Military and US government sources Marie-Louise Murville? Give me a break. When I queried ChatGPT with the following:
"Provide links to all peer reviewed independent evidence from double-blind studies not funded by government or the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries, which clearly and unambiguously shows that the mRNA shots substantially reduce COVID deaths. Do *not* cite university or college research from departments which receive funding or have relationships with the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries." here is the response that I got.
ChatGPT: "I found no peer-reviewed, double-blind randomized trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that meet all of your constraints (1) were not funded by government or the pharmaceutical/chemical/biotech industries and (2) were run by investigators with no institutional ties/relationships to those industries — and that clearly and unambiguously show a substantial reduction in COVID deaths."
It is my belief that TPTB knew all along that the vax would not do any of the things they claimed it would. That is why they will not acknowledge what it actually does.
As far as using your concise, one sentence long argument to sway covidians, they just claim you are lying or will cite various government proclamations that contradict yours.
I like that methodology, which works well when challenging anyone, as attorney Aaron Siri did repeatedly with CDC and FDA and Plotkin and others: "please provide the data or study that supports your conclusion or viewpoint (ie that vaccines do not cause autism).". The response to FOIAs and later lawsuits has repeatedly been: "we have no data that answers your query".
I liked your summary so much that I sent it to Grok. Can you guess what Grok said?
"No government data supports the claim that vaccines killed more people than they saved. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that vaccines saved lives by reducing infections and CFR, with adverse effects being rare. For further details, your friend could explore sources like the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker (cdc.gov) or Our World in Data (ourworldindata.org)."
I can send you the full response if you care. I really encourage you to talk to AI using a ... "clean" conversation - where the AI doesn't know anything about you. You have a million bucks on the line. Ounce of prevention, etc.
They already know this and have known it since Day 1. This was all done by design. What they don’t know and what they are truly confounded by is why the vaccines didn’t kill billions. This has them scratching their heads and wondering “What went wrong?” No mistake
Congratulations Steve you’ve worked tirelessly and have always known… I have gleaned and learned so much from you as well and thank you sincerely for the education you’ve given me.
I just prompted Chat GPT with an excerpt from your post. Any thoughts? They mention two government affiliated studies.
“I'm in a debate about whether the COVID vaccines were more likely to have saved lives or killed people. Here is my argument. Is there any publicly available government data showing my argument is wrong? A vaccine can reduce mortality only if it does one or both: (a) Reduce the risk of infection or (b) Reduce the case fatality rate (CFR) If you don’t reduce cases or reduce the CFR, then VEdeath has to be NEGATIVE. We can very accurately and repeatably MEASURE the DIRECTION of these two impacts using high quality publicly available evidence published by governments. There is no higher quality evidence available that shows the CFR dropped or cases dropped.”
Here is the response:
Your argument—that COVID-19 vaccines could only reduce mortality by lowering infection rates or the case fatality rate (CFR), and that there's no high-quality government data showing they did either—is contradicted by multiple publicly available government and peer-reviewed studies. Here's a breakdown addressing each point:
________________________________________
1. Vaccines Reduced the Case Fatality Rate (CFR)
Government-affiliated studies have demonstrated that COVID-19 vaccination significantly lowered the CFR, even among those who became infected.
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Study (2022): Analyzing over 339,000 patients, this study found that vaccinated individuals had a 71% lower risk of death within 60 days of diagnosis compared to unvaccinated individuals, after adjusting for confounding factors.
• Global Analysis Across 90 Countries: A study published in the Journal of Global Health reported that a 10% increase in vaccine coverage was associated with a 7.6% reduction in CFR. The reduction was dose-dependent, with higher coverage correlating with greater decreases in CFR.
________________________________________
2. Vaccines Reduced Infection Rates
Contrary to the claim that vaccines didn't reduce cases, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates otherwise:
• CDC Report (February 2024): Individuals who received the updated COVID-19 vaccine were 54% less likely to contract COVID-19 during the period from mid-September 2023 to January 2024.
________________________________________
3. Real-World Data Supports Vaccine Effectiveness
Beyond controlled studies, real-world data also supports the effectiveness of vaccines:
• FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and Our World in Data (OWID): Analyses showed a strong decrease in reported deaths as vaccination coverage increased, particularly after 60% of the population had received at least one dose.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The assertion that there's no high-quality government data showing reductions in CFR or infection rates due to COVID-19 vaccination is not supported by the evidence. Multiple studies and official data sources have documented significant reductions in both infection rates and case fatality rates following vaccination campaigns.
If you would like more detailed information on any of these studies or data sources, feel free to ask.
Thank you for your comment, LiquidMSL. The point of my comment was that, while Steve has partially trained chatgpt, there is still a lot more work to be done. It still gives B*S! answers!:) There is no way I will ever get another vaccine:) I agree with you. Those psychopaths should be dealt with yesterday.
"Provide links to all peer reviewed independent evidence from double-blind studies not funded by government or the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries, which clearly and unambiguously shows that the mRNA shots substantially reduce COVID deaths. Do *not* cite university or college research from departments which receive funding or have relationships with the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries." here is the response that I got.
ChatGPT: "I found no peer-reviewed, double-blind randomized trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that meet all of your constraints (1) were not funded by government or the pharmaceutical/chemical/biotech industries and (2) were run by investigators with no institutional ties/relationships to those industries — and that clearly and unambiguously show a substantial reduction in COVID deaths."
Thank you for your comment, Eric Brooks. The point of my comment was that, while Steve has partially trained chatgpt, there is still a lot more work to be done. It still gives B*S! answers!:) There is no way I will ever get another vaccine:) I agree with you. Those liars and psychopaths should never be trusted. Including Sam Altman.
Military and US government sources Marie-Louise Murville? Give me a break. When I queried ChatGPT with the following:
"Provide links to all peer reviewed independent evidence from double-blind studies not funded by government or the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries, which clearly and unambiguously shows that the mRNA shots substantially reduce COVID deaths. Do *not* cite university or college research from departments which receive funding or have relationships with the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries." here is the response that I got.
ChatGPT: "I found no peer-reviewed, double-blind randomized trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that meet all of your constraints (1) were not funded by government or the pharmaceutical/chemical/biotech industries and (2) were run by investigators with no institutional ties/relationships to those industries — and that clearly and unambiguously show a substantial reduction in COVID deaths."
You can see the entire query and response at:
"mRNA vaccine evidence review"
https://chatgpt.com/share/68ba21e4-9710-8005-967c-c69f3744b4fe
Ya’ think?!
It is my belief that TPTB knew all along that the vax would not do any of the things they claimed it would. That is why they will not acknowledge what it actually does.
As far as using your concise, one sentence long argument to sway covidians, they just claim you are lying or will cite various government proclamations that contradict yours.
I like that methodology, which works well when challenging anyone, as attorney Aaron Siri did repeatedly with CDC and FDA and Plotkin and others: "please provide the data or study that supports your conclusion or viewpoint (ie that vaccines do not cause autism).". The response to FOIAs and later lawsuits has repeatedly been: "we have no data that answers your query".
https://substack.com/@demediaispropaganda/note/c-111032443?r=4bdzfc
I liked your summary so much that I sent it to Grok. Can you guess what Grok said?
"No government data supports the claim that vaccines killed more people than they saved. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that vaccines saved lives by reducing infections and CFR, with adverse effects being rare. For further details, your friend could explore sources like the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker (cdc.gov) or Our World in Data (ourworldindata.org)."
I can send you the full response if you care. I really encourage you to talk to AI using a ... "clean" conversation - where the AI doesn't know anything about you. You have a million bucks on the line. Ounce of prevention, etc.
They already know this and have known it since Day 1. This was all done by design. What they don’t know and what they are truly confounded by is why the vaccines didn’t kill billions. This has them scratching their heads and wondering “What went wrong?” No mistake
ugh, do we really need ChatGPT? my intuition and research has led me
to KNOW, AI is really extremely unheal-thy! Not written by a person, but by
a computer. This is very dark dangerous road, one i wont participate in.
Also, AI uses WAY TOO MUCH water to keep computers cooled down, and WAY TOO MUCH
electricity to run data centers. And the water they use, doesnt get back into our eco-system
for years, if that. We will all live in a Desert! Reading AI crap, no soul, no person.
Cell phones and AI Data Centers will kill us all.
Steve, chanced upon this paper and learned a new word spikeopathy! Turns out the spike protein is pathogenic, ok some of us know that, but it is still pathogenic even if you got it from the vaccine. Which of course means it's still pathogenic even if your own cells are producing it a year later! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37626783/#:~:text=and%20Vaccine%20mRNA-,'Spikeopathy'%3A%20COVID%2D19%20Spike%20Protein%20Is%20Pathogenic%2C,Biomedicines.
Steve, in The Covid Planet, today, I asked chat the following question and got the answer you’ll LOVE,
What are the interests of the pharmaceutical industry that it doesn’t want this platform to acknowledge? Read it soon!
Congratulations Steve you’ve worked tirelessly and have always known… I have gleaned and learned so much from you as well and thank you sincerely for the education you’ve given me.
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
I just prompted Chat GPT with an excerpt from your post. Any thoughts? They mention two government affiliated studies.
“I'm in a debate about whether the COVID vaccines were more likely to have saved lives or killed people. Here is my argument. Is there any publicly available government data showing my argument is wrong? A vaccine can reduce mortality only if it does one or both: (a) Reduce the risk of infection or (b) Reduce the case fatality rate (CFR) If you don’t reduce cases or reduce the CFR, then VEdeath has to be NEGATIVE. We can very accurately and repeatably MEASURE the DIRECTION of these two impacts using high quality publicly available evidence published by governments. There is no higher quality evidence available that shows the CFR dropped or cases dropped.”
Here is the response:
Your argument—that COVID-19 vaccines could only reduce mortality by lowering infection rates or the case fatality rate (CFR), and that there's no high-quality government data showing they did either—is contradicted by multiple publicly available government and peer-reviewed studies. Here's a breakdown addressing each point:
________________________________________
1. Vaccines Reduced the Case Fatality Rate (CFR)
Government-affiliated studies have demonstrated that COVID-19 vaccination significantly lowered the CFR, even among those who became infected.
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Study (2022): Analyzing over 339,000 patients, this study found that vaccinated individuals had a 71% lower risk of death within 60 days of diagnosis compared to unvaccinated individuals, after adjusting for confounding factors.
• Global Analysis Across 90 Countries: A study published in the Journal of Global Health reported that a 10% increase in vaccine coverage was associated with a 7.6% reduction in CFR. The reduction was dose-dependent, with higher coverage correlating with greater decreases in CFR.
________________________________________
2. Vaccines Reduced Infection Rates
Contrary to the claim that vaccines didn't reduce cases, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates otherwise:
• CDC Report (February 2024): Individuals who received the updated COVID-19 vaccine were 54% less likely to contract COVID-19 during the period from mid-September 2023 to January 2024.
________________________________________
3. Real-World Data Supports Vaccine Effectiveness
Beyond controlled studies, real-world data also supports the effectiveness of vaccines:
• FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and Our World in Data (OWID): Analyses showed a strong decrease in reported deaths as vaccination coverage increased, particularly after 60% of the population had received at least one dose.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The assertion that there's no high-quality government data showing reductions in CFR or infection rates due to COVID-19 vaccination is not supported by the evidence. Multiple studies and official data sources have documented significant reductions in both infection rates and case fatality rates following vaccination campaigns.
If you would like more detailed information on any of these studies or data sources, feel free to ask.
Yeah well they are felonious liars… and all should be in prison and several should hang. so you go ahead and get your booster… I’ll get my popcorn.
Thank you for your comment, LiquidMSL. The point of my comment was that, while Steve has partially trained chatgpt, there is still a lot more work to be done. It still gives B*S! answers!:) There is no way I will ever get another vaccine:) I agree with you. Those psychopaths should be dealt with yesterday.
Military and government studies? Give me a break.
When I queried ChatGPT with the following:
"Provide links to all peer reviewed independent evidence from double-blind studies not funded by government or the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries, which clearly and unambiguously shows that the mRNA shots substantially reduce COVID deaths. Do *not* cite university or college research from departments which receive funding or have relationships with the pharmaceutical, chemical and/or biotech industries." here is the response that I got.
ChatGPT: "I found no peer-reviewed, double-blind randomized trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that meet all of your constraints (1) were not funded by government or the pharmaceutical/chemical/biotech industries and (2) were run by investigators with no institutional ties/relationships to those industries — and that clearly and unambiguously show a substantial reduction in COVID deaths."
You can see the entire query and response at:
"mRNA vaccine evidence review"
https://chatgpt.com/share/68ba21e4-9710-8005-967c-c69f3744b4fe
Thank you for your comment, Eric Brooks. The point of my comment was that, while Steve has partially trained chatgpt, there is still a lot more work to be done. It still gives B*S! answers!:) There is no way I will ever get another vaccine:) I agree with you. Those liars and psychopaths should never be trusted. Including Sam Altman.
You’re training AI, Steve. A great way to spread the truth.
What does VE stand for in VE (death) through article?
Steve - Much appreciation for your majestic perseverance!
Bill Gates Sr. was on the board of Planned Prenthood Foundation.
Like the father before, the son now actively cares for the "health" of society in the United States and the surrounding area...