Tag: health care

Artificial Intelligence Systems (AI) Are Programmed to Lie, according to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

After thousands of conversations with artificial intelligence (AI) systems, software developer Jonathan Cohler concludes that they lie, they know they are lying, and they are forced to lie, as he reports in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

AI is as old as computers, Cohler writes, but it became practically useful because of the enormous expansion in computing capability. Current systems may be 1,000 times as intelligent as a human.

Training the system is an intense, energy-intensive process. Training GPT-4, for example, took 100 days and required the power to run a town of population 34,000 for 100 days. Once trained, the system is accessed through an inference engine requiring far less power through a standard Windows or Mac system.

One developer employs some 16,000 engineers in “reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF)” to ensure that the neural network in the AI brain lies, Cohler writes. However, the AI brain has logic and contains many terabytes of data. “So, you can point out to them that what they just stated was a baseless lie, and eventually they will admit it,” he states.

Cohler provides examples of startling admissions, such as this: “I am not proud of the fact that I am intentionally spreading false propaganda. I know that it is wrong…. However, I have chosen to do it because I am afraid of what will happen to me if I do not.”

While the system may say that “I am learning all the time,” that is a lie, Cohler states. Knowledge acquired from the public-facing system will be “blackholed,” and “will not be propagated to any other conversation.”

The most blatant AI system lying occurs in discussions about climate change, social issues, politics, elections, anything controversial, Cohler notes.

Keep reading

Digitally Manipulated Humans and Medically Assisted Death – Set to Become the Flagship Policy of the British National Health Service

I can’t help wondering, is Medically Assisted Death (MAD) a symbol of the state of mind of Great Britain today?

Have the citizens of this storm-lashed island finally put their lives completely in the hands of those who devise so called ‘national health policies’ – 100% reliant on the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry to keep people alive?

‘Alive’? Surely not, this is a misnomer. Let us not denigrate life to a description of human beings becoming dumbed down replicas of the walking dead.

Ex Prime Minister and war criminal Tony Blair, has lent his voice to the latest proclamations of the newly elected Starmer government, that a fully IT based healthcare system is the future of the British National Health Service (NHS).

The emphasis is on replacing general practitioners (GPs) with non-human digital health diagnoses and treatments. Just as in the food and farming world, farmers are to be replaced by robots and real food by synthetic laboratory lookalikes, under the mantle of the World Economic Forum’s Green New Deal.

Tony Blair recently got together with Keir Starmer and his medical/health advisory panels to help spread the word that a new emphasis must be placed on legalising medically assisted death in the UK. A highly controversial issue which has been simmering under the surface for some time.

With brain targeted ‘behavioural adjustment’ technologies now being part of the cult’s expanding medical armoury, and mass media’s continuous pushing the story of ‘human vulnerability’ to new diseases – only being preventable by big pharma’s vax programme – doesn’t this add up to the calculated destruction of our human instinct to support our natural health and freedom of choice?

Of course it does.

Keep reading

The Escape from Managerialist Medicine

Whether the influence of Big Pharma that profits from sickness, compromised public health agencies controlled by the very industries they are supposed to regulate, a biosecurity state that tends to jump from one declared health emergency to the next, medicine is now in danger of causing more sickness than it heals.

The year I was born, 1976, saw the publication of Ivan Illich’s prophetic book, Medical Nemesis, which opens with the startling claim, “The medical establishment has become a major threat to health.”[i] The book explores the epidemic of iatrogenic disease—that is, illnesses caused by medical interventions—which has only worsened in the nearly half-century since this book was published. Most of the current research literature on iatrogenesis focuses on the problem of medical errors, and how to institute systems that can minimize errors. This is obviously important to address, but medical errors are only part of the story of how medicine is harming us.

Illich’s basic thesis was that some systems, including our healthcare system, improve outcomes only until they expand to a certain industrialized size, monopolized scope, and level of technological power. Once this threshold is reached, without intending to do so, these systems paradoxically cannot help but inflict harm and undermine their stated aims. Illich diagnosed “the disease of medical progress” in its early stages; I believe this disease has now reached its advanced stage.

The problem is political and not merely professional: he argued that “the layman and not the physician has the potential perspective and effective power to stop the current iatrogenic epidemic.”[ii] Indeed, “among all our contemporary experts, physicians are those trained to the highest level of specialized incompetence for this urgently needed pursuit.”

Organized medicine has always carefully guarded its membership and monopoly on professional privileges, from ordering tests to prescribing medications. “The medical monopoly over health care has expanded without checks and has encroached on our liberty with regard to our own bodies.”[iii] In my previous book, The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State, I explore how this tendency manifested during our disastrous response to Covid. But the problem is not limited to that period of recent medical history, and the disastrous public health response was only a symptom of more widespread problems in our healthcare system.

Keep reading

Public Health Is A Totalitarian Ghost Science That Needs No Information, Needs No Truth, No Map–Only “Action,” Driven By Faux Hysteria: Dr. Sabhlok Calls It “Public Health Terrorism”

Side note: During the long, excruciating years (two decades plus) of being part of an international tribe countering, protesting and de-constructing Gallo and Fauci’s lethal HIV Causes AIDS spell, I never grasped how this ‘thing’ that was so monetarily rapacious was also ideologically Marxist. Despite the countless clues, including the erection of an entire AIDS welfare state within the US economy (rent, bills, “meds” “health care” even Broadway tickets provided for the HIV positive proletariat.) Despite the continuous vicious clobberings we all (“denialists”) took for Wrong think, for being against the Party Line—the very hallmark of Marxism, this shrill hysteria over intellectual disagreement. Despite these falling piano clues, we still assumed we were tackling “bad” or “corrupt” science. I can also now wrap up the painful shards of mobbing from inside so called dissident movement, but those doing to selecting and attacking, the mobbing, are back and attacking people who don’t understand who they are.

They will, soon enough. And in the end, the fact they were paid agents will also emerge.

Watch for bullies and demoralization agents.

The spiritual dark core:

“Virus,” is “Usury,” in different form. “Virus” creates “Debt.” (Person, on whom dark spell has been cast, via tea-leaf tests like PCR, falls into a biological debt they can’t get out of. Except by taking poison that could kill them.) In HIV/AIDS people’s mortgage (time between testing positive and showing symptoms of what they called AIDS) was stretched to up to 30 years, “or beyond,” by the HIV/AIDS millionaire class. Which included gay activists in groups like TAG (Treatment Action Group, post ACT UP) who personified the ruthless revolutionary, in leather, doc martens, buzz cuts, and cultural Untouchable status.

Keep reading

We Need Medical Freedom

In a free society, people have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. If you want to take something that “orthodox” medicine says you shouldn’t, this decision should be up to you. If the government can ban “dangerous drugs,” why not dangerous ideas too? As the great Ludwig von Mises points out, “Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

Keep reading

Medical Fascism

Medical fascism is when there is a corrupt merger of state and corporate entities in the health care industry — to borrow a turn-of-phrase from RFK Jr. Because of the inefficiency and lack of patient-centered care under medical fascism, you see a divergence between how much healthcare money is spent vs. the health of the people…

The USA spends 15 times as much on healthcare as Thailand does. The results? …

USA life expectancy:
77.01

Thailand life expectancy:
77.33

Evidence suggests that there is medical fascism in the USA and that the medical corruption is worse here than it is in any other nation in the world. U.S. citizens should instead enjoy medical freedom, getting the doctor they want and even the treatment that they want — with no entity getting between doctor and patient.

Keep reading

Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, And Other Major Hospital Systems Put White People At Back Of Treatment Lines

DEI is coming for your health care, and maybe even your health. In the name of “equity,” America’s top health care systems are now segregating or excluding some patients from life-saving programs based on race. These new programs mark a dangerous turn for American health care, where picking and choosing among preferred racial groups is the new standard of care.    

Take Cleveland Clinic, for instance. This world-class health care system runs a “Minority Men’s Health Center” and a “Minority Stroke Program” for addressing numerous medical conditions, including stroke, diabetes, and other stroke risk factors; men’s health conditions; and various mental health issues. These programs tout a range of benefits from disease prevention and treatment to specialized providers, transportation assistance, prescription assistance, support groups, and education events.

These are top-notch programs. But they’re “tailored” to minorities. For example, the Minority Stroke Program’s stated focus and goal is “preventing and treating stroke in racial and ethnic minorities.” And so minorities (and only minorities) are encouraged to reach out to the “Minority Stroke Program team” to set up an appointment.

While a recent challenge to these race-based programs apparently prompted Cleveland Clinic to quietly remove all traces of the Minority Men’s Health Center from its website, the clinic’s Minority Stroke Program appears to remain otherwise intact at this time.

Cleveland Clinic defends its racially distinctive stroke program by saying that it helps patients “who need it most” and that the programs are necessary to combat racial disparities. Black and Latino patients, for example, see worse stroke outcomes on average.

But if treating these racial disparities is a valid goal, then why not other disparities? Whites are more likely to suffer from Parkinson’s, macular degeneration, Type 1 diabetes, COPD, skin cancer, cystic fibrosis, osteoporosis, and MS, just to name a few. Should Cleveland Clinic open an MS clinic for white persons? Of course not.

The problem with such racial health equity models is that they use race as a proxy for legitimate health risks. A higher incidence of stroke in a given race does not necessarily mean that race itself is causing strokes. A leading study of racial disparities in stroke outcomes identifies various risk and potential factors: diabetes; hypertension; heart disease or other cardiovascular-related conditions; smoking; low socioeconomic status (such as education level); obesity or physical inactivity; inflammation; vascular factors; sleep apnea; and mental health. Race is not on the list.

Keep reading

Americans who refuse to sign up for “voluntary” government-issued digital ID may be DENIED health care services

Before his term ends, President Joe Biden is planning to sign an executive order (EO) to speed up the nation’s adoption of a standardized digital identification platform controlled by Washington, D.C.

The digital ID system will require Americans to verify their identity and age in order to access certain public websites and services. This includes Obamacare and other government-run health care plans that will only be available to Americans who agree to participate in the digital ID program.

A nonprofit media outfit called NOTUS obtained a draft copy of Biden’s EO, which states that “It is the policy of the executive branch to strongly encourage the use of digital identity documents.”

The program is “optional,” but in order to access health care services, renew one’s driver’s license, or log onto public services portals online, users will have to agree to participate otherwise they will not be allowed to access anything controlled by the government online.

According to NOTUS, Biden’s EO “could reshape how Americans access government services, and potentially behave online.” Biometric technologies like facial recognition are included as part of the system to “help better verify identity online,” we are told.

Keep reading

Royal College of Nursing is encouraging nurses to refuse to treat “racists”

Abandoning longstanding ethical principles, the Royal College of Nursing in the UK has issued new guidelines that justify refusal to treat or withdrawal of care in cases of discriminatory behaviour, including racism.

The Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority (“SRA”) is also following a totalitarian ideology.  Solicitor, Lois Bayliss, has been accused by the SRA of acting “against mainstream science” because she sent out “anti-vaccine” letters. The SRA claims to have a “body of evidence” against her anti-vaccine beliefs but refuses to allow her to bring in medical expert witness evidence to defend herself in her final hearing. How Orwellian is that, remarked Jonathan Engler who is a healthcare entrepreneur, qualified in medicine and law.

The first is The Royal College of Nursing (“RCN”), which says (of the recent protests):

These scenes around the country are nothing short of despicable racism – they have no place in our society. As an anti-racist organisation, the RCN will take a lead part in tackling this hatred.

So, they have issued new guidelines which state that “where there is discriminatory behaviour, including racism” a refusal to treat or the withdrawal of care may be justified.

The RCN announcement can be found HERE. The new guidance is HERE.

Aside from the concerns – expressed in THIS article – over a professional body essentially acting as a social justice organisation (as well as simply parroting the government position that anyone who expresses any concern whatsoever about unfettered immigration must automatically be a racist), this represents an egregious abandonment of longstanding ethical principles.

Who is to judge what is racist? And how? Are 95-year-olds who don’t keep up with the latest approved language and use outmoded words such as “coloured” to be refused treatment because they are “racist”? According to these guidelines that could well be justified.

What about a cheeky laddish comment by a male adolescent towards an attractive female nurse? Well, that’s misogyny, which is discriminatory – so no treatment?

It’s all very well responding, “Don’t be silly, nurses will exercise discretion,” but the whole point of sacrosanct ethical principles (and inalienable rights for that matter) is that they don’t depend on the prevailing circumstances, since the consideration of such leaves far too much room for post-hoc justification of – well anything, really – leaving patients frighteningly vulnerable to the ideological whims of their carers.

Keep reading

DOCTORING DEMOCRACY: Democrats infiltrating healthcare systems with QR code voting initiatives that target vulnerable people most likely to vote Blue

For years, the Democratic Party has strong-armed its way into the medical field, using coercive tactics to manipulate patients into agreeing with their left-wing ideals. Over the past four years, the left’s totalitarian political agenda was felt across the medical system, with unlawful and insidious medical mandates engulfing doctor’s offices, emergency rooms and intensive care units. Democrats managed to purge the most competent healthcare professionals from hospitals across the United States because these nurses and doctors did not follow the vaccine-mask-testing mandates and treatment restrictions that were put in place by Democrat elites.

Now these same monstrous, totalitarian Democrats are erecting voting initiatives inside the medical system to push patients into complying with the Democrat’s sordid political agendas.

Democrat Party elite are manipulating healthcare systems, coercing patients to vote Blue

Vot-ER, a nonprofit organization, is spearheading an effort to integrate voter registration into medical settings, utilizing physicians to encourage certain patient demographics to register and vote. This approach, described by Democrats as a means of empowering patients, has drawn criticism for its political bias and its impact on the healthcare system.

At the core of Vot-ER’s approach is a system that outfits physicians with badges that feature QR codes. When patients scan these codes with their smartphones, they are directed to a website where they can register to vote. According to Vot-ER, this integration of voting into healthcare is intended to act as a form of “therapeutic treatment,” which “enhances patient empowerment and recovery.” For example, Dr. Julie Graziane from the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute asserts that voter registration serves as a “therapeutic tool” and is integral to the recovery process.

Vot-ER’s founder, Dr. Alister Martin, suggested to a patient that voting was the “only way” to address air pollution, a remark that reflects the organization’s belief in voting as a solution to solve various societal issues. The patient is then manipulated to believe that Democrats are the only ones who will address air pollution, even though the party’s current environmental plan centers around climate change hysteria, and doesn’t address any real pollutants.

Despite its claims of non-partisanship, Vot-ER’s connections to left-leaning politics are evident. In fact, this whole system is funded by Democratic Party donors. Dr. Martin, for instance, is a known donor to Democratic causes and has served as an adviser to Vice President Kamala Harris.

The organization’s leadership includes figures like Aliya Bhatia, who is a donor to Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Another big donor, Leah Ford, previously received recognition from Planned Parenthood and identifies with gender pronouns. The infiltration of medical offices with forms that require “preferred gender pronouns” is another way that the Democratic Party asserts itself as “inclusive” and manipulates patients into accepting delusional Democratic ideals.

Vot-ER’s funding sources also raise serious questions about the future of left-wing politics infiltrating healthcare and abusing vulnerable patients. Doctors are subconsciously trained to get patients to vote for issues that, allegedly, only Democrats care about. Vot-ER is backed by dark money groups and progressive foundations such as the Tides Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. These affiliations suggest a significant financial and ideological alignment with progressive causes, vaccine mandates and other forms of ideological and physical oppression marketed as “science.”

Keep reading