Advanced
Search
  1. Home
  2. Destruction of medicine? A bill to allow AI to approve prescriptions
Destruction of medicine?  A bill to allow AI to approve prescriptions

Destruction of medicine? A bill to allow AI to approve prescriptions

  • October 31, 2021
  • 0 Likes
  • 24 Views
  • 0 Comments

On September 30th, 2021, David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) Introduced a bill (HR5457) that in case of adoption qualify AI as a doctor authorized to prescribe medication.

Whoa there. That brings the conversation about that Professional sovereignty of the doctors in a completely different context – and unfortunately this reformist context has always existed. Let’s first look at the legal text. It says this:

“To amend federal food, drug and cosmetics law to clarify that artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies can qualify as drug prescribing practitioners if approved by the state involved and approved by the Food and Drug Administration or authorized, and for other purposes. “

The part that says “for other purposes” is interesting. What if AI determines that something is safe and effective – and it should be mandated? It’s hard to argue with AI. The safe and effective could be therapy, a nutritional system to combat climate change, a mental hygiene regime – really everything. Prescribing medication is only one foot in the door, but the sky is the limit. And who are we suing?

And who is David Schweikert? He is currently serving his sixth term in the United States Congress. He currently sits on the Ways and Means Committee, having previously served on the Financial Services Committee.

He also sits on the bicameral Joint Economic Committee and acts as a Senior House Republican Member, Co-Chairs the Valley Fever Task Force with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, is the Republican Co-Chair of the Blockchain Caucus, Co-Chair of the Tunisia Caucus and Co -Chairman of the Tele Health Caucus. “

According to his website, he has “key reforms like that Law on the reform of secret sciencethat the House of Representatives passed. “This particular reform was interesting because it used the” good “language of scientific transparency to limit the powers of the already not very useful EPAs.

Interestingly, his website also calls him a “national leader in tribal politics” who works with the tribal communities of Arizona on key priorities. Much to think about.

So let’s talk about why this law matters, whether it’s passed or not. The bill serves an obvious practical purpose and a psychological purpose. If it goes and stays, we can say goodbye to our medical sovereignty for some time – because arguing with a robot is much more difficult than arguing with the most threatening and immobile Soviet cashier of my childhood (a personal memory; I was afraid of cashiers)!

But if it doesn’t go away, it’s a sign of where the wind is blowing and an act of expanding what is psychologically acceptable. In other words, an act of eating on our minds. And of course, the desire to potentially replace the current medical system with AI and telemedicine predates COVID. Let’s go back in time.

The year was 2019. The name of the committee was National Security Commission for Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI). The committee, chaired by Google’s Eric Schmidt, released a report entitled “Overview of the Chinese technology landscape. “

In this report, which EPIC received through a FOIA request, the committee talked about the AI ​​race between the US and China and what kind of “legacy systems” in the US stood in the way of victory. (If you want to see their latest report – which is very long and, unlike the 2019 FOIA report, was intended for public viewing and therefore much more diplomatic – you can find it here.)

Now an important note. Personally, I believe that competition between different countries is not driving this trend – and that Eric Schmidt of all people living today is using “international competition” as a pretext to try and install his favorite AI on humans (but of course among his friends).

That is not to say that there is no international competition – of course there is – but the attempted reforms under the name the big reset, 4IR, or Happy valleyism, is supranational in my opinion. However, using a bogeyman (be it “China”, “America”, “Russia” or “COVID”) is a proven strategy.

(Speaking of “crisis mode”, here’s a very interesting 2015 paper entitled “Rapid Response to Infectious Disease Medical Countermeasures: Enabling Sustainable Capabilities Through Ongoing Public-Private Sector Partnerships: Workshop Summary.” We are talking about corona viruses. Mentioned below is a quote from Peter Daszak who talks about the development of pan-influenza and pan-coronavirus vaccines.)

Quote from Peter Daszak

Back to the 2019 NSCAI report, the committee first written about in detail by Whitney Webb on Last American Vagabond, “was created by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018 and has the official purpose of” examining the methods and means required to enable the development of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and to comprehensively advance related technologies ”. address the national security and defense needs of the United States. ‘”

To further cite Whitney, who did an excellent job of developing this two years ago, the report states “that ‘creation’ followed by ‘adoption’ and ‘iteration’ are the three stages of the ‘new technology life cycle’, and claims that China will allow China to “skip” the US and dominate the AI ​​for the foreseeable future if it does not succeed in dominating the ‘adoption’ phase. “

three phases of the life cycle of new technologies

The report mentions that while the United States is leading the “creation” phase of AI development, China is leading the “adoption” phase due to specific “structural factors” that the report considers to be very beneficial to the gain of the AI race.

To be clear, the report doesn’t directly say something like, “It would be great if we were a little more like China in terms of these structural factors.” That doesn’t directly say it. But it seems to imply it as it describes winning the AI ​​race as absolutely desirable and then lists American “legacy” systems as obstacles in the way.

Legacy systems
good enough hinders adoption

What does the report say about medicine? It seems to disapprove of today’s medicine, favoring AI and telemedicine. See below:

AI for medical diagnosis

Diploma?

My subjective conclusion is that maybe putting AI responsible for medicine has always been the goal? Perhaps the illogical and unfathomable state of “human” medicine in 2021 is no coincidence?

So far we’ve seen scientific and medical censorship, unhelpful official protocols, forced closings of hospitals, artificially created staff shortages – and maybe we’re seeing this at least in part because it supports the advancement of 4IR?

Possibly?

It looks like the things we generally consider good for people, like personal access to a caring doctor – or the “regulatory barriers” protecting our privacy – are all of these natural things from our aspiring masters be viewed as undesirable.

Their proverbial New Normal is not for people. It is for the “owner”. (By the way, AI isn’t human or conscious no matter how hard you turn it. AI is software. Someone owns the software, including medical software. Someone pays for it, someone writes it, someone patents it, someone owns it. This whole “AI becomes.” aware “thing is a well-funded scam in my opinion – just like selling” immortality “by turning it into a data bundle.)

When it comes to medicine, sovereign doctors (and sovereign patients) in the New Normal are a burden and an inconvenience. The New Normal is not into human subjectivity – neither philosophically nor economically. The New Normal is about effective wealth management where ordinary citizens are a class of assets, just like machines or minerals.

Assets are meant to be useful and not meant to think. The whole basis of the New Normal social system is the denial of free will.

The New Normal does not take into account privacy or personal space. It is a new digital order – with citizens united in homogeneity under AI. It’s not about balance or sustainable romping around in the grass while the robot is working – it’s about converting our creative energy into fuel for the machine. It is essentially against life.

Another tangential but very strange window into the madmen’s mindset is this 2001 report entitled “Future Strategic Issues / Future Warfare [Circa 2025]“. It has every dystopian trick in the book, even” co-opted insects. “And I suppose it is possible to weaponize insects, viruses, or art. All attempts have been made. Abuse is temporary.

Dysfunction causes pain. Pain creates questions. Questions create resistance. Resistance causes change. And then it breaks. This time too, life will prevail – regardless of the wishes of the technocrats.

A note: philosophy and emotions are important in the time of the Great Reset because they remind us of who we are and help us fight for life. The madmen can think of a world in which we are soulless assets. You can approve invoices in which we report to AI. But if we refuse to close our hearts, we end up winning.

I want this story with an open-ended question from the beautiful film entitled “A hidden life. ”In this film, the protagonist asks a priest,“ If our leaders are evil, what do you do? ”What do you do? And maybe this time we can live.



Thank You For Reading!

Reference: articles.mercola.com

  • Share:

Leave Your Comment