no hierarchy there's no hey you're a lawyer so you're scary or hey you're a venture capital lead and therefore you must be super smart and scary.
No, we're all equal. We all are really, really good at what we do and we're all really, really bad at what we don't know what to do. And the beauty of language and learning is that we should just listen to one another.
Yeah, so if I could go back I'd probably say, you know, shut up and listen, because you're, you're pretty dumb.
That's well said. Thank you, Neil. And this has been great to have you on the podcast and thanks for coming on.
Pleasure. Thanks for.