AI and the future of medical treatment

by Jon Rappoport

July 17, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Oh Doctor, what’s ailing me? Can I get a diagnosis? What’s that? AI [artificial intelligence] is handling it now? You mean I just go online and see the results of my tests and read the diagnosis and pick up my drugs outside my front door? Wow. Very nice.”

Really? Is it very nice?

As AI creeps and crawls into the realm of medical diagnosis and treatment, and as it spreads under the banner of “more precise care for the patient,” remember that AI embeds false data more firmly than any human doctor can. Once it’s in there, how do you get rid of it?

“I’m sorry, sir. There is no human to speak with. All our data are produced by algorithms…”

For example, suppose the flu you have isn’t the flu? Suppose it’s something else? AI would still diagnose you with flu, based on your profile of symptoms, and you could be prescribed a toxic antiviral drug you don’t need, and also put on a warning list of people whose flu shot isn’t up to date.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.


Of course not.

And there will be many, many other areas where AI is wrong— but engraved in stone.

For instance, the official refusal to classify all vaccines containing aluminum as highly toxic and dangerous—AI will bolster that intentional refusal. At that point, who are you going to argue with? A machine? The cloud?

NextGov is reporting on a version of AI now undergoing testing: “Scientists test new chemical compounds on animals…But an artificial intelligence system published in the research journal Toxicological Sciences shows that it might be possible to automate some tests using the knowledge about chemical interactions we already have. The AI was trained to predict how toxic tens of thousands of unknown chemicals could be, based on previous animal tests, and the algorithm’s results were shown to be as accurate as live animal tests.”

Sound good? How likely is it that such an automated database will include scores of toxic medical drugs that kill Americans at the rate of 100,000 a year?

Yes, that’s right, 100,000 a year. The citation is: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Once AI is accepted as the Word on toxic chemicals, imagine the degree of difficulty in trying to add many medical drugs to the list.

“I’m sorry, sir. I don’t know anything about medicines. I just access the database on toxic chemicals and report what I find. Who is in charge of the AI here? Is that what you’re asking? I have no idea. Let me transfer you to a senior specialist in public communication. She’s quite busy at the moment. If you leave a message, you may receive a reply in the next few weeks. But I’m not sure she can help you. As I say, we take all our information from the database…”

Automation of data creates a new level of abstraction. Yes, it’s hard enough to argue with a human bureaucrat—but that’s nothing compared with trying to question an AI program.

And of course, in the medical arena, who is going to assemble that AI program and take charge of it? Who is going to decide what goes in the program and what is omitted?

Who is going to present that program to the public and characterize the AI as the fairest, most honest and objective system under the sun?

What will happen when the next 10 generations of schoolchildren are trained to believe in AI as the best and brightest source of truth on the planet?

When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I started to become aware of artificially constructed templates of medical information—templates that could become AI productions in the next 10 or 20 years.

I was roaming the stacks in the UCLA bio-med library, digging up crucial information on various medical tests. These little-known published studies were showing how unreliable the diagnostic tests could be. But, as I discovered, this information had no place in medical school curriculum. In all conventional medical circles, it was ignored. As if it didn’t exist.

I found the ignored data in archived volumes of medical journals on the library shelves.

What happens when those volumes are shipped into warehouses for storage, and no one accesses them anymore?

What happens when the bright and shiny AI medical databases rule the landscape?

Part of my work for the past 35 years has been keeping medical truth alive and in front of readers. There is no expiration date on truth.

When you feed AI enough data, and sets of basic assumptions, it can and will construct a full-blown program that dictates a range of actions that should be taken. But, for example, suppose you told a nascent AI chess program that knights move only three squares forward, rooks can only move diagonally, and kings can jump over other pieces. You’ll get a brilliant chess system that bears very little resemblance to the actual game of chess.

This is exactly what happens when many underlying medical assumptions—which are false or grossly incomplete—are entered into an AI diagnostic and treatment system.

And much usable and beneficial truth will fade into the background and be lost.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

(Click here for my piece at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled
“David vs. AI supercomputer Goliath”)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

19 comments on “AI and the future of medical treatment

  1. Don wleklinski says:

    One size fits all.

  2. Theodore says:

    Obamacare put in the infrastructure for AI: computerized medical records: your medical data fed into the AI…


    The devastating truth behind Obamacare

    by Jon Rappoport

    June 28, 2012

    I want my Obamacare! I want my Obamacare!

    Well, you’ve got it. The US Supreme Court just upheld it by calling the individual mandate a tax.

    Those who shout victory to the rooftops have no idea what’s in store for them. No idea at all.

    It’s vital to look at the real effects of this sinister plan. It’s all about the effects of mainstream medicine. That’s what the sold-out press is refusing to examine.

  3. NaturalWoman says:

    It would be so easy to program death by the numbers desired.

  4. joyinrepetitionknitandcrochet says:

    Surreal. All followed up by surveillance medication:

  5. Freespirit says:

    The GOOD NEWS, is that MORE people will start taking responsibility for their Health, and if they are intelligent and discerning, will go online (Don;t use Google) to SEARCH for NATURAL treatments

    I am a Certified Nutritional Consultant, and the LAST time I visited a Doctor for Health reasons, was BEFORE I learned about Nutrition and it’s only relationship to Excellent Health – over 50 years ago. I’m 78 and have no problem running 2-3 miles( or more) and doing other strenuous work outs, besides playing tennis

    I have never had an illness I could not handle,very easily, with NUTRIENTS, especially, complete Vitamin C and D3

    The ONLY use for a Doctor is for things such as, but not limited to, Bone fractures and other accidents which cause damage which require, what I call, Body “MECHANICAL” treatment and then if possible, a CHIROPRACTOR

    Mental “damage”- Psychiatry is a racket

    • jacobite2015 says:

      +1 Freespirit.

      I’m younger than you (58) and do the same things; excercise, nutrition & supplementation. All three are paramount to ultimate health, and Big Pharma can stick their mind-control montra that all middle-age people need to be on pharmaceuticals up their “you know what.” Lol.

      I agree on your use of M.D.s. Last year I needed some fractures & lacerations treated from injuries sustained when a driver ran a red light while texting and hit me. So, I think ER & trauma care services are very important as we “can’t” control the behavior of idiots out there.

    • Michael Burns says:

      I think natural woman had something to say about that Tom…the idea of gene drift — moving the gene ahead in time, especially if it’s programmable. Through progeny — through time to the eventually beginning of history.

      The bastards that run reality would have you believe a lot of things though…

      But then again one might look at all this malarkey as a hoax. The mind is a wonderful thing. When you have convinced it that a apple is purple, it remains difficult to undo that conditioned illusion. But with practice.

      I am of the belief that DNA is a personal library that we draw from as individuals. The mind controls DNA — what could/might/possibly be done, can be undone. If you realize that your body is, your body.

  6. Lea says:

    Freespirit. My Dad always referred to M.D’s as “Body mechanics”!

    Too bad I’ve lost all hope of receiving any help with the last 8 I’ve seen for “Back mice” aka episacroiliac lipomas, where all docs refused to look up the the condition and wouldn’t read one paragraph of the literature I brought in..even when they have a computer on their desk.
    All eight docs said they haven’t heard of this condition yet decided not to enlighten themselves on their existence and treatment..(novacaine shots and/or surgical removal).
    I was told by one doc that I “wasn’t a physician” and to seek out the doctor who wrote the article on my most probable condition.

    In the old days, (20 years ago), a good doc would admit they didn’t know something then look that something up in the books behind them and learn something new.
    It seems that docs have become less and less interested in the knowledge of their patients, (they live in their own bodies after all) and their own ability to learn which would help their patients.

    When asking a doctor about the long term effects of a particular drug on the human body, he pointed to his cell phone and said “I have to get this call”.
    The disinterest of doctors actual helping patients,(I call them customers), is astounding.

    Often, if the doc is out, they will use Skype.
    I would think , if properly programmed, a diagnoses by computer would be more accurate than these lazy” body mechanics”.

  7. Larry says:

    “There is no expiration date on truth.”

    Amen, brother….amen!

  8. Jon

    I have read this piece in various formats a number of times before, but it did get me thinking.

    I need to reference my last article again too.

    I say this:

    “So to do justice to the quest, I may have to introduce suspects or considerations that have rarely or, perhaps, never been pondered before. All the little tweety birds that believe puffing various forms of political correctness is their branch to salvation beware, for this big bad eagle may swoop down and devour you and your branch whole. We should begin with no misconceptions.”

    Isn’t the whole notion that viruses are living entities a grand deceit on the back of medical political correctness? Even Wikipedia has to admit they “have no metabolism”. Have “any” viruses actually been discovered yet?

    What got me thinking is in your very pertinent artificial intelligence analogy. Do you see the “connection” here?

    “As Pasteur was nothing short of an appendage of “corporate science” which had been set up by the Rothschild family in Paris in the late eighteenth century (just after the “revolution” – sic), any marketing device aiding the manufacture of arbitrary confusion to help everyone “believe” would be regarded as a godsend by those that presume they own the world. Their godsend in specific relation to the case I highlight is “computer viruses”. Computer viruses are not even remotely comparable to any medical counterpart, but propaganda agents don’t care. In fact origins of all computer viruses can be traced back to sponsored hackers testing security effectiveness of networked equipment, but that muddies the objective of paradigm synthesis. To the propagandist it only successfully sells the “concept” germs can and will invade and infect with impunity whether via the internet or other routes. The idea that anyone connected to humans is potentially “networked” with dangerously contaminated aliens is the perfect genre extension. Because, in this specific case, “viruses” (as labelled) do invade and infect technologies, the propaganda message would go a long way towards convincing shallow minds. I will leave the associated complex good/bad bacteria and strengthened/weakened immune systems’ discussion for another entry.”

    Computers = artificial intelligence (AI)

    “The great deception is to paint a computer virus as the principled copy of a medical virus.”


  9. Tom_12 says:

    Lets keep in mind ALWAYS, AI has no conscience !!! That is why Penta-gram is so bent on getting their first AI warrior.

    • Michael Burns says:

      But, but..what about all those countries corporations headed by the likes of Elon Musk, that signed that declaration to not use AI in robots that would be use as weapons (Assassins).

      Oh yeah, that’s right, Canada, USA and UK and Australia, didn’t sign the declaration.

  10. abinico warez says:

    Medical industry love it – you can’t sue a robot.

  11. My experiences with doctors and AI are both limited. They seem alike. Both are cold, uncaring, and generally sadistic.

    It could be said, if we turn the medical industry over to AI, it couldn’t get any worse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.