[Patrick Mongan]

The problem with so-called AI is that it goes out and looks at all the data on the web. So, if the research and articles showing the negative aspects of the so-called vaccines are suppressed/censored then the AI responses will be biased, not necessarily because it is programmed to be biased, but just because the majority of the information on the web supports the vaccines. Bottom line you have to be very specific about the questions you ask and be willing to challenge the AI if you are really searching for the truth. I am a retired academic MD and would never have an mRNA injection without long standing, years of safety data. Most vaccines original vaccines required many years of trials before being accepted.

[dadzcats]

Thanks for that and for your professional opinion about the MRNA vaccines. I am adamant that I would not take any of those either. Do you have any other thoughts about the interpretation of the data? There’s a certain point beyond verification of data and sources that I just can’t interpret for myself. My research design and statistics background only goes so far and I’ve forgotten much of it.

I get what you’re saying about the info from AI and challenging it is important. I also think about it as a source that others are looking at to confirm their own thinking (e.g. MRNA is nothing to be concerned about) so I want to be a little more aware of their positions. Though, when I think about it, after the initial COVID catastrophe, I don’t find myself in those conversations much anymore😆. We all know how that turned out. But, it keeps me informed of how “mainstream” views this. I was imagining what someone would take away should they paste this article into AI and ask what I asked.

Thanks for the conversation, I really appreciate it.

[Paul Smith]

AI is a valuable tool but like every other tool it is only one tool in the toolbox and it is only useful if you use it correctly. You can take courses on how to properly formulate a question for AI. If the AI produces questionable results, ask follow up questions; the AI generally produces such questions at the end of its response. Your AI is an intelligent, informed friend. Have a conversation with it but don’t take everything at face value. As for sources if they aren’t provided and check them out. If that doesn’t clear things up or if you’re still concerned, ask a different AI like Grok or Claude the same question. Copy and paste the results from one into the other and ask them to compare and contrast. I asked a follow up question and the conclusion to that is below. I would not stop there.

We are particularly concerned about the technology. Micro-clots, long Covid, turbo cancers, protein impurities, high death rates , etc. are just some of the possible complications. I will absolutely not be taking that injection until long term studies have been done…but that’s me.

——————————-

<b data-section-id=”fmt7fy” data-start=”6598″ data-end=”6680″>And here’s where I think your original article is useful—but only up to a point

The IMA article essentially says:

<strong data-start=”6719″ data-end=”6815″>”Don’t assume that because the FDA approved it, every important question has been answered.”

I agree with that.

But I would <strong data-start=”6849″ data-end=”6856″>not take the next step and say:

<strong data-start=”6888″ data-end=”6999″>”Because the long-term evidence isn’t complete, we should assume the vaccine has hidden long-term dangers.”

That doesn’t follow scientifically.

Instead, there’s a third option:

<strong data-start=”7074″ data-end=”7340″>”The vaccine appears reasonably safe based on the evidence available now, but because it’s new, I don’t see a compelling reason for a 67-year-old to choose it over a well-established alternative unless it ultimately demonstrates a meaningful clinical advantage.”

<strong data-start=”7342″ data-end=”7376″>That is probably where I land.

And there’s an especially important practical point: if your choice is <strong data-start=”7449″ data-end=”7490″>MFLUSIVA vs. no influenza vaccination, that’s one question. If the choice is <strong data-start=”7530″ data-end=”7578″>MFLUSIVA vs. Fluzone High-Dose/Fluad/Flublok, that’s a different question. The latter is the comparison I would use for making your decision.

If you’d like, I can do that comparison next, including <strong data-start=”7747″ data-end=”7877″ data-is-last-node=””>which of those three established vaccines has the best evidence in people 65+, how their side effects compare with MFLUSIVA, and whether there’s actually a good reason to choose one over the others.

• This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  Paul Smith.

[dadzcats]

Yes, you’re right – one needs to use the tool correctly and I would say that my questions in this case were pretty basic – a quick hit after the article caught my eye in the email. If I were truly interested in taking the vaccine (I am not – none of them, really) I would be delving deeper. I guess I was taking a “first pass” to see if there were any ready flags where verifiable data gave way later in the article to interpretations or claims that might not be quite on target. That’s what I got. I could have taken it further with chat but thought I’d throw it out here first for any thoughts about its take on those pieces.

When it comes to FLCCC/IMA I can suffer from the halo effect and I want to guard against that, too. Even the good guys get it wrong sometimes.

So, thanks – your thoughts and suggestions are welcomed and I am learning. I have been taking some tutoring on how to use AI more effectively but am still somewhat new at it – I’m working on framing my goal, refining my questions, and, yes, challenging Chat. In matters that I delve deeply into where it’s important, I have, as you suggested, asked Grok to weigh in (I haven’t used Claude or others yet) and I do find that very useful. I could spend all my days learning how to use these tools effectively, lol. Thanks again.

[Dr. Wawa]

Read Suzanne Humphries; “Dissolving Illusions” and Aaron Siri’s “Vaccines, Amen” for more fact-based information about “vaccines”. No vaccine in history was ever properly tested for safety or for efficacy. Just because we want things to be otherwise (a life free of suffering and danger) does not mean they are otherwise. An alternative to believing it non-existent protection might be getting interested in what will actually improve your immune response to pathogens. This is increasingly important with age because older people steadily lose immune response (which is why they die of influenza).

[rod sullivan]

Every time the evidence gets genuinely ambiguous, ChatGPT resolves toward the agency’s conclusion and calls that “scientifically defensible.” The mortality signal, the autopsy gap, and the accelerated-approval pathway are all acknowledged and then neutralized by deferring to the body whose incentives run toward approval and against reopening settled questions.

Use it for: the absolute-risk framing, the reactogenicity data and the comparator critique.

Don’t use it for: the causal safety question. On that, it’s reciting the agency’s position and calling it neutrality — and it ends by offering to pick a flu shot for you, which is the clearest sign it stopped auditing and started advising.
ChatGPT’s response is skeptical of the new product and credulous of the old ones and the regulators. IMA is skeptical of all three. Only one of those postures is internally consistent.

[dadzcats]

Thank you.

[IMA-HelenT]

👍

[IMA-HelenT]

Please watch the webinar from last week on the topic, they explain clearly why and how they came to conclusion that the vaccine is not worth risk https://imahealth.org/modernas-mrna-flu-shot-under-scrutiny/

[dadzcats]

Thank you.

[Cindi Anderson]

AI can be very helpful for bringing up issues for you to analyze. However when it comes to science and especially medical topics, it errs highly on the side of the mainstream view. I can only guess at reasons but they could include: How it was programmed. The fact that most of the information available is the mainstream view, whether accurate or not. It wants to make you happy and the majority believes the mainstream view so it’s going to assume that is you until it knows otherwise.

All you have to do is feed it some additional papers with the non-mainstream view and it will say “You were right to push back on that. I over emphasized X and underemphasized Y.”

[dadzcats]

Thank you. Yes, I have pushed back a number of times and have gotten that reply. Thank you.