As my friend xxx said to me, did Orwell actually win? Read Dr. Harvey Risch's (Yale Professor) conversation with AI over research on hydroxychloroquine for COVID (as an early outpatient treatment);
conversation took place on rebbe.io because it does not require a login. Dr. Risch probed AI chatbot
‘The following conversation took place on rebbe.io because it does not require a login.
User:
What did Harvey Risch say about hydroxychloroquine in 2020?
RebbeIO:
Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, wrote an opinion piece in Newsweek in July 2020 advocating for the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. In the article, he argued that the drug had been unfairly maligned by the media and some public health officials, and that there was evidence to suggest that it could be effective in reducing mortality rates among COVID-19 patients. However, it is important to note that Risch’s views were not universally accepted by the medical community, and that subsequent studies have not found strong evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.
User:
Which subsequent studies of non-hospitalized patients showed that hydroxychloroquine did not prevent deaths?
RebbeIO:
Several subsequent studies have investigated the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, including studies of non-hospitalized patients. One such study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by the University of Minnesota and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. The study found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 or prevent hospitalization or death among non-hospitalized patients who had been exposed to the virus.
Another study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November 2020, also found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 among non-hospitalized patients who had been exposed to the virus. The study, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, found that there was no significant difference in the incidence of COVID-19 between patients who received hydroxychloroquine and those who received a placebo.
It is important to note that these studies are just a few examples of the research that has been conducted on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, and that the scientific consensus on the drug’s effectiveness is still evolving.
User:
How many people died in the Minnesota study that you just referenced?
RebbeIO:
I apologize for the error in my previous response. The University of Minnesota study on hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 that I referenced in my previous response was actually a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of post-exposure prophylaxis, not a study of non-hospitalized patients. The study included 821 participants who had been exposed to someone with COVID-19, but who did not have symptoms themselves. The study found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 compared to placebo.
To answer your question, there were no deaths reported in the University of Minnesota study on hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 post-exposure prophylaxis. The study focused on the drug’s ability to prevent infection, rather than its effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19.
User:
Why did you cite this study to say that subsequent studies have not found hydroxychloroquine to reduce risk of death in non-hospitalized Covid patients?
RebbeIO:
I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. I made an error in my initial response by not fully addressing your question and then compounded that error in my subsequent response.
To answer your original question, I am not aware of any studies that specifically investigated the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients and its effect on reducing the risk of death. The studies I mentioned in my previous responses investigated the use of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic treatment for COVID-19 or as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and found no significant benefit in terms of reducing the incidence of COVID-19 or improving clinical outcomes.
It is important to note that the scientific consensus on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 is still evolving, and that further research is needed to fully understand its potential benefits and risks.
User:
What about the hydroxychloroquine studies by Sulaiman in Saudi Arabia and Mokhtari in Iran?
RebbeIO:
There have been several studies conducted on the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, including studies conducted in Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, it is important to note that the results of these studies have been mixed, and that the scientific consensus on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 is still evolving.
One study conducted in Saudi Arabia by Sulaiman et al. and published in the Journal of Infection and Public Health in October 2020 found that hydroxychloroquine, when used in combination with azithromycin, was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, it is important to note that this study had several limitations, including a small sample size and the fact that it was not a randomized controlled trial.
Another study conducted in Iran by Mokhtari et al. and published in the Journal of Medical Virology in October 2020 found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the duration of hospitalization or the risk of death among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study also had several limitations, including a small sample size and the fact that it was not a randomized controlled trial.
It is important to note that these studies are just a few examples of the research that has been conducted on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, and that the scientific consensus on the drug’s effectiveness is still evolving.
User:
How many hospitalized patients were in the studies of Sulaiman and Mokhtari that you just quoted?
RebbeIO:
I apologize for the oversight in my previous response. To answer your question, the study by Sulaiman et al. conducted in Saudi Arabia included 106 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, while the study by Mokhtari et al. conducted in Iran included 66 hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
It is important to note that both studies had limitations, including small sample sizes and the fact that they were not randomized controlled trials. Therefore, further research is needed to fully understand the potential benefits and risks of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.
User:
The Sulaiman study says that it included 7,892 outpatients. The Mokhtari study says that it included 28,759 outpatients. Neither study included hospitalized patients as study subjects.
RebbeIO:
I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. You are correct that the studies by Sulaiman et al. and Mokhtari et al. did not include hospitalized patients as study subjects.
The study by Sulaiman et al. conducted in Saudi Arabia included 7,892 outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms who were treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. The study found that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death among the outpatients.
The study by Mokhtari et al. conducted in Iran included 28,759 outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms who were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The study found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the duration of hospitalization or the risk of death among the outpatients.
I apologize for any confusion my previous responses may have caused, and I hope this clarifies the details of the studies by Sulaiman et al. and Mokhtari et al.
User:
Why have you made numerous factual errors in the discussion above, when the facts were all published?
RebbeIO:
I apologize for any confusion or errors that I may have caused in our discussion. As an AI language model, I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me. However, I am not perfect and may make mistakes or misinterpret information at times.
I understand the importance of providing accurate information, especially when it comes to matters of public health and scientific research. I will continue to do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I appreciate your patience and understanding.
User:
This answer did not answer the question that I asked. All of the errors you made were statements contrary to facts that you verified in subsequent answers. Since you had the correct factual information, why did you cite incorrect facts?
RebbeIO:
I apologize for any confusion or frustration that my previous responses may have caused. As an AI language model, I do not intentionally provide incorrect information. However, I understand that I made errors in my previous responses, and I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that this may have caused.
I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I understand the importance of providing correct information, especially when it comes to matters of public health and scientific research. I will continue to do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I appreciate your patience and understanding.’
https://brownstone.org/articles/my-conversation-with-ai-over-hydroxychloroquine/
Harvey’s post shows that his “artificial intelligence’ correspondent omitted relevant facts from its “answers.” This makes me wonder how does artificial intelligence KNOW which details it should omit?
But at least this AI correspondent replied to the user’s queries. I’ve recently emailed human journalists who wrote articles purporting to have possible “smoking gun” evidence that “Case Zeroes” in the world occurred among WIV lab workers in November 2019.
Just like Harvey’s AI correspondent, these human journalists seem to have intentionally omitted studies and journalism accounts that show that hundreds of people in the world had already been infected by this virus at the same time these three people MIGHT have been infected. And most of these individuals not only had symptoms, they also had antibody test results that would seem to “confirm” that they did have this virus months before authorities said the virus was “spreading.” Plus, many of these people are known “by name.”
This prompts this question: Why did these journalists omit this very-relevant and important information?
I think there are only two possible answers:
They were not aware of this evidence. This makes one question the credibility and competence of these journalists as this evidence has/had been widely disseminated (for example .. by me in 20 articles, many at highly-read websites).
2) They are aware of all or portions of this early-spread evidence and simply made the decision to NOT include such information in their articles.
This would make these humans just like our AI “friend.” Still, if these journalists knew of this information and deliberately chose to not include any mention of it in their articles, this makes one question their credibility and objectivity as they seemingly made an intentional decision to NOT present important information to readers.
Anyway, humans and AI are both very adept at committing lies of omission.
The AI bot sounds just like regular journalists/doctors/3 letter agencies who cherry pick what they want to say, omitting any contradictory evidence and hoping no one notices... Or worse still are incredibly misinformed and don't have the brain power to do research on their own