How reliable is the medical AI platform, called OpenEvidence, that physicians are increasingly relying on for medical knowledge and insights to manage their patient caseload? Is this an advancement improving medical practice, is it about equally adding benefit but introducing drawbacks, or is it actually a net negative?

While the doctors see it as a useful adjunct, given their need to command ever greater amounts of information, especially as their patients have access to online search tools and can look up medical topics on their cellular phones and get high-level descriptions of medical knowledge and diagnostic indicators and profiles. So there is a need to defend themselves from a hyper-educated public. They must be at least conversant with the medical minutia. So there is a benefit, in a practical sense, to have an automated way to quickly assemble and present basic medical knowledge as a review for the busy physician not able to take time sorting through a collection of textbooks. But at the same time, the basic problem remains, that medicine is heavily flawed as an institution and the practice of medicine works to implement and reinforce a body of flawed and imperfect and inadequate knowledge for the task at hand, to truly help people monitor and improve their health and well-being. That is not an overstated, pessimistic, view but an under-described deficit and faulty makeup that has been engineered to be in place and hold back human progress, not only through withholding useful knowledge that could save lives, but to reinforce faulty paradigms and perspectives that accumulate through mind control manipulation of the medical community. That flawed knowledge gets into the warp and woof and will be passed down to subsequent generations until it might get overturned, often inadvertently, by what the researchers are seeing that might contradict existing dogma based more on conjecture and simplistic speculation than rigorous experimentation and documentation of how the body works and what medical treatments are actually doing and not doing. After all, the causes of illness are still largely unknown despite what doctors might think they understand in the basic workings of the chronic diseases they witness daily among their patient population. So, the bottom line here is that incomplete and faulty medical knowledge, served up more efficiently by a robotic computer platform relying on what are increasingly more obscure and elusive self-created and generated algorithms for combining bits of knowledge by the AI system itself, can only hyperfocus on what is known in general. The art of medicine is applying what is possible to the real-world circumstance of someone in need who suffers. An AI system cannot diagnose anyone, but only describe how their presentation to a living physician in taking a medical history or a canned algorithm of an AI system doing so, gets analyzed and shown to fit a certain diagnostic profile or perhaps several possibilities. In the absence of more detailed testing workup, it might outthink the average, over-busy, and aging physician who may not have kept up with the latest research or have experienced personally in their caseload, more infrequent examples of serious maladies, and there will be times when an AI system will raise such possibilities more effectively than relying on medical practitioner memory alone. Unfortunately, we see the downsides as being more impactful than the benefits. The greater efficiency and thoroughness in presenting possibilities will serve to further justify the truncation of care taken by the physician, in a time sense, to have so minimal time for a visit, that patients get underserved simply because of the time pressure doctors must live with. So if you think simply on the level of what the very words mean, with the advent of things like OpenEvidence, there will be less time spent by living physicians to allow an artful rumination and intuitive perception of what is most important to know about the patient during an office visit, and more time spent feeding basic information conveyed from the patient into a cyber system and simply studying its regurgitations. The danger here is to assume more and more over time, that such artificial intelligence is adequate and can be relied on in lieu of careful human insightful consideration and analysis. So, the problems and limitations of current medical practice are not a function or consequence of the advent of AI alone, but what is being done to set standards and priorities for how medical practice is conducted. And those influences are coming from the Extraterrestrial Alliance and not a human overseer.