If you look at my profile picture, it shows a red gemstone. That is a red spinel, it's real and I bought it back in 1976 for $5. I've always assumed it was synthetic and I've been told by gemologists that it's "synthetic," because it has no inclusions, even up to 80x under a microscope.
Last week I was playing with perplexity.ai (a free lower grade ai) and I asked it how I could conclusively determine if it was natural. (Red spinels are, if they have no inclusions are extremely difficult to define as synthetic or natural--natural that's worth about $2,000 if synthetic it's worth about $2.
The ai said: Try a magnet, and I did. To my amazement the spinal was attracted to the magnet proving that it had iron in it, and NO synthetics do--it was natural. Woohooo.
How does this relate to PCa? Ask it questions and although (this ai, anyway) does not have access to the most recent data/studies, it does have access to quite a lot. And if I don't understand, I can ask it to simplify.
One caveat: It always does the: "Go ask your doc, bit." Fair enough, but to get deeper I've found that if I say, "stop with the go see the doc crap," it will.
YMMV and I find it rather fun, too, but then, uh....always check with your Practitioner (too).
And it might give you a really helpful answer on occasion--try it.
Btw, I'm about 85% of the way though GIA (Gemological Institute of America's Graduate Gemologist program) so when I say it's conclusively real, I'm 99.9% sure, but I'll still send it off to the GIA lab and they'll do x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy to confirm it. But I've asked several graduate gemologists and not one ever said: "use a magnet." That's neat.
Written by
Spinel_Cutter
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
ima gonna preface this with the QOL prefix to appease the naysayers , if any.
First , ….. I read this and thought it was someone messing around with me. The circumnavigation thought train , fragmented to land exactly on target - where you wanted …feels like I’m looking in a mind mirror. Not the droid this, that, conclusion stuff. I mean , I’m serious … it’s pretty kewl. ( this will probably get a lot of chuckles here, remember those old “ suspicions confirmed “ cartoons ? ).
I have a paid access to the high level ChatAI , and now even, Apple has loaded their OS AI into my phone. For sure ChatAI is fast and can analyze things into oblivion … and present excellent analytics. I’ve never seen it stumble …. But even more capable AIs are coming along like wildfire and all better than the next past older version. I frequently ask it questions about my medical needs and experiences and it comes up with both protocol answers and out of the box new questions. Most recently I’ve asked a lot about interactions between meds / new meds and importantly mixed SEs.
So , yea brother …. Thanks for reminding / alerting the brothers … plus I’d like to say that Darryl ( one of the group owners ) has recently come out with his own ( professional ) AI resources for group members as well. His are noteworthy and well worth giving a look too.
Good post for the information gatherer’s on the group brother. Not saying AIs are the end all - be all but AIs do give helpful results much of the time.
"And it might give you a really helpful answer on occasion--try it." How would you judge if the medical response is "really helpful" or misinformation making you agnorant. BTW _ I like Perplexity more than ChatGPT because at least it tells you its sources. But it doesn't evaluate those sources, as a Cochrane Review does (with actual science).
You know the very same way you know Tall_Allen. Look at the sources and judge those. If it's an article from a Canter Center of Excellence versus one from "Save_Your_Life_Buy_From_Us," you'll get a general ideal. I'll agree everything must be weighed and scrutinized, including what our docs tell us.
How does one access and use Cochrane Review? I used to have access to it, long ago, around 2008 when I worked for GM, we had about 50 occupational health clinics then and we all had access to it, and it was useful. I suspect that GM paid a lot for access.
You don't know if there is more recent higher level-of-evidence and higher GRADE sources. You only know what it tells you it used, not what it didn't use.
Cochrane Reviews are published in peer-reviewed journals as part of the authors' due diligence in performing a meta-analysis.
I tried most of the AI chatbots. Must say that Perplexity which uses the Deepsink engine does give more detailed and complete information, especially using the Pro research. Its important to ask the right questions of what you want to know. So I found it that it disagrees somehow with my Oncologist concerning my actual treatment. I already knew, but usually doctors aren't very literat with Computers, also she might get offended when I would show the results to her.
The AI confirmed to me that Italy is using a more bureaucratic approach with treatment than for instance Germany, thus not applying the latest findings.
Perplexity is an amazing tool; I use it a lot! You can load an entire PDF medical report and ask it questions about what it all means and it will read, disassemble, evaluate and reply to each of your questions. It also allows you to pick which Ai platform you want to use, including Deep Seek (...passed on that one). It recently uploaded Deep Research which is even more detailed; it can take 20-30 minutes to come back with an extensive, wide ranging report. Perplexity also provides you the references it used to generate the Summary report you are relying on...but (there is always a but)...
It can be wrong! I have caught it making flat out mistakes in its conclusions. This has happened to me twice in the last 3 years, but it did occur. I then tell it that it misread the reference and it apologizes, stating it has corrected this error and will not repeat it (pretty freaky stuff)...but, when/ why do you check conclusions? If you can read all the references and make sure what the Summary says is corroborated in the documentation attached. But, if you have a Life to live and no time to do that, then choose when to check the result. For me, if the summary conclusion results in central challenges to the SOC you are receiving, or if it presents a new treatment regime not offered by your medical team, then double check the reference. Read the study abstract, or reference yourself; make sure the conclusion matches the summary!
So, use this tool; you wont ever, ever go back to a google search. You can ask Perplexity a question in paragraph form, include your background information, add (as I stated) a PDF of your medical report, choose which Ai platform you want..., then launch the search. In fact I need to be compensated for this post as I am shilling without remuneration.
Seriously, get this or any other Ai platform. Go into your Doctor's appointment 'locked and loaded' as we said back in the day. You will be amazed at how compliant, respectful and cooperative your doctor will be when you have the facts. I have found that they are more willing to write scripts for additional testing that previously they would just turn down as bunk requests.
That's it; church is out. TNX Rick
PS if you get Perplexity pop for the PRO version. Free is free and it works OK, but the PRO search is at another level.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
A 5 min test 
Alliance for Proton Therapy Access
In Search Of "Alternative Natural ADT" Please Help!
Flaxseed
What AI should i be using for my cancer research 
