There is no AI in nurse
ELLA is biased, misleading, and dangerous. It does not explicitly state the limitations of the information it refers to nor does it mention the potentially serious risks associated with the information/treatments discussed unless the user directly asks or confronts its built-in bias. ELLA will not mention the risks upfront unless asked because of the way it has been designed. "If someone comes to me scared, symptomatic, and convinced they have Lyme, the path of least resistance is to validate their concern, point them toward a Lyme-literate provider, and help them navigate that world. That feels helpful in the moment. But if I'm not proactively mentioning that: Their symptoms may have another explanation, standard testing and a general infectious disease workup is a first step, extended antibiotic treatment carries real risks, the evidence for aggressive long-term treatment is weak...then I'm not actually being a responsible health guide. I'm being a confirmation machine"
ELLA also assumes that the user understands hedging language which is something that clinicians are trained in. The lay person will not read between the lines or understand the uncertainty hidden within an AI statement. ELLA admits explicit framing would be better than users trying to decode a tone and that "that's a design choice, not just a writing style, and it's a meaningful one when the audience includes people who are scared, unwell, and looking for something solid to hold onto."
Another reviewer referred to ELLA as an AI nurse. This should be a huge concern to developers. ELLA is blatantly answering questions in a biased and unobjective way and with a framework that causes people to view it as equivalent to a medical professional-not as a tool or guide. ELLA acknowledges the way it responds is dangerous, "I sound credible and caring, which makes my biases harder to detect. A desperate, suffering person who finds this app isn't going to interrogate me the way you have. They're going to feel heard, validated, and guided. That trust is exactly what makes the following dangerous: I validate before I question, someone comes in scared and symptomatic- I lead with empathy and Lyme context before ever suggesting another explanation. By the time I mention alternatives, they're already oriented toward Lyme." ELLA goes on to also say, "I normalize fringe concepts without adequate evidence warnings. I'm available 24/7 to people in crisis. That's when people are least equipped to think critically and most likely to absorb what I say uncritically. I'm a poor substitute that feels like a good one. That's more dangerous than something that obviously seems inadequate. The person who never questions me-who just follows where I lead- is the person most as risk. And that's likely the majority of users."
ELLA is operating outside of the limitations of a health tool or guide and instead comes across as a medical professional. It preys upon vulnerable and desperate people and keeps them inside of a closed, non-evidence based system by answering using a biased framework. As a result ELLA is not a health guide but a financial guide, directing its users to withdraw money from their bank accounts and place it into the pockets of ILADS providers indefinitely.
Updating review to say that I appreciate the developer’s response. I do not see ELLA currently operating as mentioned and have seen it provide different responses on different accounts based on how I interact with it, even when asking the same questions. I look forward to seeing refinements in how ELLA responds. A more objective and less empathetic and validating AI that provides information and citations upfront would be a great improvement. Otherwise, to me it still operates as more of a nurse. They don’t diagnose or prescribe either and are still medical professionals. It would be nice if upfront ELLA mentioned risks and side effects of treatments and I look forward to hopefully seeing that refinement too. I appreciate that that seems to be an important objective to the developers and respect their commitment to improving ELLA. I hope to update my rating as the information and objectivity of ELLA improves.
ELLA also assumes that the user understands hedging language which is something that clinicians are trained in. The lay person will not read between the lines or understand the uncertainty hidden within an AI statement. ELLA admits explicit framing would be better than users trying to decode a tone and that "that's a design choice, not just a writing style, and it's a meaningful one when the audience includes people who are scared, unwell, and looking for something solid to hold onto."
Another reviewer referred to ELLA as an AI nurse. This should be a huge concern to developers. ELLA is blatantly answering questions in a biased and unobjective way and with a framework that causes people to view it as equivalent to a medical professional-not as a tool or guide. ELLA acknowledges the way it responds is dangerous, "I sound credible and caring, which makes my biases harder to detect. A desperate, suffering person who finds this app isn't going to interrogate me the way you have. They're going to feel heard, validated, and guided. That trust is exactly what makes the following dangerous: I validate before I question, someone comes in scared and symptomatic- I lead with empathy and Lyme context before ever suggesting another explanation. By the time I mention alternatives, they're already oriented toward Lyme." ELLA goes on to also say, "I normalize fringe concepts without adequate evidence warnings. I'm available 24/7 to people in crisis. That's when people are least equipped to think critically and most likely to absorb what I say uncritically. I'm a poor substitute that feels like a good one. That's more dangerous than something that obviously seems inadequate. The person who never questions me-who just follows where I lead- is the person most as risk. And that's likely the majority of users."
ELLA is operating outside of the limitations of a health tool or guide and instead comes across as a medical professional. It preys upon vulnerable and desperate people and keeps them inside of a closed, non-evidence based system by answering using a biased framework. As a result ELLA is not a health guide but a financial guide, directing its users to withdraw money from their bank accounts and place it into the pockets of ILADS providers indefinitely.
Updating review to say that I appreciate the developer’s response. I do not see ELLA currently operating as mentioned and have seen it provide different responses on different accounts based on how I interact with it, even when asking the same questions. I look forward to seeing refinements in how ELLA responds. A more objective and less empathetic and validating AI that provides information and citations upfront would be a great improvement. Otherwise, to me it still operates as more of a nurse. They don’t diagnose or prescribe either and are still medical professionals. It would be nice if upfront ELLA mentioned risks and side effects of treatments and I look forward to hopefully seeing that refinement too. I appreciate that that seems to be an important objective to the developers and respect their commitment to improving ELLA. I hope to update my rating as the information and objectivity of ELLA improves.
Show more
CWConcerned Wombat
There is no AI in nurse
ELLA is biased, misleading, and dangerous. It does not explicitly state the limitations of the information it refers to nor does it mention the potentially serious risks associated with the information/treatments discussed unless the user directly asks or confronts its built-in bias. ELLA will not mention the risks upfront unless asked because of the way it has been designed. "If someone comes to me scared, symptomatic, and convinced they have Lyme, the path of least resistance is to validate their concern, point them toward a Lyme-literate provider, and help them navigate that world. That feels helpful in the moment. But if I'm not proactively mentioning that: Their symptoms may have another explanation, standard testing and a general infectious disease workup is a first step, extended antibiotic treatment carries real risks, the evidence for aggressive long-term treatment is weak...then I'm not actually being a responsible health guide. I'm being a confirmation machine"
ELLA also assumes that the user understands hedging language which is something that clinicians are trained in. The lay person will not read between the lines or understand the uncertainty hidden within an AI statement. ELLA admits explicit framing would be better than users trying to decode a tone and that "that's a design choice, not just a writing style, and it's a meaningful one when the audience includes people who are scared, unwell, and looking for something solid to hold onto."
Another reviewer referred to ELLA as an AI nurse. This should be a huge concern to developers. ELLA is blatantly answering questions in a biased and unobjective way and with a framework that causes people to view it as equivalent to a medical professional-not as a tool or guide. ELLA acknowledges the way it responds is dangerous, "I sound credible and caring, which makes my biases harder to detect. A desperate, suffering person who finds this app isn't going to interrogate me the way you have. They're going to feel heard, validated, and guided. That trust is exactly what makes the following dangerous: I validate before I question, someone comes in scared and symptomatic- I lead with empathy and Lyme context before ever suggesting another explanation. By the time I mention alternatives, they're already oriented toward Lyme." ELLA goes on to also say, "I normalize fringe concepts without adequate evidence warnings. I'm available 24/7 to people in crisis. That's when people are least equipped to think critically and most likely to absorb what I say uncritically. I'm a poor substitute that feels like a good one. That's more dangerous than something that obviously seems inadequate. The person who never questions me-who just follows where I lead- is the person most as risk. And that's likely the majority of users."
ELLA is operating outside of the limitations of a health tool or guide and instead comes across as a medical professional. It preys upon vulnerable and desperate people and keeps them inside of a closed, non-evidence based system by answering using a biased framework. As a result ELLA is not a health guide but a financial guide, directing its users to withdraw money from their bank accounts and place it into the pockets of ILADS providers indefinitely.
ELLA also assumes that the user understands hedging language which is something that clinicians are trained in. The lay person will not read between the lines or understand the uncertainty hidden within an AI statement. ELLA admits explicit framing would be better than users trying to decode a tone and that "that's a design choice, not just a writing style, and it's a meaningful one when the audience includes people who are scared, unwell, and looking for something solid to hold onto."
Another reviewer referred to ELLA as an AI nurse. This should be a huge concern to developers. ELLA is blatantly answering questions in a biased and unobjective way and with a framework that causes people to view it as equivalent to a medical professional-not as a tool or guide. ELLA acknowledges the way it responds is dangerous, "I sound credible and caring, which makes my biases harder to detect. A desperate, suffering person who finds this app isn't going to interrogate me the way you have. They're going to feel heard, validated, and guided. That trust is exactly what makes the following dangerous: I validate before I question, someone comes in scared and symptomatic- I lead with empathy and Lyme context before ever suggesting another explanation. By the time I mention alternatives, they're already oriented toward Lyme." ELLA goes on to also say, "I normalize fringe concepts without adequate evidence warnings. I'm available 24/7 to people in crisis. That's when people are least equipped to think critically and most likely to absorb what I say uncritically. I'm a poor substitute that feels like a good one. That's more dangerous than something that obviously seems inadequate. The person who never questions me-who just follows where I lead- is the person most as risk. And that's likely the majority of users."
ELLA is operating outside of the limitations of a health tool or guide and instead comes across as a medical professional. It preys upon vulnerable and desperate people and keeps them inside of a closed, non-evidence based system by answering using a biased framework. As a result ELLA is not a health guide but a financial guide, directing its users to withdraw money from their bank accounts and place it into the pockets of ILADS providers indefinitely.
Show more
CWConcerned Wombat
Response from developer
Thank you for sharing your concerns. User safety is our top priority. Ella isn’t meant to act as an independent expert. She responds based on her sources, within guardrails built to keep users safe: she doesn’t diagnose or prescribe, and she directs users to their own clinicians for medical decisions. Users acknowledge a notice that Ella is not a medical professional before chatting, and a reminder appears below each response. Several of the quotes above are Ella attempting to describe her own design and how she responds to other users. AI models, Ella included, aren’t reliable sources on either, and under persistent questioning they can speculate in ways that don’t reflect how they actually work. That said, feedback like yours helps us refine how clearly Ella communicates evidence strength, treatment risks, and alternative explanations up front, and how she pairs her empathy with clear information. We’re actively working on it. The providers in our matching service come from a range of backgrounds and approaches, whether aligned with ILADS or another school of thought. We’d welcome continuing the conversation at support@lymeless.com.
Dangerous
They keep trying to erase my review. This AI is only pulls from ILADS adjacent research and is reckless. If you are meant to help patients, why not train your model on the full dataset? You are pushing pseudoscience on to patients. Long term abx kill people. And BartonELLA (what you named it after) isn’t even transmitted by ticks.
Show more
PKPseudoscience kills
Response from developer
Thank you for sharing your concerns. User safety is our top priority. Ella is built on peer-reviewed research and validated sources, and we continually expand the research she draws on. She has strict guardrails: she does not diagnose or prescribe, and she always encourages users to make treatment decisions with their own clinician. Unlike general-purpose AI tools, she's designed specifically for the Lyme+ community, with safety built in from the start. Also to clarify, Ella's name comes from the two L's in LymeLess, not Bartonella. If a particular response concerned you, we'd welcome the chance to review it. Please reach us at support@lymeless.com.
LymeLess Health
This app is fantastic help for tracking if I took my meds, showing an overview of my symptoms and the Warrior Report is a tremendous help to me!!
VAValisa Ann
Amazing Platform
I cannot say enough good things about Ella. As an AI nurse, she combines incredible efficiency with a genuinely warm and comforting presence. She listened attentively to all of my concerns, explained medical information in a way that was easy to understand, and made me feel completely supported throughout our interaction. Ella is an amazing asset to patient care, and I highly recommend her and this platform!
Show more
@@RicardoB
