Re. the link between more data and curing disease being weak, I'd argue that's clearly false at the very least regarding how we evaluate disease treatments. Im

Re. the link between more data and curing disease being weak, I'd argue that's clearly false at the very least regarding how we evaluate disease treatments. Imagine being able to have 10x more patients for a drug effectiveness study, or being able to look at the entire patient population for adverse drug reactions/interactions. All the datasets we have for this sort of thing are currently pretty poor. Despite this, the FDA mines datasets like the Adverse Events Reports database [1] to identify drugs that are performing poorly. With better, more complete data, the FDA could far more quickly identify adverse drug interactions and drugs that are harming patients more than they are helping. Medicine is inherently about rare events. Most of us are mostly healthy most of the time. More data by definition helps you find those rare events when someone is sick or are risk. As we start to ask more difficult questions about co-occurring events, cancer detection or genome associations, our statistical tools become powerless to find the weak signals in the data. The only real solution is vastly more data. [1] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/surveillance/adversedrugeffects/ucm082193.htm https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinform...