[vegandan]

After reviewing the chart I have noticed a glaring omission that seems curious at best. Where is IVM? I know IVM is effective in modulation of several of the listed pathways and I know IVM is and has been effective in prostate cancer treatment. So apparently there is still some bias against IVM even in the AI models. So do some critical evaluation of the information you receive from the AI systems and ask additional questions when appropriate.

[Steve Glaiser]

Ummm, your post sure is quite timely!

I just completed my own Comparative Biopsy (2024 -to- 2025) and I myself used (and will always use) Grok. I’ve produced a PDF showing the results.

The approach I used after I learned I had a single Gleason 6 [3+3] core (1.1cm, which was <5% in this 1/18 result) at the end of 2024, was to use a very __conservative__ application of the ISOM Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol. There was also a second core (0.6cm) found but it was not rated/classified. My results, IMHO, we’re very positive!

Post Comparative Biopsy, I’m undertaking a more aggressive approach of the ISOM Protocol…

[aaronaf]

Hi, Vegandan, Thank you for your very thoughtful analysis of the use of AI inspired by Jane McLelland’s approach to her still ongoing cancer! You mentioned your recent discovery of Perplexity.ai. I use it too. However, I recently read a short review of a head-to-head comparison of this AI and Grok by xAI (Elon Musk’s creation). It revealed that Grok xAI was more likely to give less biased results, was more receptive to diverse treatments and ideas than Perplexity.ai. Nevertheless, I believe it would be useful to ask the same question of both AI’s; it could be that would generate unique answers above and beyond what each could deliver individually.

Also, you mentioned that the charts and tables and references obtained from AI answers could be brought to one’s PCP for consideration. I did that for when my doctor recommended an MRI of my brain after it was discovered that the hearing in my one of my ears was substantially less than what it was in the other ear. When I discovered that he was going to use a contrast agent (gadolinium, Gd), I asked AI (Perplexity.ai) about it. I was informed that there were issues about Gd leaving residues in the brain which can lead to long-term cognitive issues; so I asked the doc to please consider using less problematic contrast agents. He was not receptive and criticized the references (not interested in reading the articles) and said he was comfortable with sticking with the Gd. So, even though one gathers all this good AI information, doctors may still be resistant!

[vegandan]

The main benefit of the AI info may not be for the medical information but rather the response from the health care provider. A non receptive provider gives you an opportunity to reject their position and find someone else who more aligns with your medical values.

[Steve Glaiser]

@vegandan — I completely agree with you! I now can ask better questions from my doctors.

I’ve used Grok as a sounding board, and, to help bridge various pieces of information I may not have understood well enough so that then I could ask the best questions of my medical team(s) and advocates (my PCP, Urology Team, everyone). My medical team is the VA Hospital and the flexibility isn’t at optimum — and they are quite often deeply ingrained in the past.

AI (Grok for me) is not a crutch, and, it is not a doctor. However, it does provide a flexible place to find other sources, or, compare large pieces of data output bridging things into a more cohesive picture from which I can then form my own questions for my doctors so I can make more informed decisions.

I just had my Prostate Cancer Comparative Biopsy (previous MRI & Biopsy was late 2024) to then provide a path for my “go-forward plan” for either maintaining AS (Active Surveillance) or possibly other avenues or solutions. Lucky for me, I’m still on AS! Wanna know why…???

I’ll share my results for those who are interested. Briefly, my 2024 MRI & Biopsy showed a 1.1cm Gleason 6 (3+3) lesion that is <5% of a single core (i’ll call: Lesion-1) and a 0.6cm “borderline” Gleason score (but not — it was hazy) lesion (i’ll call: Lesion 2). Now, last year, I had to make some decisions. I did a deep dive into what
OTC options were available to me, and, which might be the best approach.
I found (thanks to the FLCCC [now IMA Health] and others), I discovered
the ISOM Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol. I utilized the Low-grade
cancer approach in a very conservative application. My goal was to test if I
could “stomach” it, and, “test the waters” to see what sort of result(s)
would follow.

So, fast-forward to 2025 (Oct) the Lesion-2 no longer showed on the MRI! The biopsy in the same area show “inflammation” and nothing else. And, the kicker: the Lesion-1 targeted core was no longer a Gleason score core AND in fact wasn’t even really anything to worry about! I’m still on AS and now I am using the ISOM Protocol, again (right now in fact — 1 week in) but adding a few more components to help push the 1.1cm lesion “over the cliff” into obscurity!!!

Anyway, for me, Grok helped tons to provide me other paths in which to seek more information, and, provided me with more forums and other advocates so I can make more informed, tailored, decisions.

Oh, and, thanks also goes to the FLCCC –> IMA Health for a place to learn how others are working through their health, and life altering, decisions!!!

[vegandan]

Exactly. This is what knowledge is all about. Taking initiative is important because no one is more concerned about your health and wellbeing than YOU. Your doctor is either on board or a memory of the past.

[Tommy Blake]

I call the AI data “interpretative data”. Maybe it has value- but——

In my opinion, don’t we dare not involve medical experts – however- where are they who are unbiased? Who are true “do no harm” doctors?

The “starving cancer” presentation Wednesday was most hope inspiring for me, and hopefully beyond me to friends and community here and globally- with cancer condition. Thank you Dr Marik.

This presentation further proves to me we have the “major knowledge today” to knock cancer out the ballpark. Our challenge may be the human condition. Ethics & such things as trust may be the greatest challenge.

30 years ago I taught boys 6, 7, 8th grade at Sunday school at church. I saw one of the young men a few years later- he was co-op going to Va Tech as chemical engineer student for 3 months, next 3 months working for chemical company in Virginia- he repeated this education & work process for some time.

He told me we had a problem. He said he believed mankind has all the knowledge already that it needs, he said something like “our breath of knowledge was brilliant, the sky’s the limit. However we have a huge ethical problem, & that problem is deep, far & wide.” He said “ethics classes should be mandatory in schools & college, no exceptions.” I never forgot his words imprinted on me.

He was strongly concerned. I knew the heart of this young man. He said the chemicals in the industry were being used in ways that were not proper. He was very concerned with the malfeasance.

Fast forward. I am a builder kind of guy. I am a remodeler mostly, forensic problem solver more often than not, and here is the problem – today’s clientele “know so much”. They know materials, builder knowledge, costs, and so on.

And— I have built since 1978, and in last 8 years every 2nd or 3rd client comes to us to re-do $5k to $60k on average of construction which was completed incorrectly. Mostly as a result of a “snow job” where the owner trusted the builder.

I have 31 on a job’s waiting list today, & 10 + of those either were cheated or were about to be.

Folks know so much, ——— but maybe they do not. In years past 1 out of 10 to 20 was such, so I have seen the problems increase hugely . They pay us, they tell me, with their “structural or water leaking into their home problem” instead of paying a lawyer who wants $20k + retainer to start to represent them.

Folks know so much of medicine, now with AI, not so fast———————

******** We need wonderful decent ethical doctors. They do not need to know so much, though some good medical baseline knowledge would be an assist.

People “don’t care what you know” if “they know that you care”. (Told to me by Pastor Canada 30 years ago).

Bless our egos, our haughtiness, bless our souls that we just may care, and care greatly. And then with inspiration & expression of God given talents we can truly make a difference in a sick & hurting world. We can solve medical problems, make enough $ to have good salary.

Why do we have to kill off global population with Covid vaccines? Are we that greedy? We can’t stop ourselves?

In IMA I hear the drive & fruition to end this nonsense.

Let’s keep digging.

Please reach deep & give, myself included, $5 or $10 or so on repeat basis. From all around the world. My gut feeling is that this would be one of wisest ways to spend money on this earth.

Bless everyone globally, and bless the awesome doctors signing up with IMA as they are sick of “not being able to sleep at night” as they see the monsters they work for.

I firmly believe there are a lot of “doctors in waiting”.

[Andrzej]

Thank you, Vegandan, for the interesting post — it’s a really good starting point for exploring how AI engines might assist in cancer-related research. After reading your post, one thing immediately caught my attention: there was no mention of Ivermectin, Mebendazole, or Fenbendazole. It made me wonder whether the ongoing controversy around Ivermectin still influences which studies or publications AI systems surface or emphasize.

Next time, I plan to test any AI engine with straightforward, factual questions about Ivermectin to see how it responds. The quality and neutrality of the answers could help reveal whether there is any bias or filtering in place. From my experience there still a war on Ivermectin. It might also be worth trying Mike Adams’ Enoch AI engine for comparison.

[IMA-HelenT]

What a great thread, thanks @vegandan for starting this conversation. AI is a great assistant, but you always need to verify its findings, the data is gathered first from “trusted” sources so often has to be challenged to return “alternative” positions.