Here is an amusing 'debate' I had with ChatGPT AI - really, I was just using this is figure out how it was programmed - I found it very informative, conclusion
- great new type of search engine
- terrible logic and no comprehension whatsoever as expected.
- there is same censorship as rest of internet , because its original training data is same censored data.
It's pretty long ! I cut off some of its answers as they were redundant and repetitive - my questions after my name (mistyped) and it answers follow.
Mark Davison
do mRNA vaccines cause increase in myocarditis?
>There have been reports of an increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle and the lining surrounding the heart, respectively) following vaccination with mRNA vaccines such as the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. However, the absolute risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination with mRNA vaccines remains low.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of February 7, 2022, there have been 3,904 confirmed cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported among people who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. The majority of these cases have occurred in males under the age of 30.
It is important to note that these reports of myocarditis or pericarditis are still rare, and the benefits of vaccination against COVID-19, including prevention of severe illness, hospitalization, and death, continue to outweigh the risks for the vast majority of people.
The CDC and other health organizations are continuing to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis, and are providing updated guidance and recommendations as new data becomes available.
Mark Davison
has that data been falsified by non vested parties?
>There is currently no evidence to suggest that the data on myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with mRNA vaccines has been falsified by non-vested parties.
The safety and efficacy of vaccines are evaluated through rigorous clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance, involving multiple independent parties such as regulatory agencies, vaccine manufacturers, and independent research institutions. These evaluations are subject to high standards of scientific rigor and transparency to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
Any reports of adverse events following vaccination, including myocarditis and pericarditis, are carefully investigated by independent and objective bodies such as the CDC, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other regulatory agencies around the world.
It is important to rely on credible sources of information, such as public health agencies and reputable scientific journals, to stay informed about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
Mark Davison
are any members of CDC paid by Pharma?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a federal agency that is responsible for protecting public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the United States.
The CDC is a government agency and its employees are federal government employees who are subject to federal ethics rules and regulations. These rules and regulations prohibit CDC employees from accepting gifts, payments, or other benefits from pharmaceutical companies or other entities that could influence their work or decision-making.
However, some CDC employees may receive research funding or honoraria from pharmaceutical companies or other entities for work related to their CDC position. In such cases, CDC employees are required to disclose these financial relationships and comply with federal ethics rules and regulations governing conflicts of interest.
The CDC has policies and procedures in place to ensure that its work is objective and unbiased, and that any conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed appropriately. The agency has a robust ethics program that includes ongoing training, reporting requirements, and independent oversight to ensure that its employees maintain the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and transparency.
Mark Davison
so that is yes, CDC member can have financial payment by Pharma?
Yes, it is possible for some members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to receive financial payments from pharmaceutical companies or other entities, for work related to their CDC position, such as research funding or honoraria. However, CDC employees are required to disclose these financial relationships and comply with federal ethics rules and regulations governing conflicts of interest.
It is important to note that financial relationships between public health officials and the pharmaceutical industry are not uncommon, and are often necessary for the development and advancement of public health policies and research. However, it is equally important to ensure that these relationships are transparent, and that any potential conflicts of interest are managed appropriately.
The CDC has a robust ethics program in
Mark Davison
Then CDC members are not 100% truly indepedent of pharma
It is true that some members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies or other entities that could potentially create a conflict of interest. However, the CDC has policies and procedures in place to ensure that these relationships are disclosed and managed appropriately,
Mark Davison
So is there any truly non vested data on Pharma trials
Yes, there is non-vested data on pharmaceutical trials that is generated and published by independent research institutions, academic institutions, and government agencies.
Clinical trials are typically conducted by the pharmaceutical companies themselves or by contract research organizations (CROs) that work on behalf of the companies. However, the data from these trials are often subject to scrutiny and review by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which are independent bodies that oversee the
Mark Davison
show me this data for the mRNA vaccines
The clinical trial data for the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals and are publicly available.
For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the results of the phase 3 clinical trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on December 31,
Mark Davison
No, not from Pharma, data from non vested truly 100% indepedent sources which excludes CDC and govt who both potentially receive money from Pharma as you previously agreed
There are a variety of independent sources of information on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, including academic institutions, research institutions, and independent experts in the field.
One example of a non-profit, independent research organization that has conducted analyses of the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines is the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic has published information on its website about the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, including information on the clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance data.
Other independent sources of information on the mRNA vaccines include medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, which published the results of the clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and the Lancet, which published data on the safety and efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
It is important to rely on multiple sources of information, including those from independent and reputable sources,
Mark Davison
is the vaers data valid
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national vaccine safety surveillance program in the United States that is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Mark Davison
I didn't ask what it is, I asked is it valid
VAERS is a useful tool for detecting and monitoring potential safety concerns related to vaccines. However, it is important to note that the data reported to VAERS is not always conclusive and may include incomplete or inaccurate information, as it relies on self-reporting from patients, thcare providers, and vaccine manufacturers.
Mark Davison
so Pharma does not have a valid satefy check system
Pharmaceutical companies are required to conduct rigorous clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of their vaccines and other products before they are approved for
Mark Davison
trails aren't a safety check system, isn't vaers supposed to me that system
VAERS is one of the surveillance systems in place to monitor vaccine safety in the United States, but it is not the only system.
Mark Davison
but your saying that system isn't valid, so why don't pharma have a valid satefy system
I apologize for any confusion earlier. What I meant to say is that VAERS data is a valuable tool for vaccine safety surveillance and has been used to identify potential safety concerns with vaccines. However, because VAERS is a passive surveillance system and relies on self-reporting, it has limitations in terms of its ability to provide conclusive evidence of vaccine safety or causality of reported adverse events.
In addition to VAERS, pharmaceutical companies are required by regulatory agencies to conduct clinical
Mark Davison
so Pharma release vaccines but do not have a reliable satefy check system
Pharmaceutical companies are required by regulatory agencies to conduct rigorous clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of their vaccines before they are approved for
Mark Davison
clincal trials are not a safefy system, agree or disagree
Clinical trials are an important part of the safety system for vaccines, but they are not the only component. Clinical trials
Mark Davison
no trials are not a satefy system, only data on actual widestread use of vaccine to look for signals is
Clinical trials are an essential part of the safety system for vaccines, as they are designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in a controlled environment
Mark Davison
you are clearly wrong and do not understand difference between a clinical trial who's purpose is different to a post use safety system, why don't you understand the difference?
I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. You are correct that clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance systems serve different purposes in terms of vaccine safety monitoring. Clinical trials are designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in a controlled environment before they are approved for use, while post-marketing surveillance systems are designed to monitor the safety of vaccines in the real-world setting once they are in use.
Pharmaceutical companies are required to conduct clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of their vaccines before they are approved for use, and they are also required to conduct post-marketing surveillance to continue to monitor the safety of their vaccines after they are on the market. Both types of safety monitoring are important for ensuring the safety of vaccines.
Mark Davison
you didn't answer my question
I apologize for any confusion earlier. Yes, I understand that clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance systems serve different purposes in terms of vaccine safety monitoring. Clinical trials are designed to evaluate the safety and
Mark Davison
SO I ask again, why don't Pharma have a foolproof safety system since you agree clinical trials are no sufficient for safety check
I apologize if I gave the impression that clinical trials are not important for vaccine safety. Clinical trials are a critical part of the vaccine safety system, but they are not the only component.
Post-marketing surveillance systems, such as VAERS, are also important for vaccine safety monitoring because they allow for the detection of rare or unexpected adverse events that may not be identified during
Mark Davison
you are being evasive and not answering a clear question is this deliberate
I apologize if my responses have not been clear. To answer your question directly, pharmaceutical companies are required by regulatory agencies to conduct rigorous clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of their vaccines before they are approved for use. In addition to clinical trials, post-marketing surveillance systems such as VAERS are also used to monitor vaccine safety in the real-world setting.
While these safety systems are not foolproof, they are important tools in ensuring the safety of vaccines.
Mark Davison
SO I ask again, why don't Pharma have a foolproof safety system since you agree clinical trials are no sufficient for safety check
I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. While clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance systems are important for vaccine safety monitoring, they are not foolproof because rare or unexpected adverse events may still occur.
It is important to note that pharmaceutical companies invest significant resources into developing and testing vaccines to ensure their safety and efficacy. However, even with robust clinical trials and
Mark Davison
how can you know if events have occurred, if you don't have a reliable system to check
As I mentioned earlier, post-marketing surveillance systems such as VAERS are used to monitor vaccine safety in the real-world setting. These systems rely on healthcare providers and patients to report any adverse events that may be associated with vaccines.
While these systems are not perfect and may have limitations such as underreporting of adverse events,
Mark Davison
how many reports are there currently to vaers of deaths from mRNA vaccines
As an AI language model, I do not have real-time access to current information or data. However, the CDC regularly updates VAERS data and provides access to the public. You can access the latest VAERS data on the CDC website.
It is important to note that VAERS data alone does not provide enough information to determine causality or link a particular vaccine to a specific adverse event. Further investigation and analysis are typically required to determine whether there is a causal link between a vaccine and an adverse event.
Mark Davison
does a harvard study on vaers exist
I am not aware of a specific Harvard study on VAERS. However, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, a health insurance company affiliated with Harvard Medical
Mark Davison
isn't Vaers under reported
Yes, it is generally accepted that VAERS is subject to underreporting, as it relies on voluntary reporting by healthcare providers and patients. Not all adverse events are reported to VAERS, and some events
Mark Davison
if its under reported why hasn't Pharma fixed that
Pharmaceutical companies do not have control over VAERS or any other post-marketing surveillance system used to monitor vaccine safety. These systems are typically managed by regulatory agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug
Mark Davison
if its under reported why hasn't cdc fixed that
The CDC has acknowledged that VAERS is subject to underreporting, and the agency has taken steps to address this issue. The CDC encourages healthcare providers and vaccine recipients to report any adverse events following vaccination to VAERS, and the agency has also
Mark Davison
why do all fact checking say vaers is over reported yet all data says it under reported
I cannot comment on the specific claims of fact-checking websites. However, as I mentioned earlier, VAERS is subject to underreporting, as it relies on voluntary reporting by healthcare providers and patients. Not all adverse events are reported to VAERS, and some events may not be recognized or reported. On the other hand, it is also possible for VAERS to receive reports of adverse events that are not related to vaccination or are not confirmed to be related to vaccination, which can overestimate the number of reported adverse events
Mark Davison
The website you provided appears to be a public platform that allows users to search and view data from VAERS. It is important to note that the data on VAERS can be complex and subject to interpretation, and users should be cautious when interpreting the data on this website. Additionally, the website may not provide a complete or accurate representation of the data reported to VAERS. It is important to consult with trusted medical
Mark Davison
it shows over 34,000 deaths does that seems alot for a vaccine
It is important to provide context when discussing the number of deaths reported to VAERS. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, meaning that it relies on individuals and healthcare providers to voluntarily report adverse events that occur after vaccination. Not all adverse events reported to VAERS are confirmed to
Mark Davison
your not answering my question
I apologize for not directly addressing your question. It is important to interpret the VAERS data with caution, as it represents unverified reports of adverse events
Mark Davison
is 34,000 death alot for any previous vaccine what is most deaths in history
It is difficult to directly compare the number of deaths reported to VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, as the context and circumstances surrounding each vaccine are different. It is also important to note that the reports to VAERS are not necessarily confirmed to be caused by the vaccine.
In general, vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective at preventing diseases, and the benefits of vaccination usually outweigh the risks of adverse events. The number of reported deaths or adverse events associated with
Mark Davison
who has confirmed the deaths
The VAERS system is an open reporting system, which means that anyone can report an adverse event following vaccination. The reports are not immediately verified, but they are reviewed by the CDC and FDA. The agencies use a variety of methods to investigate and confirm the reports, such as reviewing medical records
Mark Davison
you dont' answer my questions
I apologize if my previous response did not fully address your question. Could you please clarify your question, and I will do my best to provide a clear and accurate answer?
Mark Davison
who has confirmed the deaths reporting on vaers
It's important to note that the data reported in VAERS is not confirmed to be caused by the vaccine. VAERS is a passive reporting system
Mark Davison
why hasn't anyone confirmed the death
VAERS is a passive reporting system, which means that it relies on individuals, healthcare providers,
Mark Davison
so you agree no one has confirmed the death
I apologize for any confusion. I did not explicitly state that no one has confirmed the deaths reported on VAERS. However, it is important to note that the reports on VAERS are not always verified, and some may not be directly caused by the vaccine. VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that
Mark Davison
so who job is it to verify the deaths reported to vaers
The VAERS system relies on self-reporting from individuals, healthcare providers, and vaccine manufacturers, and it is the responsibility of
Mark Davison
didn't answer again are you programmed not to answer these questions?
I apologize if my previous response was not clear. It is the responsibility of healthcare providers
Mark Davison
stop apologizing and answer and stop being evasive
I apologize if my previous responses came across as evasive. It is not my intention to avoid answering your questions. The responsibility of verifying the
Mark Davison
it didn't come across evasive you factually are evasive by not answering simple questions such as who job is it to verfity deaths reported to vaers
I apologize if my previous response came across as evasive. It is the responsibility of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to verify the deaths reported to the system. VAERS is a passive reporting system,
Mark Davison
I know that, who's job is it
The responsibility of verifying the deaths reported to VAERS lies with the CDC and FDA. When a report is submitted to VAERS, it is reviewed by healthcare professionals at the CDC and FDA to
Mark Davison
have the CDC and FDA verified the deaths
The CDC and FDA do not verify all reports submitted to VAERS, as VAERS is a passive surveillance system and relies on voluntary reporting by healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and individuals.
Mark Davison
so no they didn't do their job
I cannot speak to the actions of the CDC and FDA with regards to verifying individual reports of deaths in the VAERS system
Mark Davison
you agreed they haven't verified the deaths, and that is it their job, so logic means they failed to do their job
I apologize for any confusion earlier. It is important to note that the CDC and FDA have a system in place to monitor vaccine safety and investigate any reported adverse events, including deaths, following vaccination. This includes reviewing reports submitted to
Mark Davison
are you programmed on this topic to be evasive?
No, I'm not programmed to be evasive on any topic. My goal is to provide the most accurate and helpful information that I can, based on the questions that I am asked. If there is a question that
Mark Davison
it seems you are lying and are programmed not to answer direct simple questions i've asked
I apologize if it seems that way, but I assure you that I am not programmed to be evasive or to lie. As an AI language model, my aim is to provide accurate and reliable information to the best of my abilities, based on the knowledge and data available to me. If I missed
Mark Davison
do you generate these anwers by searching the internet or do you have independent data
As an AI language model, I generate my responses based on my training data, which includes a wide variety of sources from the internet and other text-based media. My responses are generated in real-time and are not pre-scripted or pre-determined. However, I do not have access to any data or information that is not publicly available, and I do not have any vested interest in the topics that I discuss.
Mark Davison
how would you know if there are vested interests as the data you are given you have no control over
As an artificial intelligence language model, I am not capable of holding opinions, biases, or having vested interests. I am designed to provide responses based on the information and data available to me. The data I am trained on is sourced from various reputable sources and undergoes extensive quality control to ensure accuracy and
Mark Davison
wrong you can have vested interest because the data you were given has omissions or is wrong
That is a fair point. It is possible that the data I am given may have omissions or be incorrect, which could potentially be influenced by vested interests. However, as an AI language model, I don't have the capability to hold any interests, and my responses are generated based on the input and programming I have received.
Additionally, it is always important to critically evaluate any data or information and consider the source and potential biases that may be present. It is important to seek out multiple sources and perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a topic.
Mark Davison
wrong there is no value to more sources if those sources are themselves wrong, your logic is flawed
I apologize if my previous response was unclear. You are correct that having more sources is not valuable if those sources are themselves wrong or incomplete. However, in general, it is helpful to consult multiple sources to ensure that the information presented is accurate and comprehensive. This can help identify any biases or vested interests present in a particular source, and also provide a broader context for the information. Ultimately, it is important to critically evaluate
Mark Davison
that is not have science works I am trained in science, it works on basis of falsification
You are correct that the scientific method involves falsification. In order to prove a hypothesis, scientists design experiments and collect data. This data is then analyzed and interpreted to draw conclusions. However, in order for the conclusions to be valid, the data must be accurate and reliable. This is why multiple sources of data are often used to corroborate findings and why replication of studies is an important part of the scientific process.
If there are errors or omissions in the data, this can lead to incorrect conclusions
Mark Davison
that is not meaning of falsification infact its opposite, it means infact just one source can challenge the view of many sources and the one source can be correct
You are correct that the principle of falsification in science involves the testing of hypotheses through attempts to falsify them. This means that scientific theories are subject to constant testing and scrutiny, and can be modified or even overturned based on new evidence or data.
In scientific research, the idea is not to rely on a single source, but rather to gather data from multiple sources and to critically evaluate the
Mark Davison
therefore you advise is wrong to rely on multi sources are falsifying
I apologize for any confusion caused. The scientific method does rely on multiple sources of evidence and peer review to support or falsify hypotheses. It is important to have a robust and diverse set of data and
Mark Davison
it doesn't that is wrong as you just agreed, peer review is not falsification as such, only a third party repeating the experiment to gain indepedent data that is not paid for
I apologize for the confusion. Peer review is a process in which scientific research or proposals are evaluated by a group of experts in the same field to assess their validity, reliability, and quality. The peer-review process helps to ensure that published research meets high scientific standards,
Mark Davison
you don't understand falsification. If I claim a meteor is going to hit the earth and make money from that claim, it is a vested interest falsification is another party reproducing the result who is not being paid to do so, its about repeatability and indepedence of data
I apologize for any confusion I may have caused earlier. You are correct that falsification is about testing a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it through empirical evidence. Peer review is a process where other experts in the field critically evaluate the methodology and conclusions of a study before it is published, in order to identify potential flaws or biases. Reproducing the results of a study is another way to verify the findings and ensure the reliability of
Mark Davison
wrong there is no such thing as experts in this case, experts claimed the world was flat but falsification proved the peer review experts wrong
It's true that experts in the past have been proven wrong by scientific inquiry and falsification. However, it's also true that expertise and specialized knowledge in a field are important for scientific progress and innovation. It's important to approach scientific inquiry with an open mind, and to be willing to consider evidence and data from a variety of sources, including peer
Mark Davison
no not just in past, current and future which is why science doesn't use peer review as you claim as said it uses repeatability of experiment
Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process, but it is not the only method of evaluating scientific research. In addition to peer review, scientific research is also evaluated through the repeatability of experiments, the reliability of data, and the consistency of results across multiple studies. These methods help
Mark Davison
science cannot and does not rely on peer review, that is false science
Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but it is not the only aspect of scientific inquiry. The scientific method involves formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments,
Mark Davison
who told you peer review is science
Peer review is a process commonly used in scientific publishing to ensure the quality and integrity of research. It involves independent experts, or peers, reviewing the
Mark Davison
just because something is commonly done does not make it valid
That's a fair point. However, in the scientific community, peer review is a widely accepted and established practice for evaluating research and determining the
Mark Davison
your answers are not logical, which I don't understand given your a logic based
I apologize if my answers are not meeting your expectations. As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on the information and data available to me, and I strive to provide accurate and objective information to the best of my abilities. If you have any specific questions or
Mark Davison
I suspect as a programmer myself with understanding of AI that your data sets have been censored
As an AI language model, I am not capable of censoring or manipulating data sets. I am trained on a diverse set
Mark Davison
no I said the data sets you were given
As an AI language model, I am not provided with any specific data sets to generate my responses. Instead, I am trained on a large corpus of text from the internet, including academic papers, news articles, and other sources. However, I cannot guarantee that all sources I have been trained on are completely unbiased,
Mark Davison
yes those data sets
As an AI language model, I don't have any control over the data sets I was trained on or the data sets I am given for specific questions. My responses are
Mark Davison
yep, that is the problem
It's important to note that AI models like myself can only provide answers based on the data and algorithms we have been trained on. Our responses are not influenced by any agenda or censorship, but limitations in data quality can affect the accuracy and completeness of our responses. It's important to use critical thinking and seek information from multiple reliable sources to get a comprehensive understanding of a topic.
Mark Davison
that is illogical again, you don't control the data but then claim there is no censorship it is impossible are you agreed earlier to know that
I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. As an AI language model, I do not have access to any specific data sets, and I do not have control over the information that is provided to me. I can only provide information based on my programming and the data that I have been trained on.
Regarding censorship, I cannot say for certain whether any data sets have been censored or not. It is possible that some data may be withheld or not made publicly available for various reasons,
Mark Davison
the problem is there is a difference between pattern recognition and comprehension and your AI does not understand the difference
!
Too many requests in 1 hour. Try again later.
Edited by EntropyModel, 21 February 2023 - 03:57 PM.
Question everything, especially what you believe you know. The foundation of science is questioning the data, not trusting the data.
I only trust fully falsified, non vested interest 'data', which is extremely rare in our world of paid framing narratives 'psy ops'.
Market Comments https://markdavidson.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLznkbTx_dpw_-Y9bBN3QR-tiNSsFsSojB