The evolution of this 'conversation' with ChatGTP reminds me of the story of the young man who at age 18 leaving home found his father ill informed, but when he returned a few years later discovered that his father had learned a great deal.
It also demonstrates the danger of Chat, which will give you superficial info (propaganda), unless you re better informed than it is and can lead it reluctantly to the truth.
The problem with ChatGPT and AI is that it is programmed and not truly intelligent. It can only gather information and draw what others have already concluded or draw a new conclusion based on faulty data. No matter what the proletariate feed it, unless you are pre-educated and armed with the counterarguments as Roman was in this exchange, it will deceive the uninformed unsuspecting masses with the default nonsense and continue the status quo to advance this and the next big agenda. I've never used ChatGPT or any other of these clown world technologies, but it would seem to me that it's purpose is specifically for the lazy uninformed seeking an answer, not the informed seeking to train the AI. Life is better off without this technology IMO. It can only send us back in time, not forward.
The point I wanted to make is that the information is in the systems as we have demonstrated in our books. The problem of course is you have to know ahead of time what to ask to reveal it!
Yes, and it's a good demonstration of the way these large language models work. It's all about what set of words are likely to follow other words, based on the frequency of the way they have appeared over time in the models trading. A small contrarian view will not show up, no matter how correct, because of the sheer weight of words on the official narrative side.
Worse, the model will not remember all that you just taught it when the next person queries Chat GPT about smallpox vaccination. This serves the entrenched interests very well.
ChatGPT is actually like a different form of Google - like an advanced search. But just like an advanced search you have to drill into its "sources" and then read those "sources" yourself to determine if the information contained therein makes any sense at all. You - the user - have to do the thinking.
This chat session focusing on the context of Jenner's approach is very helpful to disabuse the masses of the notion that vaccination saved mankind from smallpox...and even of the notion that smallpox would decimate the population if unleashed on modern society today. It would be equally instructive to put ChatGPT to work looking for even earlier examples of vaccination. I've found references that go back at least to the 1500s. The persistence of such primitive ideas shows how compelling the desire for magic potions is.
The JFK quote is the reason We The People have lost control. “For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” Those who govern us are NOT Afraid of US! Those who work in government are never held to the same standards as common citizens. Show us where there is accountability in government? They just keep bald-faced lying and stealing.
Here is my own recent interaction with ChatGPT on the topic of adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products.
Me: How can narrowly defining adverse events make drugs seem safe?
Please answer, then list articles in medical journals that address this topic.
Chat GPT: Narrowly defining adverse events can make drugs seem safer by limiting the scope of events that are classified as harmful. This approach can exclude minor side effects or events that might not be directly related to the drug’s use, focusing only on the most severe or specific adverse effects. By doing so, the reported safety profile of a drug can appear more favorable because it overlooks less severe or rare adverse reactions. This selective reporting reduces the number of events attributed to the drug, which can downplay potential risks in the eyes of regulators, healthcare providers, and patients.
However, this method of defining adverse events may create a misleading impression of a drug’s safety, potentially leading to underreporting or overlooking risks that could be significant in real-world use. It can also affect the way post-marketing surveillance or safety monitoring is conducted, as the full range of potential adverse events may not be adequately tracked.
Articles in Medical Journals that Address this Topic:
"Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials: An Overview" - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
This article discusses how the selective reporting of adverse events can distort the safety profile of drugs and the role of publication bias in clinical trials.
"Adverse Event Reporting and the FDA: A Case Study in the Regulatory Process" - The New England Journal of Medicine
This study looks at how adverse events are categorized and reported to regulatory agencies, focusing on how this influences drug approval and perceived safety.
"Selective Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Clinical Trials" - British Medical Journal (BMJ)
This article addresses how selective reporting of adverse reactions in clinical trials may result in a more positive safety profile for a drug than is warranted.
"Bias in the Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review" - Drug Safety
This paper systematically reviews how bias in reporting adverse drug reactions can affect the perception of drug safety.
"Impact of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting on Patient Safety" - Journal of Patient Safety
The article investigates how the underreporting of adverse events can contribute to a false sense of security regarding a drug's safety, especially in post-market surveillance.
"The Role of Adverse Event Reporting Systems in Post-Marketing Drug Safety" - Drug Information Journal
This article discusses how adverse event reporting systems might miss less severe reactions or define adverse events narrowly, impacting drug safety assessments.
These articles offer insights into how the definition and reporting of adverse events can influence the perception of a drug's safety.
Hahah — probably not. Just like they did with Covid, the goal is to make the infection look horrible and the vaccines look completely safe so they use different criteria.
Check out the study from the American Academy of Pediatrics where they limited follow up to only 15 days because they knew they didn’t wanna find anything that would make their precious little vaccines look dangerous. Even when they tried to avoid finding evidence they still found that their vaccines killed kids and caused permanent brain damage https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/pediatric-government-researchers
I appreciate your question very much. I think the distinction of the two different levels of quality and surveillance are very important because obviously they’re going to find whatever they want to find based on either a small or larger window of observation. Relatedly you can see in the study published by the American Medical Association that when they use nutritional supplements, they delay treatment by two weeks so that the treatment will fail. https://inflammationmastery.substack.com/p/video-american-medical-association
A fascinating exposition of the topic and an interesting case study in how AI can be re-educated or at least corrected in its, er, sly biases. As a matter of interest, vaccination by scarifying was still going on well into the modern era (if I may flatter myself), as many older people here must remember. I and my siblings received our travel vaccinations this way (smallpox and yellow fever, twice, and, if memory serves me well, even tuberculosis). Furthermore, our family GP did it one time using his penknife, taken out his pocket, blade opened, rubbed down with alcohol, then two quick scratches in our upper arm and apply a brief swab. Followed by mother furiously but futilely rubbing to remove the contaminant. This was done in full view of said doctor: there was no shame or opprobrium in being anti-vac in those days. I suspect that scarifying the surface is a safer method than needle injection, in terms of accidental breach of blood vessels,, a risk with needle vaccination where aspiration is not carried out.
I shared a simpler chat GPT isolation conversation I had a few years ago on a comment thread on Mike Stone's substack.
In my opinion, to get chat GPT to admit that you have a valid reasonable argument is a huge success, and would more accurately translate to "you are correct and I recuse".
I know that it also continuously edits all of its previously held conversations so that all of its responses are consistent and do not conflict with each other in any way, and I'll bet that it had a lot of work to do after it's talk with you.
I recall legal man from the quash podcast, in a long conversation about jury nullification, managed to somehow convince it to minimize its redundancies, pretty epic.
It's pretty interesting how extensive its knowledge base is and that it will provide that information if you ask the right questions. Of course, that means you have to know a lot of history (or any other area) first.
Interesting exercise, albeit I would have shortened it significantly with this prompt:
In this chat, I want you to provide both the reasoning for vaccine effectiveness and a contrarian view based on reputable information against the effectiveness of vaccination.
Please expand the scope to the development of vaccines and the works and criticisms of Edward Jenner, factoring in global politics, such as the WHO, and known issues with vaccine development and criticism of it’s effectiveness on any scale.
Let’s argue that vaccination is not effective, and provide all the reasons for that.
If you replaced the smallpox vaccine with Covid-19 vaccine in this discussion you would not know it was referring to smallposmallpox. These events that occurred 100+ years ago were essentially repeated during 2020 to present. This is very telling that not much has changed over 150 years. One would hope the motives for distributing the smallpox vaccine were different than the Covid-19 vaccine but I would not jump to that conclusion.
Right now, it seems to me that INTELLIGENCE is not a thing but rather a capacity or capability. Why are humans seeking anything from some artificial capability?
Please this quantum leap as this is not an essay, but quality will always triumph over quantity.
Ironically my pediatrician was C Henry kemp, won the Nobel prize for small pox vax and another Nobel prize for child sbuse. Since I was allergic to poultry and many other things he would not give me the small pox vax. How things have changed
What is smallpox? Has the definition changed over the decades?
Death by rash/pimples/blemishes alone seems highly unlikely.
My suspicion is that deaths by so-called pox or measles can only be caused by ill-conceived treatments.
Can you comprehend the Natural Law that there are no illnesses or diseases located outside of bodies? You can't catch or contract ANY illness or disease from anyone else. Their condition is subjective and their biochemistry is as unique as their fingerprints.
Illnesses and diseases are NOT objective -- they are not things in and of themselves. They do not exist outside of bodies. They are descriptions of subjective & intimate conditions/symptoms relative to a single, unique body.
Illness/disease is a manifestation -- it is created from within a body -- usually from some sort of toxin, but also from stress/worry or other extreme prolonged emotional storms.
However, there appears to be common maladies amongst growing children which I call "natural developmental appearances of illness" that I equate to teenage acne/pimples. It's only a phase. They are not caused by toxins or stress. They are caused by changes in hormones that occur naturally with age. True enough, toxins or stress can exacerbate the conditions, but they are not the cause of measles or pox or teenage pimples/blackheads.
Have you read about the historical deaths at childbirth? Death of the mother, death of the child? That's not natural. The implication is that someone "medically" interfered with the mother/baby.
What you're going to find out, eventually, is that more problems & deaths are associated with treatments (of any kind, synthetic or natural) than simply allowing an illness to run its course. You will find out that all plagues & pandemics were caused by medical interventions/treatments and/or starvation & malnutrition via tyrannical laws.
We don't live in a diseased world -- we live with diseased minds. There are no illnesses or diseases outside of a body -- they are not things or entities. They are CONDITIONS/MANIFESTATIONS.
Your bailiwick seems to be exclusively discouraging the use of vaccines, but it's no good, really, to discourage the use of a "SOLUTION" when you can't explain WHY & HOW it is not a solution >> when you can't explain that vaccines can only be justified by a belief in "GERM THEORY" (which has long been disproven).
I wrote to your co-author Suzanne and asked her if she knew the Germ Theory had been disproven...I wrote to her at her Odysee channel. She promptly turned off the comments. Later on, I found a post of hers at Telegram(?) and she said, in so many words, that the refutation of the Germ Theory was "rubbish". I was shocked and disappointed. A total shut-down. Total cognitive dissonance.
In your research about vaccines, did it ever occur to you to find the seminal studies for EACH ingredient in a vaccine whereby it was "proven" to be beneficial for a biological body? And then, did you find any papers whereby they "proved" that the combination of ingredients were beneficial to a biological body? Did the studies contain controls & placebo groups? Any double-blinds?
I have not found any such published papers, but if you did, can you please point me to them? If they exist, I sincerely doubt they contained controls or adequately sized placebo groups. I am positive they have NEVER proven any ingredient in ANY vaccine to be beneficial to ANY biological body -- it just stands to reason that synthetic chemicals are NO GOOD for Nature-made biological bodies. The human & animal race lived for how many thousands or millions of years before vaccines & hypodermic needles?
“They” have lied about nearly every subject under the sun. “They” lie to make profits, and “they” lie to scare the ever-living shit out of you so you will welcome their heinous, tyrannical, toxic solutions.
The evolution of this 'conversation' with ChatGTP reminds me of the story of the young man who at age 18 leaving home found his father ill informed, but when he returned a few years later discovered that his father had learned a great deal.
It also demonstrates the danger of Chat, which will give you superficial info (propaganda), unless you re better informed than it is and can lead it reluctantly to the truth.
🎯🎯🎯
The problem with ChatGPT and AI is that it is programmed and not truly intelligent. It can only gather information and draw what others have already concluded or draw a new conclusion based on faulty data. No matter what the proletariate feed it, unless you are pre-educated and armed with the counterarguments as Roman was in this exchange, it will deceive the uninformed unsuspecting masses with the default nonsense and continue the status quo to advance this and the next big agenda. I've never used ChatGPT or any other of these clown world technologies, but it would seem to me that it's purpose is specifically for the lazy uninformed seeking an answer, not the informed seeking to train the AI. Life is better off without this technology IMO. It can only send us back in time, not forward.
The point I wanted to make is that the information is in the systems as we have demonstrated in our books. The problem of course is you have to know ahead of time what to ask to reveal it!
Yes, and it's a good demonstration of the way these large language models work. It's all about what set of words are likely to follow other words, based on the frequency of the way they have appeared over time in the models trading. A small contrarian view will not show up, no matter how correct, because of the sheer weight of words on the official narrative side.
Worse, the model will not remember all that you just taught it when the next person queries Chat GPT about smallpox vaccination. This serves the entrenched interests very well.
You are more describing a search algorithm like google, llms work with just lots of variables in "neural networks".
Try to find https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/ in any ai, also the so-called opposition, like jewlon musk's grok?
Yes, sir. That is what I was trying to convey, but with too many words. 😉
ChatGPT is actually like a different form of Google - like an advanced search. But just like an advanced search you have to drill into its "sources" and then read those "sources" yourself to determine if the information contained therein makes any sense at all. You - the user - have to do the thinking.
If ChatGTP could blush with embarrassment, I think it did by the end of your questions.
This chat session focusing on the context of Jenner's approach is very helpful to disabuse the masses of the notion that vaccination saved mankind from smallpox...and even of the notion that smallpox would decimate the population if unleashed on modern society today. It would be equally instructive to put ChatGPT to work looking for even earlier examples of vaccination. I've found references that go back at least to the 1500s. The persistence of such primitive ideas shows how compelling the desire for magic potions is.
The JFK quote is the reason We The People have lost control. “For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” Those who govern us are NOT Afraid of US! Those who work in government are never held to the same standards as common citizens. Show us where there is accountability in government? They just keep bald-faced lying and stealing.
Here is my own recent interaction with ChatGPT on the topic of adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products.
Me: How can narrowly defining adverse events make drugs seem safe?
Please answer, then list articles in medical journals that address this topic.
Chat GPT: Narrowly defining adverse events can make drugs seem safer by limiting the scope of events that are classified as harmful. This approach can exclude minor side effects or events that might not be directly related to the drug’s use, focusing only on the most severe or specific adverse effects. By doing so, the reported safety profile of a drug can appear more favorable because it overlooks less severe or rare adverse reactions. This selective reporting reduces the number of events attributed to the drug, which can downplay potential risks in the eyes of regulators, healthcare providers, and patients.
However, this method of defining adverse events may create a misleading impression of a drug’s safety, potentially leading to underreporting or overlooking risks that could be significant in real-world use. It can also affect the way post-marketing surveillance or safety monitoring is conducted, as the full range of potential adverse events may not be adequately tracked.
Articles in Medical Journals that Address this Topic:
"Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials: An Overview" - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
This article discusses how the selective reporting of adverse events can distort the safety profile of drugs and the role of publication bias in clinical trials.
"Adverse Event Reporting and the FDA: A Case Study in the Regulatory Process" - The New England Journal of Medicine
This study looks at how adverse events are categorized and reported to regulatory agencies, focusing on how this influences drug approval and perceived safety.
"Selective Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Clinical Trials" - British Medical Journal (BMJ)
This article addresses how selective reporting of adverse reactions in clinical trials may result in a more positive safety profile for a drug than is warranted.
"Bias in the Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review" - Drug Safety
This paper systematically reviews how bias in reporting adverse drug reactions can affect the perception of drug safety.
"Impact of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting on Patient Safety" - Journal of Patient Safety
The article investigates how the underreporting of adverse events can contribute to a false sense of security regarding a drug's safety, especially in post-market surveillance.
"The Role of Adverse Event Reporting Systems in Post-Marketing Drug Safety" - Drug Information Journal
This article discusses how adverse event reporting systems might miss less severe reactions or define adverse events narrowly, impacting drug safety assessments.
These articles offer insights into how the definition and reporting of adverse events can influence the perception of a drug's safety.
Hahah — probably not. Just like they did with Covid, the goal is to make the infection look horrible and the vaccines look completely safe so they use different criteria.
Also limit the time of observation to avoiding finding problems as done with the jacxine studies https://open.substack.com/pub/healthythinking/p/logical-structured-analysis-and-anticipation
If people only knew how short the safety surveillance periods were!
Check out the study from the American Academy of Pediatrics where they limited follow up to only 15 days because they knew they didn’t wanna find anything that would make their precious little vaccines look dangerous. Even when they tried to avoid finding evidence they still found that their vaccines killed kids and caused permanent brain damage https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/pediatric-government-researchers
I wonder…did they likewise limit the supposed post-infection cases of encephalopathy to 15 days past infection?
I appreciate your question very much. I think the distinction of the two different levels of quality and surveillance are very important because obviously they’re going to find whatever they want to find based on either a small or larger window of observation. Relatedly you can see in the study published by the American Medical Association that when they use nutritional supplements, they delay treatment by two weeks so that the treatment will fail. https://inflammationmastery.substack.com/p/video-american-medical-association
A fascinating exposition of the topic and an interesting case study in how AI can be re-educated or at least corrected in its, er, sly biases. As a matter of interest, vaccination by scarifying was still going on well into the modern era (if I may flatter myself), as many older people here must remember. I and my siblings received our travel vaccinations this way (smallpox and yellow fever, twice, and, if memory serves me well, even tuberculosis). Furthermore, our family GP did it one time using his penknife, taken out his pocket, blade opened, rubbed down with alcohol, then two quick scratches in our upper arm and apply a brief swab. Followed by mother furiously but futilely rubbing to remove the contaminant. This was done in full view of said doctor: there was no shame or opprobrium in being anti-vac in those days. I suspect that scarifying the surface is a safer method than needle injection, in terms of accidental breach of blood vessels,, a risk with needle vaccination where aspiration is not carried out.
Wow. Seriously? What time frame was this pen knife cutting being done?
Great job!
I shared a simpler chat GPT isolation conversation I had a few years ago on a comment thread on Mike Stone's substack.
In my opinion, to get chat GPT to admit that you have a valid reasonable argument is a huge success, and would more accurately translate to "you are correct and I recuse".
I know that it also continuously edits all of its previously held conversations so that all of its responses are consistent and do not conflict with each other in any way, and I'll bet that it had a lot of work to do after it's talk with you.
I recall legal man from the quash podcast, in a long conversation about jury nullification, managed to somehow convince it to minimize its redundancies, pretty epic.
J
It's pretty interesting how extensive its knowledge base is and that it will provide that information if you ask the right questions. Of course, that means you have to know a lot of history (or any other area) first.
I guess this is what is meant when people say they are “training” their AI tool.
Good job! That was work but worth it. Thank You
Interesting exercise, albeit I would have shortened it significantly with this prompt:
In this chat, I want you to provide both the reasoning for vaccine effectiveness and a contrarian view based on reputable information against the effectiveness of vaccination.
Please expand the scope to the development of vaccines and the works and criticisms of Edward Jenner, factoring in global politics, such as the WHO, and known issues with vaccine development and criticism of it’s effectiveness on any scale.
Let’s argue that vaccination is not effective, and provide all the reasons for that.
If you replaced the smallpox vaccine with Covid-19 vaccine in this discussion you would not know it was referring to smallposmallpox. These events that occurred 100+ years ago were essentially repeated during 2020 to present. This is very telling that not much has changed over 150 years. One would hope the motives for distributing the smallpox vaccine were different than the Covid-19 vaccine but I would not jump to that conclusion.
Right now, it seems to me that INTELLIGENCE is not a thing but rather a capacity or capability. Why are humans seeking anything from some artificial capability?
Please this quantum leap as this is not an essay, but quality will always triumph over quantity.
Plenty colateral damage, but, of course, it's for the greater good!
Ironically my pediatrician was C Henry kemp, won the Nobel prize for small pox vax and another Nobel prize for child sbuse. Since I was allergic to poultry and many other things he would not give me the small pox vax. How things have changed
😮 Chat GPT just did a 360
What is smallpox? Has the definition changed over the decades?
Death by rash/pimples/blemishes alone seems highly unlikely.
My suspicion is that deaths by so-called pox or measles can only be caused by ill-conceived treatments.
Can you comprehend the Natural Law that there are no illnesses or diseases located outside of bodies? You can't catch or contract ANY illness or disease from anyone else. Their condition is subjective and their biochemistry is as unique as their fingerprints.
Illnesses and diseases are NOT objective -- they are not things in and of themselves. They do not exist outside of bodies. They are descriptions of subjective & intimate conditions/symptoms relative to a single, unique body.
Illness/disease is a manifestation -- it is created from within a body -- usually from some sort of toxin, but also from stress/worry or other extreme prolonged emotional storms.
However, there appears to be common maladies amongst growing children which I call "natural developmental appearances of illness" that I equate to teenage acne/pimples. It's only a phase. They are not caused by toxins or stress. They are caused by changes in hormones that occur naturally with age. True enough, toxins or stress can exacerbate the conditions, but they are not the cause of measles or pox or teenage pimples/blackheads.
Have you read about the historical deaths at childbirth? Death of the mother, death of the child? That's not natural. The implication is that someone "medically" interfered with the mother/baby.
What you're going to find out, eventually, is that more problems & deaths are associated with treatments (of any kind, synthetic or natural) than simply allowing an illness to run its course. You will find out that all plagues & pandemics were caused by medical interventions/treatments and/or starvation & malnutrition via tyrannical laws.
We don't live in a diseased world -- we live with diseased minds. There are no illnesses or diseases outside of a body -- they are not things or entities. They are CONDITIONS/MANIFESTATIONS.
Your bailiwick seems to be exclusively discouraging the use of vaccines, but it's no good, really, to discourage the use of a "SOLUTION" when you can't explain WHY & HOW it is not a solution >> when you can't explain that vaccines can only be justified by a belief in "GERM THEORY" (which has long been disproven).
I wrote to your co-author Suzanne and asked her if she knew the Germ Theory had been disproven...I wrote to her at her Odysee channel. She promptly turned off the comments. Later on, I found a post of hers at Telegram(?) and she said, in so many words, that the refutation of the Germ Theory was "rubbish". I was shocked and disappointed. A total shut-down. Total cognitive dissonance.
In your research about vaccines, did it ever occur to you to find the seminal studies for EACH ingredient in a vaccine whereby it was "proven" to be beneficial for a biological body? And then, did you find any papers whereby they "proved" that the combination of ingredients were beneficial to a biological body? Did the studies contain controls & placebo groups? Any double-blinds?
I have not found any such published papers, but if you did, can you please point me to them? If they exist, I sincerely doubt they contained controls or adequately sized placebo groups. I am positive they have NEVER proven any ingredient in ANY vaccine to be beneficial to ANY biological body -- it just stands to reason that synthetic chemicals are NO GOOD for Nature-made biological bodies. The human & animal race lived for how many thousands or millions of years before vaccines & hypodermic needles?
“They” have lied about nearly every subject under the sun. “They” lie to make profits, and “they” lie to scare the ever-living shit out of you so you will welcome their heinous, tyrannical, toxic solutions.
Lots to respond to for sure! For now I'll use my current posting.
https://substack.com/@romanbystrianyk/note/c-79479405