Do virologists have a valid independent variable? Are proper controls ever performed? Is the cell culture even a scientific experiment?
A comment about the spouse situation: I am in a similar boat. One thing we have to remember; we are never going to change the minds of the (belligerent, childish) people we are debating, but the reason it is worth the time investment is because, in this massive PSYOP, we are fighting to wake up the silent third party who is quietly reading the back-and-fourth. On Twitter, look at the amount of views each reply gets. Those are the people who are curious, but don't want to take a side (publicly, at least). The quiet reader is seeing exactly what you are seeing, which is, as soon as you back the opponent into a corner (using their own data), they resort to name calling, personal attacks, moving the goal post or changing the subject. While your opponent refuses to look at any data, you can bet your bottom dollar that the silent third party is clicking that link or reading that screenshot.
We are in a race against time here. "They" are all-in on this 2030 agenda and time is ticking. Those of us who have spent years doing deep research need to share as much as we can before time runs out because we need our team to be as large as possible.
Non-related, I sent you an email a month ago or so asking if you know anything about these Monoclonal antibodies. I didn't see anything on your amazing site. I have not intentionally researched it, but I keep coming across it in my research into human experimentation and governmental corruption. The thing that peaked my curiosity is how many players are involved in Monoclonal Antibodies, dating back to the early 2000s. Even DOW and Monsanto are invested in them. Then, when "covid" happened, Joe Rogan sang its praises and "our side" jumped on board. In my opinion, anything pharma or a chemical company makes is poison. Anyway, if you have any time or desire to write about these things, I would love to read it.
Keep up the awesome work.
It would be interesting to see more Chat dialogues. I am somewhat surprised that Chat did not offer the ‘virus cannot be detected outside a cell” argument for inability to isolate.
Yes, more AI debates, because your debates are changing the algorithmic future outputs.
Good stuff Mike. Bless you brother.
Brilliant and groundbreaking, Mike! Sam Bailey also questioned ChatGPT about viruses, however, she didn't push it. Yes, it would be interesting to repeat the exercise and I can certainly think of a few non-virus related items I'll be doing that with, eg, building destructions - I also have serious doubts about the mushroom murders in Australia but not sure how how ChatGPT can help there. I think smallpox would be an interesting challenge, however, not sure how exactly.
Love the "emerging infectious disease" excuse, however, even if you allowed for it wouldn't you go back and do the experiment properly to validate your findings?
Resource and time constraints? So we do nonsense science because we haven't got the time and money to do proper science? Seriously?
Iterative research? What iterative research? Where's the iteration? It's just repetition of the same old nonsense.
Great blog as usual. I am starting to use ChatGPT to create a bullet point summary of your Uncovering the Corona Fraud series. I think a succinct chronology covering each stratagem among the fraudsters will enable many to organize things as to how it all went down more efficiently. Some of it is amazingly comical like basing the whole pandemic on that one Chinese doctor who turned out to have died from long-standing heart disease.
More human than those twitter/ X bots posing as humans
Thank you Mike for your hard but essential work You have confirmed from a not entirely unbiased source that what virologists have been doing to date is at best flawed snd at its worst fraudulent.
I was reading this hearing C3PO's voice.
I would like you to ask if it "learned" from your discussion and will give more correct answers to others in the future?
Or is the programming to cave to 1 person to seem reasonable, and then keep lying to everyone else?
A valid control and independent variable will expose their fraud, is my thought.
I have not seen one in the thousands of papers that I have reviewed.
The kindest word for them is Bastards.
Gino Triggiani sings it perfectly!
Contagion is a lie, a hoax!
Mike, what about challenging another AI bot? I subscribe to the site, Logically Fallacious (www.logicallyfallacious.com) where people post questions about logical fallacies and others respond. Most posters are pretty aligned with mainstream thinking as is the host, Bo Bennett - he's rubbished things I've said on the pandemic. In the last six months or so an AI bot has joined the chat (I gave up on pandemic stuff before it joined) and always responds. In response to the question: Is the Misplaced Presumption fallacy the best fit for acceptance of the "Operation Northwoods" documents as genuine (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/RDi7vmxg/is_the_misplaced_presumption_fallacy_the_best_fit_for_acceptance_of_the_operation_northwoods_documents_as_genuine.html) I've received only a single response so far (unprecedented I think), namely one from the AI bot who immediately dropped out when I argued with its response.
While I could try it myself I'd rather leave it in the hands of someone more authoritative so I'd be very curious to see what would happen if you presented your challenge to see how the LF AI bot responds ... and others on the site.
Whatever your question, it needs to relate to logical fallacies in some way: you can suggest a logical fallacy as I have or simply ask what fallacy is manifested. "Misplaced presumption" seems to lend itself I think to virus isolation but I'm not going to try to teach my grandmother to suck eggs :)
Mike, I'd really like to direct this article to those who believe the virus narrative but I think it would be easier for those people, some of whom might find the whole of idea of virology being completely unscientific as alien, to have an introduction that can act as a kind of navigator to the post.
Are you aware that you can get links from headings Level 4 and above and insert them into your post? In case not, when you hover your cursor over the heading a link symbol appears to the left which you can click to copy.
An example is my own post, 12 logical fallacies unmasked in the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist", which starts with links to each of the examples of logical fallacies.
Also, just to say with my latest post on Operation Northwoods, that I wanted to make two points with the emphasis on the second point:
1. The documents were fabricated
2. They were fabricated for a propagandistic purpose
I meticulously made the case of fabrication by going through each document and pointing out the anomalies that undermined its authenticity and I sent it to an academic who very tiptoeingly comes out and says "conspiracies really do happen". His response was lukewarm to put it mildly which initially irritated me - I'm like I've bent over backwards and done cartwheels to make the irrefutable case that the documents were fabricated and yet you're still not convinced? However, the response inspired me to hive away the meticulous analysis in a googledoc with just the key anomalies listed in my article which meant moving the focus to where I wanted it which was the propaganda purpose. So far 2 clicks on the googledoc - people couldn't care less about a meticulous case for fabrication, they don't need it! .... but it's still good to have.
When I write about an issue, I look forwards of others to seek to challenge my set out, regardless of if I may not agree with their reasoning. It assists me to address any points that were raised. Then in litigation it assists me to pre-empty the opponents' arguments where I raise the issue first and with the set out. I therefore never held it a waste of time to have a challenge against me because to me it alerts me to whatever misgiving others may have. I always remain courteous with people regardless how ignorant they might be and well aware that it is useless to try to convert them when they have their established views, and I then just refer them to my blog https://www.scribd/inspectorrikati to check out my writings and invite them to challenge anything I wrote. And at time a person then does contact me making known they did check my blog and now realized their views have changed as result of the information they came across. As for your article it would have been great had you separated the question asked and the response provide such as in QUOTE END QUOTE to make it more pleasant to read.
I did this one in July 0f 23: https://www.facebook.com/profile/100002110705681/search/?q=AI%20Chat
For those who wish to understand this “AI” better: https://www.alilybit.com/p/how-to-debunk-the-ai-revolution