Aggregator

AI doesn’t know you, but a good physician does

2 weeks 6 days ago


The timing couldn’t be better.

Just as an Anthropic safety researcher resigned over the company’s irresponsible behavior and another researcher warned that AI developers are creating systems with a 10% chance of killing all humans in the next decade, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is enthusiastically lobbying our medical system to entrust AI to become our primary physicians.

Now, as a physician who has practiced internal medicine for nearly 30 years, I appreciate Emanuel’s enthusiasm. I really do. But he is simply wrong.

When it comes to our best and worst moments in life, we will always want another person with us.

Let’s begin with his recent essay in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the flagship journal of internal medicine. Citing “studies” showing AI-only medical care is likely to be better than physician-alone or AI-physician hybrid care, Emanuel identifies five AI-superior areas: eliciting medically relevant information; establishing a differential diagnosis; specifying diagnostic testing; prescribing guideline-concordant treatment; managing chronic diseases.

But the devil is in the details.

First, none of the studies Emanuel cites meets the gold standard: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial with hard clinical end points. Instead, he relies largely on small observational studies, simulated clinical cases, and meta-analyses. Each has limitations that complicate any attempt to draw definitive clinical conclusions.

If anything, these studies raise more questions than answers. This is no problem if Emanuel’s assertion is that we need to perform more studies. However, when he repurposes his JAMA articles into a jaunty Atlantic Monthly essay, he insists that cautious medical minds are “ignor[ing] available evidence and could hold untold numbers of Americans back from better health.”

My question to Emanuel is, in light of his low-quality studies, what sound, available evidence?

Second, Emanuel seems enamored with algorithms. Established clinical pathways can provide valuable, evidence-based guidance for evaluating symptoms, treating disease, and determining the standard of care. But experienced physicians know that clinical judgment cannot be reduced to an algorithm.

Our patients and their problems are not simply algorithmic. Every day, physicians encounter complexities and confounders, curveballs, and exceptions. We need more than book knowledge and flowcharts. Open-mindedness, intuition, and common sense — all of which are born of experience.

Emanuel strikes me as one of the rationalists that stirred up philosopher Michael Oakeshott’s ire. The rationalists are those who worship at the altar of technical knowledge (knowledge of experts that can be written in a book), yet blithely dismiss indispensable practical knowledge (knowledge gained by life and experience). It seems good in theory, but it all falls apart in practice.

RELATED: You can medicate despair. You can’t manufacture meaning.

Merovingian/Getty Images

Third, Emanuel has great confidence in consensus statements and practice guidelines. These are recommended diagnostic paths or treatment plans offered by august bodies of medical deliberation or the best available evidence. Sadly, most of this evidence is moderate to weak at best.

As Abba Eban once observed, “A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” While AI draws from an immense fund of knowledge, physicians (while using AI) can add wisdom that asserts purifying qualifiers such as “it depends” or “up to a point.”

If Emanuel’s further criticism is that human beings are hampered by their propensity for error, is it not error-laden human knowledge that informs artificial intelligence? Inadvertently and ironically, the muddled human condition is baked into artificial intelligence.

Finally, Emanuel seemingly forgets about the human touch. Surely, as a capable oncologist, he recalls moments when he pushed away from the computer, took off his glasses, leaned forward, and truly engaged with the patient. At that moment of profound and unfettered intentionality, the luminous wonder of the physician-patient relationship came vibrantly alive.

Are we to be convinced that this relationship doesn’t matter? That it is simply an expendable byproduct in a life’s journey through sickness and health? The iconic 19th-century godfather of medicine, Dr. William Osler, would be aghast at such an assertion. “The good doctor treats the disease,” he once insisted. ‘The great doctor treats the patient who has the disease.”

RELATED: Now they’re saying the AIs built ‘secret civilizations’ — the truth is far worse

Ole_CNX/Getty Images

Perhaps the studies will come. Perhaps, at some point, artificial intelligence will demonstrably outperform physicians (or even physicians aided by AI), and we who practice will need to bow to our computerized overlords as they, like C-3PO, dispense medical wisdom with their soothing metallic voices and remarkable programmed empathy.

But I’m not convinced.

There is a story of a man openly weeping in a massive crowd upon hearing of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1945. A nearby reporter approached him and asked if he personally knew the president. “No, I didn’t know President Roosevelt,” he answered. “But he knew me.”

When it comes to our best and worst moments in life, we will always want another person with us. Someone who can help us, who cares about us, and who knows us.

Artificial intelligence is a wondrous tool, but it doesn’t know us. Find a good physician who does.

Tod Worner

Quick, to the Popemobile! Pope Leo Rides His Open-Air Transport for First Time Since Cancer Surgery

2 weeks 6 days ago

Pope Leo XIV is back at work. A clearly delighted pontiff returned to St. Peter's Square on Wednesday, waving ‌to Vatican pilgrims and blessing babies from his open-air popemobile as his first general audience began since undergoing lung cancer surgery just over one week ago.

The post Quick, to the Popemobile! Pope Leo Rides His Open-Air Transport for First Time Since Cancer Surgery appeared first on Breitbart.

Simon Kent

Violent rapist who went on the run after slipping off monitoring device was found dead, cops say

2 weeks 6 days ago


A violent criminal who had been convicted of rape and was on the run was found dead in San Diego, police say.

Merle Wakefield, 69, was being supervised on California's conditional release program when officials got a tamper notice from his monitoring device on Sept. 25.

'As long as the state keeps releasing sexually violent predators into our neighborhoods, families are one tampered ankle monitor away from this. These people don't belong anywhere near our communities.'

When the officials arrived at his workplace in Rancho Bernardo, they found the GPS device, but Wakefield was gone.

Nearly a month later on Monday at about 9:30 a.m., San Diego police responded to a report of a dead body and found human remains in a riverbed in San Diego.

The San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office identified the remains as Merle Wakefield. His cause and manner of death will be determined by an autopsy.

The rapist's remains were found about 20 miles south of the location where he was last seen.

Wakefield had been convicted of rape as well as lewd acts with a minor under 14, along with eight other convictions and 20 arrests.

He was granted conditional release in Nov. 2024.

It's unclear how Wakefield died.

San Diego police said they are continuing to investigate the man's death.

RELATED: California man allegedly coerced 21 children to produce sex videos via online apps, FBI says

San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond criticized the state of California after Wakefield vanished.

"The unfortunate reality is that what happened with Merle Wakefield could have happened at any time," Demond said.

"As long as the state keeps releasing sexually violent predators into our neighborhoods, families are one tampered ankle monitor away from this. These people don't belong anywhere near our communities. They belong locked up in a secure state facility. Period."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Carlos Garcia

'Son of a B***h!' Fed-up Spaniards Jeer Socialist Pedro Sanchez During Visit to Flood-hit Town

2 weeks 6 days ago

Spain's socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was once again called a "son of a b***h" by a group of fed-up Spaniards during his official visit to the town of Oliva, one of the worst affected by Storm Adam's torrential rain.

The post ‘Son of a B***h!’ Fed-up Spaniards Jeer Socialist Pedro Sánchez During Visit to Flood-hit Town appeared first on Breitbart.

Christian K. Caruzo

Now You Say! German Chancellor Admits Immigration and Failed Assimilation Caused French Riots

2 weeks 6 days ago

More than a decade after Berlin opened the gates of Europe to mass migration from the Arabic and African worlds, a German Chancellor has publicly admitted that importing millions of foreigners and the failure to integrate them is causing carnage in Europe.

The post Now You Say! German Chancellor Admits Immigration and Failed Assimilation Caused French Riots appeared first on Breitbart.

Kurt Zindulka

Glenn Beck: France’s riots aren’t really about schools — they’re about something much bigger

2 weeks 6 days ago


Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of people across France marched in protest of living costs and deteriorating public services. Those marches were quickly overtaken by violent, masked groups who looted shops, set cars and buildings on fire, and clashed with police in cities including Paris, Marseille, Lyon, and Limoges.

Even though more than 2,000 people were arrested, police largely failed to contain the chaos in several cities.

But that chaos and destruction, says Glenn Beck, had “nothing to do with the schools” or any other valid grievance.

It has everything to do, he argues, with the budget the French Parliament was scheduled to vote on yesterday, although it ended up being postponed to a later date.

“The street was sending Paris a message before the vote, and the government is now stuck in a trap with no good door,” says Glenn.

He explains how cutting spending infuriates the mob because it means fewer services, but not cutting spending worsens the debt crisis, which also infuriates the mob.

“If they vote it down, the lenders get nervous and the interest rates climb. Then the borrowing costs rise. Then the jobs disappear, and everything costs more, which is exactly what the people are marching about in the first place, so either way somebody loses,” he says.

The best-case scenario, says Glenn, is they “agree on a budget” and vow to “pay this loan back,” even if it means financial constraints. If the meeting “falls apart,” however, he predicts a snowball effect, where lenders raise France’s borrowing costs, the government has to borrow even more just to cover its bills, rates climb farther, and the debt spiral spreads pressure across Europe while France’s ability to fund basic services keeps shrinking.

“That's Italy. That's Greece. That's Germany, and it's already starting. Their borrowing costs went up this month, and France now pays more to borrow than either of them,” says Glenn.

The third potential outcome is what will happen if the budget falls apart and nobody does anything about it. In this scenario, the European Central Bank will either step in with harsh conditions that make daily life even harder and fuel more unrest — or break its own rules to bail France out, which signals that the rules no longer matter and spreads the crisis further.

This should matter to Americans, says Glenn, because America is teetering on the same debt trap as France — spending more than it earns. And if lenders lose confidence in the U.S. the way they’re losing confidence in France, Americans will feel it in higher mortgage rates, higher car payments, and job losses.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

BlazeTV Staff

France and the United States can’t govern on blind trust

2 weeks 6 days ago


I spent 24 years enforcing immigration law. I know what government looks like when officials stop taking enforcement seriously. In June, I wrote in Lyceum that Belfast's riots exposed a collapse of public trust and that lawful enforcement offered the peaceful way to restore it. France has now delivered another warning.

On October 17, masked rioters looted businesses and set fire to public buildings across France. Police made more than 2,400 arrests, and nearly 1,000 officers were injured, seven of them seriously. Cities imposed curfews. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez acknowledged that police had failed to anticipate the scale of the unrest and offered to resign. President Emmanuel Macron refused his resignation and publicly condemned the violence.

Publish the data regularly, explain what the numbers show, and let citizens judge. If the numbers support the policy, why hide them?

French officials blamed ultra-left militants and opportunistic looters. The protests began in September over the cost of living and deteriorating schools. More than half a million people marched on Oct. 17, most of them peacefully. I accept those facts. I do not accept that the government's explanation ends the inquiry. Officials who admit they failed to anticipate what happened on their own streets should expect the public to ask tougher questions.

Start with the government's own immigration figures. France issued about 377,000 first residence permits in 2025, up 9.2% from 2024, according to revised Interior Ministry figures. Permits issued for humanitarian reasons rose 56.8%. The increase is partly explained by protection for people fleeing conflict in Afghanistan and Ukraine. But who calculated the effects on the communities expected to absorb them?

Consider the schools, where the protests began. France’s 2026 plans eliminated more than 3,000 existing teaching positions in certain categories even as the Education Ministry budgeted thousands of other posts. Teachers complained about vacancies, and students described classes of 32 to 36. The ministry points to a historic decline in enrollment. I take it at its word. That makes it all the more important to show how officials reconcile nationwide enrollment projections with the needs of particular neighborhoods.

Who weighs residence permits against available classrooms, housing, local services, and employment? Who decides where resources will follow the people who arrive? If officials have made those calculations, publish them. A government that can count permits can explain their second- and third-order consequences. If it does not ask those questions, it cannot expect the public to believe it cares about the answers.

RELATED: Employee at French GameStop store goes viral in heroic 'battle' against rampaging rioters

David Sepeau/Hans Lucas/AFP/Getty Images

Here is another test. France publishes residence permits by nationality, including the numbers issued to Moroccans and Afghans. After the riots, the Interior Ministry reported arrests, but I have not seen a comparable public breakdown of who was arrested. Publish the numbers and let the public assess them. Silence is no substitute for evidence.

Spain has felt its own pressures. In 2025, an assault on an elderly man in Torre Pacheco became the spark for several nights of anti-migrant clashes. In April this year, Madrid opened an extraordinary program to regularize undocumented migrants, originally expected to reach about half a million people. Housing protests intensified, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called a snap election for November 29. I read these events as a bill coming due for political leaders who must answer for their decisions.

Belfast offered a more immediate example. On June 8, a man was stabbed, and a Sudanese asylum seeker was charged with attempted murder. Mobs then set fire to homes and a city bus. Lists of addresses supposedly belonging to immigrants circulated online. Police brought in reinforcements from Great Britain and used plastic bullets.

Attacking people because of where they live is a crime, and no immigration policy excuses it. But governments cannot ignore demands for public order and then profess surprise when disorder follows. I made that argument in Lyceum, and I stand by it.

Poland chose a different response. In March 2025, it suspended most asylum applications from people crossing its border with Belarus, strengthened border enforcement, and maintained a visible security presence. On October 18, Prime Minister Donald Tusk defended that policy, emphasizing border control and the removal of people who violate Polish law.

RELATED: Macron watched France burn — then blamed the ‘French people.’ Trump: ‘The migrants have taken over.’

Benoit Tessier/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Poland has not escaped demonstrations. Anti-immigration marches took place in more than 80 cities in July 2025, and police separated marchers from counterprotesters. But I have not found riots on the scale of Belfast or France. Critics note that the OECD put Poland's foreign-born population at only 2.2% in 2023. The country also hosts more than a million refugees from Ukraine, and human rights groups challenge its asylum restrictions. Poland proves neither that every restriction works nor that it has settled every concern. It does show a government acting openly on a question voters have pressed it to answer.

Americans should learn from this. Enforcement can rebuild trust; secrecy corrodes it. The Oversight Project sought deportation statistics from the Department of Homeland Security. According to an October 9 Daily Caller report, DHS supplied a fully redacted summary of voluntary departures. I called that a slap in the face, and I meant it.

France should explain its arrests and immigration decisions. The Trump administration should publish the deportation figures it uses to defend its record. Both governments ask the public to trust them. Publish the data regularly, explain what the numbers show, and let citizens judge. If the numbers support the policy, why hide them?

Scott Mechkowski