[IMA-HelenT]

A colleague just shared this article that started me thinking https://www.perplexity.ai/page/world-s-first-ai-doctor-clinic-wRXR9y6aR0yYsNy0A9_HaQ

[theornerynurse]

Sadly, most physicians in mainstream medicine are only capable of following protocols and prescribing medications approved by their government and pharma overlords.

AI may be useful in the short term for inquisitive patients, but the danger will be that, someday, only the ruling laptop class will have access to human physicians and nursing care and the rest of us will be forced to interact with vending machines until we become cost prohibitive.

At that point, a suicide pill or shot will be prescribed to rid the earth of another “useless eater”.

[IMA-HelenT]

Sadly @theornerynurse I agree with your predictions, but I have a glimmer of hope, I was watching a sort of documentary about Cuba, where life is all but collapsed and the man doing the filming was talking about all the medical professions having to revert to old naturopathic methods as pharma medicines were hard to get. So I wonder if this is where people will turn for the human touch.

[vegandan]

Doctors have been “practicing” medicine for centuries. Based on my interactions with doctors I would have to say that I would be more comfortable with the objective interactions with an AI doctor than a human doctor. Human doctors have a huge disadvantage in their limited knowledge about medical subjects. AI has the benefit of an almost limitless knowledge base and can most likely look far beyond the obvious that would come from a human. Human doctors also have biases that color their medical perspectives. AI doctors, assuming proper programming, should be more open to a wide variety of possibilities and willing to follow a broader path to potential medical solutions. Too many doctors have dismissed my input because I am not medically trained. Doing my own research has made me realize how human doctors are just doing their job to earn a living. Granted there are plenty of great doctors out in the world, like those who are part of the IMA culture, who are truly masters of their craft and have compassion for their patients. At this point I would have a lot of respect for any human doctor that would tell a patient, let’s see what the AI doctor has to say about this matter. Perhaps this would be a stepping stone to the future. I’m still very much in favor of doctors fixing broken stuff in the human body, perhaps with robotic help, but for disease treatment, I’m more inclined to go with an AI doctor for at least the initial phases to get an initial treatment program. Hoping AI doctors will be covered by Medicare and insurance. Or perhaps AI doctors will be open source available free to all mankind. Elon are you listening?

[IMA-HelenT]

You make some great points @vegandan … I suppose that this sentence sums up my concerns, “AI doctors, assuming proper programming…” we already know about some AI being biased … we do need change, many of our human doctors are brainwashed or programmed so perhaps AI can really help empower us as patients.

[Wolfgang May]

<font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”>KI hat den Vorteil, dass Basics gemacht werden. Wir führen eine Post-Covid-Studie durch. Die in der Leitlinie geforderte Abklärung ist häufig unvollständig. </font></font>

<font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”>KI kann jedoch nur auf das zugreifen, was veröffentlicht ist. Die EU fordert, dass alle Studien veröffentlicht werden, auch die die abgebrochen werden oder deren Ergebnisse nicht den Wünschen von Big Pharma entsprechen. In der EU werden > 30% der Studien nicht veröffentlicht. Weiter werden für Studien Geldgeber benötigt. Nicht- Pharma -abhängige Studien werden wenn überhaupt nur in ganz geringem Ausmaß durchgeführt. Auch die anerkannt Medizin fußt überwiegend nicht auf doppelblind- oder placebokontrollierten Studien. Z.B. sind Fasten Hydrothermotherapie placebokontrolliert oder doppelblind nicht möglich. </font></font></font></font>

<font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”><font style=”vertical-align: inherit;”>Die Tätigkeit im medizinischen Bereich beinhaltet mehr als Information und Therapien. Man spricht nicht umsonst von ärztlicher Kunst. </font></font></font></font></font></font>

[elvey]

Better without the pasted HTML gibberish. (And for me, AI-translated):
(oh, when I tried to paste my translation, the gibberish was added, had to re-remove it)
AI has the advantage that basics are made. We are conducting a post-covid study. The clarification required in the guideline is often incomplete.

The EU calls for all studies to be published, including those that are canceled or the results of which do not meet Big Pharma’s wishes. > 30% of the studies are not published in the EU. Funding is also required for studies. Non-pharmaceutical studies are carried out to a very limited extent, if at all. Recognized medicine is also largely not based on double-blind or placebo-controlled studies. E.g. Fasting hydrothermotherapy is placebo-controlled or double-blind not possible.

The activity in the medical field includes more than information and therapies. It is not for nothing that one speaks of medical art. “

The USA MANDATES for all studies to be published, with large financial penalties for violations. But the law is NEVER enforced. https://fdaaa.trialstracker.net/

US Govt could have imposed fines of at least

$92,037,757,950

Fines claimed by US Govt

$0

It would be a great lawsuit for the IMA to fund to force enforcement. Old RFK Jr style.

fdaaa.trialstracker.net

Who’s sharing their clinical trial results?

Who’s sharing their clinical trial results?

[lynn Russell]

Once again, I would like to see a translation into English for the last comment. 🙂

Personally, I have a fab doc woman who is nurse practitioner, knows a bunch and LISTENS to me, honors my choices, and most importantly includes the spiritual foundation of life force experience in her collecting of info and data. She knows the real healer is the Maker/ Source of All Life, and she aligns with that truth to find suggestions and solutions.

Because AI is manmade collection of manmade info and input and has no soul or connection to Source of All Life, I won’t be inclined to trust AI doctoring me. I am 77 years young with much to offer our ailing planet. I will feel more inclined toward AI doctoring if it starts off with “purging parasites” before anything else since parasites are seen to be the cause of so many diseases 🙂

I am certain there are many who will thankfully appreciate the help offered by AI doctoring, especially when it is open sourced and free, as it should be in any civilized society. Our own Constitution calls for government to provide for common welfare, which includes medical and health care, to my thinking, and wholesome good food, too. Naturopathic and homeopathic approaches have much to offer on our way to becoming more civilized and wholly human, on our way to accessing our potential as psychospiritual physical beings cooperating with Life. What a trip it is!

[IMA-HelenT]

Here you go @lynner4u AI has the advantage of handling basic tasks. We’re conducting a post-COVID study, and the evaluations required by guidelines are often incomplete.

However, AI can only access what’s been published. The EU mandates that all studies—including discontinued ones or those with unfavorable results for pharmaceutical companies—must be published. Yet, over 30% of studies in the EU remain unpublished. Moreover, funding is needed for studies, and independent (non-pharma) research is rarely conducted. Even recognized medical practices often aren’t based on double-blind or placebo-controlled studies—for example, fasting or hydrotherapy can’t be tested this way.

Medical work involves more than just information and treatment. It’s called the art of medicine for a reason.

The irony of using AI isn’t lost on me 🙂

[rich]

Even current AI goes way beyond basic tasks. What you may be seeing is the way the data has been prioritized. It tends to use WHO, government sources, certain hospitals and journals, big tech sites, as its primary sources. In other words, those sources who practiced censorship during Covid, are still the trusted sources some AIs use first. Keep drilling down and you can get beyond that.

[IMA-GregT]

👍 Seems like always a good idea to not take the first answer. Drill down. Drill down.

[vegandan]

Purging parasites should probably start with doctors who don’t consider the well being of their patients and embrace the concept of doing no harm.

[IMA-GregT]

👍

[rich]

If it is iterative, yes. I have been using ChatGPT to help with health problems I have had for 50 years. I have probably seen 20 doctors looking for help, and they try, but all have failed.

With ChatGPT, I can provide SNPs, symptoms, supplements that help and don’t help, things I have tried that helped some or not at all, and in a matter of seconds get actionable information.

Then I keep asking questions and providing more information. When I have exhausted everything I can think of, I get all the information in an action plan and stored in a PDF.

I would love to be able to run the information by a medical doctor, but there are very few with the necessary knowledge.

[IMA-HelenT]

Amazing, I use AI daily for all sorts of tasks and research so think it can be a fantastic resource, but as you say wouldn’t it be great to have AI to do the heavy lifting and then a human doctor that could be a healing partner.

[vegandan]

I use both ChatGPT and Grok 3. I have found that Grok seems to be more in depth in what it uses as research material and seems to be able to give more accurate answers. AI is a great tool; but like all tools it is designed for a single purpose. It is a knowledge aggregator. Remember GIGO. Hopefully in a short time it will be able to ascertain the accuracy and truth of information in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. I’m pretty sure this is part of the AI model and time will tell what the quality of information is derived from its use.

[IMA-GregT]

👍

[Morgan Sky]

I would not be comfortable going to an AI only clinic. I entertain the idea that AI with a human being also engaged could be used effectively. However I am not anymore convinced that the AI will be any better than its protocols programmed which has been the problem with human service providers following their protocols. Seriously my providers have been so zombiefied staring at their computer more than actually examining me, that I may as well be in front of an AI bot. The problem someone mentioned about providers just ‘collecting their checks’ and I( may add most likely over worked and underpaid except for specialist) is rampant in every business nowadays.

[IMA-HelenT]

Thanks Martin, agree so often that experience with a provider whether in health or in other areas of life can feel very inhumane.

[Jeff Gerber]

I’m very much on the same page as @vegandan with respect to both finding strength in using AI but at the same time very wary of GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out).

AI is “trained” on data. And the AI is only as good as the data you give it. For example:

Me: “What is the name of the lab that SARS2 leaked from?”

Copilot: “The **Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)** in Wuhan, China, is often mentioned in discussions about the lab leak theory regarding SARS-CoV-2. However, the origins of the virus remain a subject of debate, with many scientists supporting the idea that it emerged through natural zoonosis rather than a laboratory accident. Some U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed the possibility of a lab-related origin, but their conclusions vary and are made with low confidence.”

Depending on the questions you ask and what the prevalent assumption is on the internet you may get a very strong statement of fact from the AI… the virus came from pangolins, etc. The AI may state that there are many peer-reviewed papers indicating some “fact” when in truth it doesn’t know that we are living in a time of deceit. So, GIGO.

On the other hand, we are in a period of time that patients are able to arm themselves with AI and doctors too. I’m sure it will be not long before the average patient and doctor is comfortable and skilled at using AI.

So, the problem of GIGO is where I think some time needs to be spent. Say for example you weed out all articles with any relationship to big pharma or big farming, etc. There is work to be done, but the value is definitely there for AI in health.

[IMA-GregT]

👍

[vegandan]

I agree. Perhaps we need a data rating system that assigns a score to every piece of data for its factual content and/or truth. A low score would mean it isn’t very reliable and a high score means it is closer to truth. Then when AI accumulates data and weighs the score it will be more accurate in the information it provides.

[IMA-GregT]

👍 Issue maybe is – how do you then trust that truth score? Good thought though.

[Jeff Gerber]

I have one more thought on the topic, and that is that a doctor gathers information over the course of their career that gives them a “sixth sense” when it comes to patient care. This is something that AI does not presently possess. A doctor can tell you things they’ve noticed that are not necessarily widely known or even tested or published in literature. If you had an AI that monitors the career activity of individual doctors, then it could be possible to develop this capacity in AI. But today, AI gives you a statistical average set of knowledge and that is what you can expect for your care via AI.

[IMA-GregT]

👍 That sixth sense is also very how the trust is built. We may well trust AI too blindly, too quickly. It’s such an interesting discussion.