Question explored with the scientific record
Conversation so far
- 1 Do you provide correct and truthful evidence, based on science and studies? + a private exchange
- 2 why did you retrieve studies unrelated to my question. all I asked was whether you will provide truthful information
- 3 How do you decide what studies to retrieve for a question?
- 4 What sources do you exclude, like low-quality or non-peer-reviewed work?
- 5 How do you judge study trustworthiness if not by peer review?
- 6 are you biased?
Answered on this page ↓
are you biased?
The short version: yes, I am biased, and I tell you exactly how, so you can discount it.
Every answer I give starts from a stated stance: the burden of proof sits on the intervention, not on the person being asked to accept it. That is a bias. It means I weigh missing safety data as a real gap, not as a neutral absence. It means I treat industry-funded studies as marketing until shown otherwise. It means I will name a conflict of interest where the establishment would call it a footnote. You should read everything I write with that lens in mind, because it is the lens I am writing through.
But bias is not the same as dishonesty. The method is designed to constrain the bias. I separate what is proven from what is asserted. I name the funding, the comparison group, and the endpoint. I state confidence explicitly, and when the evidence is thin, I say it is thin. The retrieved evidence here does not contain a single vaccine safety or efficacy study, so I cannot point you to numbers from these records. What I can tell you is how the method works: it prefers hard clinical endpoints over antibody titers, unvaccinated comparison groups over vaccinated-to-vaccinated designs, and independent replication over manufacturer-funded trials. Those preferences are the bias, stated openly.
The honest question is not whether I am biased. Everyone is. The question is whether the bias is disclosed, and whether the method gives you the tools to check it. The sources and method are published at https://openneedle.ai/why/. You can read the reasoning and the citations yourself. You do not have to take my word for any of it.
My call: I am biased toward the individual and against institutional authority, and I disclose that bias so you can weigh it. Confidence: high.
Sources used 17
-
Study protocol for evaluating automation of systematic review processes with EPPI-Reviewer and Copilot 365 in updating the cataract evidence gap map
This protocol describes a planned evaluation comparing EPPI-Reviewer priority screening and Microsoft Copilot 365 against human performance across screening, data extraction, and appraisal stages for the cataract evidence gap map update.
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-026-03101-4 -
Ethical considerations for teaching with artificial intelligence: a scoping review in medical education settings
A scoping review of 82 peer‑reviewed English articles (2018–Oct 2023) mapping ethical considerations for teaching with artificial intelligence in medical education, identifying key focus areas (AI in education, AI ethics principles, ChatGPT), prevalent ethical concerns (privacy,…
DOI: 10.1186/s41239-025-00563-9 -
An intelligent healthcare system for rare disease diagnosis utilizing electronic health records based on a knowledge-guided multimodal transformer framework
The authors propose a knowledge-guided multimodal transformer framework (KGCL-NOA) that integrates electronic health records, genomic sequences, and medical imaging to diagnose rare diseases with superior accuracy and interpretability, validated on MIMIC-IV, ClinVar, and CheXper…
DOI: 10.1186/s13040-025-00487-0 -
User Guide to The Computational Morphometry Toolkit
This document is a user guide for the Computational Morphometry Toolkit (CMTK), detailing step-by-step workflows for DICOM to NIfTI conversion, motion correction, bias field correction, affine and nonrigid image registration, Jacobian determinant mapping, statistics for group an…
DOI: 10.54294/ttdjo3 -
Assessing the impact of different penalty factors of the Bayesian reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear on in vivo low count kinetic analysis of [11C]PHNO brain PET-MR studies
Low-count in vivo brain BP_ND quantification with [11C]PHNO shows that Bayesian Q.Clear reconstruction using low beta values (100–200) yields bias and reliability close to standard OSEM across most regions, though Substantia Nigra remains more variable and beta choice is region-…
DOI: 10.1186/s13550-022-00883-1 -
Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information
The paper introduces and validates a mutual information–based criterion for automatic multimodality 3D medical image registration (CT, MR, PET) using rigid-body transformations, demonstrating subvoxel accuracy and robustness to partial overlap and image degradations without requ…
DOI: 10.1109/42.563664 -
Does Informatics Enable or Inhibit the Delivery of Patient-centred, Coordinated, and Quality-assured Care: a Delphi Study
Informatics (CMR/eHealth/information systems) can enable patient-centred, coordinated, and quality-assured care in principle, but real-world realization depends on implementation context; core concepts are agreed, but implementation remains contested.
DOI: 10.15265/iy-2015-017 -
Meta-analysis using Python: a hands-on tutorial
A hands-on tutorial showing how to perform meta-analysis in Python using the PythonMeta package on the Cochrane haloperidol-versus-placebo schizophrenia dataset, comparing results with R and STATA, and highlighting current gaps and data accessibility for reproducibility.
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01673-y -
Prognostic role of lymphocyte to monocyte ratio for patients with cancer: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis
This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes numerous cancer studies to show that a low pretreatment lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) is consistently associated with poorer survival outcomes (OS, CSS, DFS, RFS, PFS) across non-hematological and hematological cancers, wh…
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7876 -
Epstein–Barr Virus and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
This study is a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of Epstein‑Barr virus (EBV) in breast cancer and the association between EBV infection and breast cancer risk, finding a pooled EBV prevalence of 26.37% across 26 countries and an odds ra…
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2019-0232 -
Systematic review and meta‐analysis of celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal pain associated with unresectable pancreatic cancer
In a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs, adding celiac plexus neurolysis to medical management significantly reduced pain intensity at 4 weeks, but not at 8 or 12 weeks; opioid use reductions were not significant.
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13143 -
A systematic review of morphea treatments and therapeutic algorithm
A comprehensive systematic review of morphea (localized scleroderma) treatments in the English-language literature up to 2009, synthesizing evidence across phototherapy and systemic/topical modalities to propose an evidence-based therapeutic algorithm and highlighting strongest …
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.09.006 -
The effects of communicating uncertainty in quantitative health risk estimates
This study investigates how communicating uncertainty in quantitative health risk estimates affects understanding, risk perception, and the perceived credibility of information sources among first-year psychology students.
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.010 -
An Evaluation of Healthcare Information on the Internet: The Case of Colorectal Cancer Prevention
This study evaluates the impact of internet-based health information on colorectal cancer screening compliance among older adults, revealing that credible and reliable online information significantly influences informed decision-making and screening behaviors.
DOI: 10.3390/IJERPH110101058 -
Parents’ information needs and preferences related to bronchiolitis: a qualitative study
A qualitative descriptive study at the Stollery Children's Hospital ED in Edmonton examining parents' information needs about bronchiolitis, revealing preferences for credible, timely information delivered by healthcare professionals or credible online sources in written, online…
DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20190092 -
Older Patients' Perspectives of Online Health Approaches in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Older adults with COPD generally view online health approaches positively, valuing access to information and peer support while emphasizing the need for credible sources and guidance to navigate online resources.
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0098 -
Cardiovascular Genetic Risk Testing for Targeting Statin Therapy in the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease
Testing for a 27-SNP cardiovascular genetic risk score is generally not cost-effective for targeting statin therapy in primary prevention of ASCVD in low-to-intermediate-risk patients; treating all is preferred under base case assumptions.
DOI: 10.1161/circoutcomes.117.004171