Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:03]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Hey there. Welcome to chasing life. Tell me if this sounds familiar.
- [00:07]
Interviewer/Host
You notice a weird symptom?
- [00:09]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Maybe you have a rash or a headache that won't go away, some strange stomach pain even. And before you call your doctor, you type it into ChatGPT or another AI tool. What could this be? Should I be worried? Honestly, I get it. AI is quickly becoming part of everyday life and now it's becoming a part of healthcare as well. Patients are using it at home, doctors are using it in hospitals and clinics. This is happening. But I think the big question is this. When it comes to your health, how much should you actually trust AI? Can you trust it? Can chatbots help you ask better questions, understand your symptoms, maybe make faster decisions? Or could it lead you in the wrong direction, make you panic? Or maybe reassure you when it shouldn't? Or even prevent you from getting care when you actually need it? Well, today I'm talking to Dr. Bob Watchter from the University of California, San Francisco. He's the author of a new book called A Giant How AI Is Transforming Healthcare and what that Means for Our Future. We're going to talk about what AI gets right, where it could go wrong, and how to use these tools safely without over relying on them. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, so CNN's chief
- [01:24]
Interviewer/Host
medical correspondent and this is Chasing Life.
- [01:31]
Dell Commercial Voiceover
Dell PCs with Intel inside are built for the moments you plan and the ones you don't. They're for those all night study sessions, the moment you're working from a cafe and realize every outlet's taken, the times you're deep in your flow and can't be interrupted by an auto update. That's why Dell builds tech that adapts to you, built with long lasting batteries so you're not scrambling for an outlet and built in intelligence that makes updates around your schedule, not in the middle of it. Find technology built for the way you work@dell.com DellPCS built for you.
- [02:02]
American Express Commercial Voiceover
Get business done with the new American Express Graphite Business Cash Unlimited card with unlimited 2% cash back on all eligible purchases, unlimited 5% cash back on flights and prepaid hotels booked through American Express Travel online and a flexible spending capacity that can grow with your business. You'll have the confidence to keep building. Apply today and earn a welcome offer of $1,500 cash back after you spend $50,000 in qualifying purchases on your new card within the first six months of card membership terms apply. Learn more at GO MX Graphite.
- [02:35]
Interviewer/Host
I feel like every every Sidebar conversation in hospitals now among my colleagues and medical Students is around AI. And, you know, I kept thinking someone like you is going to write a book like this.
- [02:47]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
But then I thought, maybe they won't.
- [02:48]
Interviewer/Host
Because by the time they write it and it gets published, it may already be outdated. Things seem to be moving that fast.
- [02:55]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
So I'm just curious, before we talk about the specifics, how did you approach
- [02:59]
Interviewer/Host
that part of things?
- [03:00]
Dr. Bob Wachter
I had exactly the same fear, Sanjay. In fact, my wife, who's an author and journalist, suggested I should write a book about it. I said, no, I don't think so. And then the publisher contacted me and I said, oh, good idea. Which made my wife very unhappy. But my concern was exactly that. And my editor said something quite smart, which is, if you've written a book that's out of date, the minute it comes out, you've written the wrong book. The question is, can you helicopter up a level and ask the fundamental questions that happen when a technology like this enters our world of medicine? How does it change the nature of being a patient, being a doctor, being a healthcare system? How do we decide which tools to use that's not GPT 5.2 versus GPT 5.7. Those are really big cosmic questions.
- [03:43]
Interviewer/Host
And does that reduction of cognitive burden on healthcare providers, doctors, nurses, whoever is using the AI,
- [03:52]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
what is that worth? I mean, does that lead to better care for patients?
- [03:55]
Interviewer/Host
Ultimately, are we a healthier society because of it?
- [03:58]
Dr. Bob Wachter
I don't think we know yet. I would frame AI coming into healthcare as being the biggest experiment in the history of medicine. I think these are the kinds of questions.
- [04:06]
Interviewer/Host
So we're very much in the experimentation space. Yes.
- [04:08]
Dr. Bob Wachter
I mean, AI was a dead issue in health care until November 30, 2022, when ChatGPT was released to the public.
- [04:16]
Interviewer/Host
I mean, in terms of AI and health care, you're optimistic about what this could mean?
- [04:23]
Dr. Bob Wachter
I am. And I caveat that in a couple of ways. One is I wrote a book 10 years ago called the Digital Doctor, which was about health care. Going from paper to digital was basically the lead character was the Electronic Health Record. It's a very grumpy book. I mean, it is like, why did this go so badly? How did we all get it wrong? I am fully capable of writing a book about technology and health care that that is not optimistic. I came out of this quite optimistic for health care. And again, and I guess the other caveat is AI and the rest of our lives. I'm quite worried. I mean, I think if we, you know, if we hit 20% unemployment, I don't know what happens to our society. I think there are massive fundamental questions and the climate issues and distribution of wealth issues, those are very real. So I'm talking just about healthcare, but in some ways a happier doctor, a more effective doctor, because some of the bureaucratic burdens that I used to have and paperwork and filling out forms and faxing requests to insurance companies will be taken care of to a large degree by AI. I think patients will get better care in part because their doctors or other clinicians will be better, but in part because they'll get some of the answers to their questions without having to access the traditional health system, which will save them time and money. So, yes, I think in health care, I am pretty optimistic. I think it's going to be good for patients, for the system, and for clinicians.
- [05:46]
Interviewer/Host
So there are some core principles which I really want to talk about that I think you've applied in this book. But let me just ask you personally, how are you using AI now as a physician?
- [05:58]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Yeah, I use it all the time. And the main example is the Electronic Health Record. We digitized our records 20 years after most industries did. But this technology has entered our world over the last three years and is now ubiquitous. So for me, everybody at my place at UCSF has access to an AI scribe. So I now look patients in the eye when I talk to them, and my note is created, or at least drafted by AI. The AI will summarize my patient's past medical record. One out of five patients has a chart longer than Moby Dick. So the idea that I'm going to be able to review that in three minutes before I see them is ridiculous, impossible. And most of us now are using a tool. The one we're using is called Open Evidence, which is essentially GPT for doctors, which keeps up with the literature which suggests diagnoses. It's not right 100% of the time, but it's actually quite helpful.
- [06:54]
Interviewer/Host
There seems to be this tension between the trust in the platform and the expectations. And if a autonomous vehicle were to get in some sort of accident, that would feel like a significant blow to the autonomous vehicle industry. Despite the fact that humans get in accidents all the time. When a machine does it, it feels different. We have high expectations and low trust. How do you sort of weigh that when you're, you know, maybe making medical decisions or recommendations based on an AI platform?
- [07:30]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Yeah, it's a spectacular question. I spend a lot of time in the book talking about Waymo and autonomous vehicles because I think the example's relevant in part because when we talk about autonomous AI and medicine, we sometimes will say, you know, we can't have that because what we do is too risky, and if we get it wrong, someone can die. And then I hop in the back of a Waymo about once a week, sometimes, take a nap, and it makes a left turn across Divisidero street in San Francisco during rush hour. I mean, that is high trust. And the thing is, it is merited. There's no question. The data are quite clear now that it is safer than a car with a driver. But you're right, the standards are higher. That's probably appropriate in the beginning until we learn whether to trust it. I do think a bad error made by an AI will sort of resonate more with people than the same error made by a human. But I think one of the lines I use in the book is Biden's old line, don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative. And, you know, we're seeing a little version of this with the mental health chatbots, where, yes, there have been some really egregious cases of when you read what the bot said to a kid and the kid harmed him or herself, it's awful. It needs to be better, it needs to be regulated. And yet there are millions of people today getting mental health help from these tools for 20 bucks a month. And try to find a mental health professional in San Francisco or Atlanta or New York, and if you can, try to find one for less than $300. So it's real, and we're having to figure that out, but it's not a slam dunk that the human and the technology will work perfectly together. I think these are things that we have to test and try out.
- [09:08]
Interviewer/Host
Will AI and healthcare ever get to that level of autonomy, being able to act alone?
- [09:13]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Do you think it's unquestionable that it will? I think we're. The first big experiment is in the state of Utah. You may have heard that the state of Utah relaxed its rules and is now allowing an AI tool built by a San Francisco company to refill medicines. By itself, it's about 400 medicines. So it's blood pressure medicines, cholesterol medicines, things like that. I think that's exciting. No doctor really wants to spend their time refilling meds. No patient wants to have to schlep to the doctor's office to go get a refill. And so I think this is the first step in trying to navigate what can and should be autonomous, I'd say in primary Care. For example, when I look at. There was a study a couple of years ago that said the average primary care doctor, if all they were doing was the preventive stuff they're supposed to do, that's 27 hours a day. So the only way to make our primary care system viable is to say one of the tasks that a primary care doc does really has to be done by a human and someone who's trained at that level and costs that much and whose time is that valuable. What are the things that maybe are not that.
- [10:22]
Interviewer/Host
I do want to ask your views on patients using AI and sort of draw these parallels between Dr. Google and some of the stuff that we've seen before. And people have strong views on this. But one of the things in your book that you, I mean, you interviewed 100, more than 100 people who are pioneers in medicine and policy and technology. Was there any surprising disagreements that they had?
- [10:48]
Dr. Bob Wachter
I think there's a fair amount of disagreement on the use of patient facing tools where, you know, many. You can easily see the potential benefits of patients being able to go to GPT or gemiini and ask a kind of question and not have to go to urgent care. And on the same side, the question is how good these tools are and how often will the tools tell them the wrong diagnosis or to do the wrong thing. And the early studies of patients using these tools are not that positive. I think they're a little bit sobering. And I think one of the things I came to learn that I didn't fully understand, the exact same tool that might perform really well for me or for you using it, you know what to put in and you can interpret the results and say, that's really smart. I hadn't thought of that. Patients really don't have an ability to do that. So the same tool that will work really well for a doctor might not work well at all for patients. Does that mean that patients shouldn't be using them? No, I think it's better than Dr. Google. I think it's often better than the alternative, which may be waiting a week to see your doctor or a month to see your doctor. But I think the tools have to be better and the tools are gonna have to get more doctor like. And by that I mean rather than just give an answer when the patient says, I woke up today with a headache, do what you and I would do, which is say, tell me more about it. What part of your head are you a headache person? Does your neck hurt? Do your eyes hurt in the bright light? I Think those the tools of the future that are patient facing really have to be crafted to understand that patients don't have deep medical knowledge. They have deep knowledge about their own situation, but not deep medical knowledge and essentially do a little bit more hand holding than the current tools do.
- [12:16]
Interviewer/Host
Do you think the platforms will get better in that regard? So that, let's just say we're talking about the patients here and, you know, you're at home, you have a headache, it's unusual, and you're going to chat whatever platform you choose. I mean, right now what you've just outlined is a scenario where they may not know the right questions to ask and therefore they may not be getting information. To me, that makes it quite suspect then, because the concern is maybe they don't actually end up following up with the doctor, you know, for something that could be significant. Does that part of it get better over time, do you think?
- [12:48]
Dr. Bob Wachter
I can't see how it doesn't. I mean, in some ways, if the answer is, and this is quite sobering, if the answer is you could do it and I can do it, then there's no reason that, yeah, I can't do it. And when you look at some of the demos that I've seen from some of the tools, for example, that Google is rolling out, or when you look at how good open evidence is for doctors and say, well, couldn't you build a tool specifically for patients that recognizes now you're not dealing with an expert user, you're dealing with a regular person. I don't see any fundamental reason the tools couldn't do that. And I think there are two aspects there. One is understanding what the patient knows and doesn't know and prompts them in the right way. And maybe it prompts them based on their own medical literacy. And it may have ways of knowing that what is the right question to ask. The other important point is not just the prompting and the kind of back and forth, but in order to give the right answer. Knowing the context, knowing the patient's past history is really quite important. The big tech companies OpenAI and now Claude have built GPT for health, Claude for health. And what they're doing is saying you can load in your entire past record into our system. And I think that's not trivial because your past record again might be 500 pages long. And sifting through that by the AI to find out the salient points is a tricky thing to do. I guess the final thing I'd say about today, do I want to take my entire record and port it into GPT or port it into Claude. Maybe that's a choice. Although there are some concerns about privacy. But where this really is going to get good is most patients have a patient portal. Wherever you get your health care, that system has an electronic health record, you have a patient portal. I think what you're going to see is these tools built into the patient portal. So you're not going to have to take your medical record and bring it anywhere. It's going to already be in your patient portal. And therefore it asks you a bunch of questions. And if the answer is you need to see a doctor, what you're gonna see is a screen pop up saying, you know, would you like to be seen today at 3 o'clock in your health system? So the integration of these tools into the existing health system I think will be a real leap forward. I think that's gonna happen within a couple of years.
- [15:04]
Interviewer/Host
You know, you've mentioned Open Evidence a couple times and I've had a chance to talk to Daniel Nadler about this, who's the founder of Open Evidence. One of the things that's interesting so for people who don't know, first of all, to use Open Evidence you have to submit what is known as an npi, a national Provider Number Index number. So the only people who are using this are healthcare providers. Also the aperture, if you will, of the content from which they pull are peer reviewed journals and things that are sort of legitimate scientific publications as opposed to everything, you know, opening up the aperture to everything, every, every small, you know, case report, but also a Reddit stream and social media and things like that. And I use Open Evidence all the time. And I gotta say, what's really wild for me, and maybe you've seen this as well, is I'll, I'll see my residents as we're in clinic and they're walking into the patient room and in the hallway ahead of time, they're talking to their phone.
- [16:02]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Yes.
- [16:02]
Interviewer/Host
And they're getting this even as they're walking to the room. It's, it's, it's really, it's wild. I mean, it's wild.
- [16:09]
Dr. Bob Wachter
It's a challenge in some very fundamental ways to us because it's smarter than I am. And for many doctors we were defined, our Persona, our sort of professional view of ourselves was defined as I now know more than my patient does. And so we're now gonna have tools where the patient has access to information that's as smart as, or maybe smarter than I am. And then fundamental questions about what our value is, what we bring to the table is. But I also have noticed, I remember when Google first came out, I'm old enough for that and me too, me too. I feel badly about this, but I would say to a patient in the exam room, sorry, my beeper just went off to go out and do a Google search because it was embarrassing that I might get and you know, now I think the residents have, don't feel that, they feel like, you know, it's okay the fact that I'm a human. I'm going to use a knowledge tool that's in my pocket to get smarter, I think, and I think that's healthy.
- [17:01]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Up next, Dr. Bob Watcher is going to share what using AI in healthcare might mean for you as the patient. What happens in the years ahead. That's after the break.
- [17:15]
Dell Commercial Voiceover
With Vrbill's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain Escape city break or a week at the beach, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72. Select homes only.
- [17:33]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
If someone asks you directly, should I
- [17:35]
Interviewer/Host
trust an AI platform with my health questions, what do you tell them?
- [17:40]
Dr. Bob Wachter
I say you should trust it. In some ways it's, what is the alternative? You know, is the alternative Google? I think it's better than Google. I think it allows you to ask the question, put in the context, you know, I am a 42 year old woman, I woke up today with a sore throat and I, you know, I'm on these medications. What do you think is going on? I think the caveats would be, first of all, they're not perfect. I like asking the question after it gives you an answer, saying, what's the worst thing that this could be and how do you know it's not that. I think asking for a second AI opinion is a good idea. I can't prove this, but it feels right. They use different ways of getting in information. So if you put it into GPT and then put the exact same question into Gemini or Claude and they give you the exact same answer, I'd feel more comfortable. And then there are just red flag symptoms. If you wake up and you have bad chest pain or you're newly short of breath or you're confused, I think you need to see a doctor no matter what the tool says. So, but yeah, I think in many cases it beats the alternative.
- [18:42]
Interviewer/Host
You referred to this, this idea of uploading your medical record to Claude. You said ultimately it'll probably Happen through things like MyChart, but. Right. Is that something you'd recommend?
- [18:52]
Dr. Bob Wachter
First of all, all the companies that are making this available, GPT and Claude so far and Perplexity are promising that your data will be kept totally private. They're not going to use it for training. It will not be sold to anyone. You have to believe them because they have no business obligation to do that. Whereas your record, your medical record in your doctor's office or your hospital is protected, as you know, by something called hipaa, meaning there are huge penalties if that data leaks. So you have to decide how much to trust this company with data that might be quite personal for you. I think that's a choice. I think for many patients putting their data into these tools, if it gives them better, more customized answers. Would I do it? Yeah, I think so. If I wasn't a doctor and I wanted to be able to talk to this AI tool and get good answers about my health status, which might not be just today I woke up with a headache, might just be. What would you recommend should be my exercise regimen or my diet? I think the benefit of that for many patients will outweigh what I see as a very small privacy risk because the companies have a tremendous interest in not screwing this up. They know how big a part of their world healthcare is. And when they say, we're gonna keep your data private, there are a lot of people looking at them to be sure that that's real. So I think I would trust it. If I had something that would be absolutely horrible if it got leaked, then maybe I'd be careful about that piece of data.
- [20:20]
Interviewer/Host
Do you think, you know, you hear these stories and I just saw a news report today that 15 to 20% of white collar jobs may be at risk as a result of AI. I'm curious what you think of that in terms of the impact on jobs. And would you encourage medical students to go into fields like radiology at this point or how worried are you about that?
- [20:41]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Yeah, I mean, radiology is the most instructive case in medicine because it's the area that seems most amenable to replacement. After all, it really is a human looking at a collection of digital dots and saying. And matching it up against a pattern. I mean, what could be more perfect for AI? And yet I tell the story in the book of Geoff Hinton, the founding father of generative AI, who in 2016 gave an infamous speech where he said we should stop training radiologists today because it's obvious that by 2021 we won't need any more. He's a very smart guy. Won the Nobel prize a year or two ago. But because of that, for a couple of years, med student applications for radiology residencies tanked. Then a couple years later, the med students woke up and said, wait a second, it looks like there are help wanted ads in radiology departments all over the country. And all of a sudden the application skyrocketed. So doctor replacement turns out to be much harder than the technologists tend to think. You know, I asked one of our AI radiologists, you know, what did Hidden Hinton get wrong? And he said he thought that reading a CAT scan of the chest or brain was the same as looking at an image on, you know, on YouTube and differentiating. Is this a cinnamon Danish or a dog? And it turns out that it's a massively more complex task. And the head of neuroradiology at the Mayo Clinic said to me, I said, how is it that I get an UEMO once a week and trust that this thing can drive me with no driver, and yet we can't hire radiologists fast enough? And he said, I can teach a 16 year old to drive in a day, I cannot teach them to do neuroradiology in a day. It's the complexity of the human condition, the fact that there are a thousand different things that be going on in the brain, the fact that the same thing on an MRI in a certain patient might mean cancer and another patient is a ditzel and don't worry about it, those are really complicated. But where does this go over time? I do think just the diagnostic radiology, diagnostic pathology are fields that I think are gonna be compromised, but probably not over the next 10 years because the volume of what they have to do is growing so fast that even if these tools make them 50% more productive, but we still need a radiologist to do the final reading. I think we're still probably going to need as many radiologists as we have now. I landed in a place in the book where I think for the next 10ish years that I don't think we're going to need fewer nurses or doctors. The unmet needs are such that the tools will help them do their jobs. Would I tell a kid to go into medicine? I did. I told my daughter, you know, yes, I think medicine's a great field. I think there are going to be jobs for doctors for the foreseeable future. I think the AI will make us better and maybe replace a portion of what we do, but leave the Parts that are uniquely human. And this is sort of the most cynical read of it. If jobs for doctors are gone, it means the jobs for lawyers, accountants, journalists, and almost everything else have been gone for five or 10 years. We're probably the last field to go.
- [23:53]
Interviewer/Host
The idea again, with the radiologists in particular. There was a study that came out about, I think it was mammography, at how the AI platform actually did a better job at finding breast cancer than human radiologists, even if it's not replacing doctors. Do you think society gets to the point where, hey, man, I think that that AI platform is actually better at reading my scans than a human. I want the AI platform. I actually don't want the human to be doing this.
- [24:20]
Dr. Bob Wachter
There was a very important study that came out about a year and a half ago that it was a study of diagnostic reasoning. And, you know, how well the doctors sort of thought about a complicated case, and the punchline was the doctor by themselves got it right about 65% of the time. The doctor using AI got it right about 70% of the time. So, yeah, it helped a little bit as a co pilot, but the best performance, about 90%, was when the AI did its own thing. In other words, the human intervention served only to muck things up. And I could see that happening. The AI gets to a point where it's so good that having the human copilot actually degrades the performance. I think we've got to be open to that possibility. And, you know, I would say right now, when I decide whether to get in an Uber or Waymo, I trust that I'm going to be safer in the Waymo. And I think that's not wrong based on. Based on the data. So right now, for example, in the world of medical malpractice, you will see some lawsuits if something bad happened. And the lawsuit will be about, you used AI. I can imagine a world five to ten years from now where the lawsuit will be, why didn't you use AI? Doctor, you should have used AI. The standard of care is that the AI reads the mammogram and maybe you look over its shoulder. But if you veto what it said, you're gonna have to be pretty sure that you're smarter than it is. I don't think we should go into it with the mindset that the human intervention is always necessary, always helps. I like to think that, but I'm a human and I'm rooting for the humans. I think the answer has to be empirically, what do we find is the best Way to organize care, to deliver the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
- [25:54]
Interviewer/Host
Yeah. This is such a fascinating point. And in neurosurgery, we have these technologies, for example, where we use image guidance in the operating room. So we're using. It's not a robot, but basically we're impregnating all the tools in the operating room with these LED sensors. We have the. These cameras, so we have a visual sort of representation of the patient in the room at all times. But sometimes, Bob, I'll say to my residents, I'll say, hey, let's pretend that the technology failed.
- [26:23]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Right.
- [26:23]
Interviewer/Host
And now you got to do it, quote, unquote, the old fashioned way.
- [26:27]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Right.
- [26:28]
Interviewer/Host
And 10 years ago, when I would say that, it kind of made sense. And now when I say that to them, I'll get some version of, why don't we just do the case tomorrow, then, when the technology is working? And I think their point being a little bit like, hey, man, if it
- [26:43]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
were me, if I were the patient on that table, I would want the technology.
- [26:47]
Interviewer/Host
So the fact that you're not utilizing it, you may be giving me less than what is currently the best standard of care.
- [26:55]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Yeah, yeah.
- [26:55]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
And maybe AI falls into that same bucket.
- [26:58]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Absolutely fascinating. I think you're, you know, you're right for the time being. There's certain kinds of deskilling, which is really what this is about, where it's really dangerous if the person doesn't. If the AI is good at diagnosis, not perfect. And I'm the final arbiter. I need me or my students or my residents to be. To still be very good at diagnosis. You know, I will say before my resident pulls out open evidence to search something, I will push them and say, tell me what you think is going on before we use the crutch and then use that to get smarter.
- [27:32]
Interviewer/Host
Look, you're the guy. I think people come to you for thoughts on these big issues like this. And I certainly enjoyed reading the book very much. I mean, we've talked about so many optimistic things today, Bob. Right. I mean, the benefits for physicians in terms of what they can provide for patients, for patients to be able to have access to things that they maybe didn't have access to before. I really enjoyed the conversation. I love your books. I always learn something so much, and it's a real privilege to be able to have this time with you. Thank you, Sanjay.
- [28:03]
Dr. Bob Wachter
It's a pleasure. And thank you. Means a lot coming from you. Really appreciate it.
- [28:08]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
That was Dr. Bob Wachter from the University of California, San Francisco. He's got a new book out. It's called A Giant How AI Is Transforming Healthcare and what that Means for Our Future. Thanks so much for listening. We did reach out to some of the companies behind these tools. A spokesperson at Google, which is the parent company of Gemini, told us we work in close consultation with medical professionals to build safeguards in the Gemini app. We've always been transparent that gemiini should be for informational use and we build reminders directly into the app prompting users to double check information and consult with qualified professionals when asked about medical matters. Other companies, including OpenAI, the parent company of ChatGPT, Anthropic, the parent company of Claude and Perplexity, did not respond to our request for comment.
- [29:05]
Dr. Bob Wachter
Influential journalist Kara Swisher is taking a hard look at the longevity industry. There's so much bad information that the
- [29:11]
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
really good information gets drowned.
- [29:13]
Dr. Bob Wachter
The new CNN original series Kara Swisher wants to live Forever now streaming on the CNN.