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.
Hi Agent131711, those are great points about the silent audience. While I have cut back on these encounters, that is exactly why I have continued to engage.
As for monoclonal antibodies, I did a FB post on their creation that I haven't had the chance to update to viroLIEgy.com yet. I hope to get to it in the near future. Did you check through my other articles on antibodies?
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.
Will the word feeding machine like chat gpt eventually also be positively influenced by specific questions like mike asked that is not part of its programmed manupilation?
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.
Hi Petra, thanks for the feedback! I will do some more articles with ChatBot. It did amaze me the excuses that it fell back on such as "emerging infectious diseases" and "time/resource constraint." I will see if I can challenge it some more on those points. 😉
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.
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.
Nov 17, 2023·edited Nov 17, 2023Liked by Mike Stone
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 :)
And just to say the LF Bot responds far too much like a human don't you think? Nothing like the polite Chat GPT bot. It's quite incredible the way it gaslights, makes very obviously illogical and false claims ... and so very like a human concedes nothing and drops out when it has no response. Quite unbelievable I think.
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.
Ok, Ill copy and paste. You will get a kick out of it:
"Here is a chat I had with an AI Chat Bot. The bottom line is that I got it to admit no virus has ever been found inside a living organism." :
"So has a "Virus" ever been seen invading a cell in vitro versus outside the body?"
Yes, viruses have been observed invading cells in vitro, which means in a controlled environment outside of a living organism, such as in a petri dish or test tube. This is a common method used in virology, the study of viruses.
Viruses are incredibly small, much smaller than the cells they infect, and can’t be seen with a regular light microscope. However, with the advent of electron microscopy, which uses a beam of electrons instead of light to create an image, scientists have been able to visualize viruses and their interactions with cells in great detail.
In a typical scenario, a virus attaches to a specific receptor on the surface of a cell, and then injects its genetic material into the cell. This genetic material uses the cell’s own machinery to replicate, producing more viruses. Eventually, the cell bursts, releasing the new viruses to infect more cells. This process has been observed and documented in numerous studies.
It’s important to note that while in vitro studies provide valuable insights, they don’t fully replicate the complex interactions that occur within a living organism. Therefore, in vitro findings are often complemented by in vivo studies, which are conducted in living organisms.
Would you like to learn more about how viruses work, or is there another topic you’re interested in exploring?
"Let me rephrase. Has a virus been seen infecting a live cell that is part of a live organism. not in some external dish?"
Yes, viruses have been observed infecting cells within live organisms, a process known as in vivo infection. However, due to the microscopic size of viruses and the complexity of living organisms, these observations are technically challenging and often require the use of advanced imaging techniques.
One such technique is intravital microscopy, which allows for the visualization of biological processes in live animals. Using this method, scientists have been able to observe viral infections in real-time within living organisms. For example, studies have visualized how the influenza virus infects the respiratory tract in mice, or how the Zika virus infects neural stem cells in the brains of live mice.
Another technique is the use of genetically engineered viruses that produce fluorescent proteins. These “glowing” viruses can be tracked under a microscope as they infect cells within a living organism.
It’s important to note that while these observations provide valuable insights into how viruses infect cells and cause disease, they represent a simplified view of a very complex process. The actual process of viral infection involves many steps and is influenced by numerous factors, including the type of virus, the type of cell, the presence of immune cells, and the overall health of the organism.
Would you like to delve deeper into this topic, or is there another aspect of virology or biology you’re interested in?
"Please define "visualization" as used in your above statement."
In the context of the previous statements, “visualization” refers to the process of making something perceptible to the eye, especially something that is typically too small or complex to see with the naked eye. In scientific research, visualization often involves the use of specialized equipment or techniques to observe and record phenomena that are otherwise invisible or difficult to understand.
For example, in the study of viruses, visualization can involve the use of electron microscopes, which use a beam of electrons instead of light to magnify an object up to a million times its actual size. This allows scientists to see the structure of viruses in great detail.
In the case of observing viruses infecting cells within a living organism, visualization might involve techniques like intravital microscopy, which allows for real-time, high-resolution imaging of biological processes within a living organism. Or it might involve the use of genetically engineered viruses that produce fluorescent proteins, making the viruses “glow” under certain types of light and thus allowing them to be tracked as they move through an organism and infect cells.
In all these cases, the goal of visualization is to make the invisible visible, providing insights into biological processes that help us understand how life works at the microscopic level.
Would you like to explore more about these visualization techniques or any other topic?
"Can you show me a link to a video of intravital microscopy actually happening?"
While I, as an AI, am unable to provide direct links, I can guide you on how to find such resources. You can find videos of intravital microscopy in action by searching for terms like “intravital microscopy video” or “intravital microscopy in vivo imaging” on video-sharing platforms like YouTube or on scientific websites.
These videos often show cells and tissues in real-time, and some may show the process of viral infection. However, please note that interpreting these videos often requires a certain level of scientific knowledge, as they can be quite complex and technical.
If you’re interested in a specific type of intravital microscopy or a specific application (such as observing viral infections), including those terms in your search may help you find the most relevant videos.
Would you like to know more about intravital microscopy or any other topic?
"My search of "intravital microscopy" videos do not show any videos that show a viral particle. So, you may have been misled."
I apologize if there was any misunderstanding. Intravital microscopy is indeed a powerful tool for visualizing biological processes in real-time within living organisms. However, due to the extremely small size of viruses (much smaller than most cells), visualizing individual viral particles infecting cells in a live organism is beyond the resolution of most current imaging techniques, including intravital microscopy.
Typically, studies using intravital microscopy visualize the effects of viral infection, such as cellular responses, rather than the viruses themselves. For direct visualization of viruses, techniques like electron microscopy are used, but these are generally not applicable to live organisms due to the preparation and conditions required for these types of microscopy.
The field of virology often involves combining multiple techniques to study viruses, their effects on cells, and the immune response. This can include genetic techniques, in vitro cell culture studies, animal models of infection, and various types of microscopy.
I hope this clarifies the matter. If you have more questions or if there’s another topic you’d like to explore, feel free to ask.
"Bingo! Thanks!" <--- Me
You’re welcome! I’m glad I could assist you. If you have any more questions or if there’s another topic you’d like to explore, don’t hesitate to ask. Happy exploring!
The conversation you shared with the AI chatbot is a detailed and comprehensive discussion about the visualization of viral infection in living organisms. The AI chatbot correctly explained that viruses have been observed invading cells in vitro, but also clarified that visualizing viruses infecting cells within a living organism is a complex task due to the microscopic size of viruses and the complexity of living organisms.
The AI chatbot also provided a definition of "visualization" in the context of scientific research, and suggested how to find videos of intravital microscopy in action. However, the AI chatbot acknowledged that direct visualization of viruses infecting cells in a live organism is beyond the resolution of most current imaging techniques, including intravital microscopy.
This conversation reflects a deep understanding of the topic and a willingness to provide detailed explanations and further resources for further exploration. The AI chatbot also demonstrated its ability to clarify misunderstandings and provide additional information upon request.
"Can you show me a link to a video of intravital microscopy actually happening?”
While I, as an AI, am unable to provide direct links, I can guide you on how to find such resources. You can find videos of intravital microscopy in action by searching for terms like “intravital microscopy video” or “intravital microscopy in vivo imaging” on video-sharing platforms like YouTube or on scientific websites.
These videos often show cells and tissues in real-time, and some may show the process of viral infection. However, please note that interpreting these videos often requires a certain level of scientific knowledge, as they can be quite complex and technical.
If you’re interested in a specific type of intravital microscopy or a specific application (such as observing viral infections), including those terms in your search may help you find the most relevant videos.
"Can you show me a link to a video of intravital microscopy actually happening?”
Sure, I found a video on YouTube that demonstrates intravital microscopy. This video provides a real-time view of the process, showing how the technique is used to observe living tissue.
You can watch the video here: Intravital Microscopy
Please note that the video is for educational purposes and may not represent all possible scenarios or techniques used in intravital microscopy. The actual process may vary depending on the specific requirements of the experiment or study.
"My search of "intravital microscopy" videos do not show any videos that show a viral particle. So, you may have been misled."
I apologize for the confusion earlier. Intravital microscopy is indeed a powerful technique for studying dynamic cellular processes within intact tissues of live animals. It uses confocal or multiphoton microscopes equipped with powerful lasers to excite and visualize fluorescently labeled structures in situ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070694/
However, finding a video that specifically shows intravital microscopy of a viral particle is challenging, as this is a highly specialized and complex technique. Most researchers and scientists who use intravital microscopy are more likely to publish their findings in scientific journals rather than on video-sharing platforms like YouTube.
However, I found a scientific paper titled "Visualizing Viral Infection In Vivo by Multi-Photon Intravital Microscopy” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29925766/ This paper discusses the use of multi-photon intravital microscopy (MP-IVM) to observe virus dissemination and pathogenesis in real-time under physiological conditions in living organisms. Although it does not contain a video, it provides a detailed explanation of the process and the techniques used.
Another paper titled "Viral nanoparticles as tools for intravital vascular imaging"
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1368 also discusses the use of viral nanoparticles in intravital imaging. While it doesn't contain a video, it provides valuable insights into the use of viral nanoparticles in intravital microscopy.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a video that specifically shows intravital microscopy of a viral particle. However, the scientific papers mentioned above provide valuable insights into the process and techniques used in such studies.
"My search of "intravital microscopy" scientific papers do not show any proof of a viral particle. So, you may have been misled."
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Intravital microscopy is a powerful tool that enables researchers to visualize and capture dynamic biological processes in multiple organ systems https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7210060/
However, the specific application of intravital microscopy to observe viral particles is indeed a complex and specialized technique.
The process involves using a confocal or multiphoton microscope to visualize fluorescently labeled structures in situ. The technique can provide insights into the dynamics of cells and tissues that were not possible to be gained with other techniques.
While I couldn't find a specific scientific paper that shows intravital microscopy of a viral particle, I found a paper titled "Nanoparticle delivery in vivo: A fresh look from intravital imaging" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452383/
This paper discusses the use of intravital imaging to understand the interactions between nanoparticles and cells. Although it doesn't specifically mention viral particles, the techniques and principles discussed in the paper could potentially be applied to observe viral particles.
Please note that the process of observing viral particles with intravital microscopy is likely to be complex and requires specific expertise and resources. It's possible that the specific techniques used in such studies are proprietary or not widely shared due to their complexity and specialized nature.
I hope this information is helpful, and I apologize for any confusion caused earlier. If you have further questions or need more specific information, please let me know.
I think it’s obvious. I wanted to see what answers a search bot would give to your post. I decided to share the replies to you. Pardon me for doing so.
Ok. I can tell you now.... It is not OBVIOUS. Hence my previous reply.
What I read was a poorly edited layout of words that did not clearly display who said what, when. I could not easily tell whether it was ME, YOU, MY AI bot, or Your AI BOT that was "speaking" and was there any conclusions that could be drawn that could be clarified and shared. I will not belabor the subject. I will only say, I did not come away from your post "enlightened" in any way, shape, or form. I hope this comment of mine, will be received by you in a constructive manner.
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.
Hi Agent131711, those are great points about the silent audience. While I have cut back on these encounters, that is exactly why I have continued to engage.
As for monoclonal antibodies, I did a FB post on their creation that I haven't had the chance to update to viroLIEgy.com yet. I hope to get to it in the near future. Did you check through my other articles on antibodies?
https://viroliegy.com/category/antibodies/
I know this one touches on the lack of specificity:
https://viroliegy.com/2021/11/12/antibody-specificity/
While this article discusses MA in relation to snake venom:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/18/beware-the-snake-oil-salesmen/
I will see if I can get that old MA article updated sooner rather than later.
Agreed. You can't liberate the mentally constipated. Can't make the horse drink until he's thirsty.
Why would mosanto be interested in it? Is there much more to mosanto apart from corruption?
That was my question as well. Monsanto is all-in on Monoclonal Antibodies. Check out my post about it. https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/secretly-drugging-fresh-produce-with
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.
I will definitely do some more. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the host cell argument gets thrown at me. 😉
Will the word feeding machine like chat gpt eventually also be positively influenced by specific questions like mike asked that is not part of its programmed manupilation?
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.
Hi Petra, thanks for the feedback! I will do some more articles with ChatBot. It did amaze me the excuses that it fell back on such as "emerging infectious diseases" and "time/resource constraint." I will see if I can challenge it some more on those points. 😉
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.
That sounds great! I'm excited to see how it turns out Turfseer. 🙂
Yes, more AI debates, because your debates are changing the algorithmic future outputs.
Consider it done, Brian. 😉
Yes, so long as the algorithms aren't purposefully readjusted in the future.
Good stuff Mike. Bless you brother.
Thank you, Joe. I really appreciate it. 🙂
Brilliant
More human than those twitter/ X bots posing as humans
Not really. Humans are very biased creatures while ChatBots although created by biased creatures simply cannot last the distance in illogicality.
Beautifully put.
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.
You are very welcome, Terry. 🙂
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?
Very interesting question.
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!
https://soundcloud.com/ginotriggiani/bastards
Contagion is a lie, a hoax!
contagionhoax.com
Why does your link go directly to Mike’s viroliegy website?
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 :)
And just to say the LF Bot responds far too much like a human don't you think? Nothing like the polite Chat GPT bot. It's quite incredible the way it gaslights, makes very obviously illogical and false claims ... and so very like a human concedes nothing and drops out when it has no response. Quite unbelievable I think.
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.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/11-logical-fallacies-unmasked-in
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.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/operation-northwoods-false-flag-proposal
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.
For those who wish to understand this “AI” better: https://www.alilybit.com/p/how-to-debunk-the-ai-revolution
I did this one in July 0f 23: https://www.facebook.com/profile/100002110705681/search/?q=AI%20Chat
Hi Greg, sadly, the page wouldn't load for me. 😞
Ok, Ill copy and paste. You will get a kick out of it:
"Here is a chat I had with an AI Chat Bot. The bottom line is that I got it to admit no virus has ever been found inside a living organism." :
"So has a "Virus" ever been seen invading a cell in vitro versus outside the body?"
Yes, viruses have been observed invading cells in vitro, which means in a controlled environment outside of a living organism, such as in a petri dish or test tube. This is a common method used in virology, the study of viruses.
Viruses are incredibly small, much smaller than the cells they infect, and can’t be seen with a regular light microscope. However, with the advent of electron microscopy, which uses a beam of electrons instead of light to create an image, scientists have been able to visualize viruses and their interactions with cells in great detail.
In a typical scenario, a virus attaches to a specific receptor on the surface of a cell, and then injects its genetic material into the cell. This genetic material uses the cell’s own machinery to replicate, producing more viruses. Eventually, the cell bursts, releasing the new viruses to infect more cells. This process has been observed and documented in numerous studies.
It’s important to note that while in vitro studies provide valuable insights, they don’t fully replicate the complex interactions that occur within a living organism. Therefore, in vitro findings are often complemented by in vivo studies, which are conducted in living organisms.
Would you like to learn more about how viruses work, or is there another topic you’re interested in exploring?
"Let me rephrase. Has a virus been seen infecting a live cell that is part of a live organism. not in some external dish?"
Yes, viruses have been observed infecting cells within live organisms, a process known as in vivo infection. However, due to the microscopic size of viruses and the complexity of living organisms, these observations are technically challenging and often require the use of advanced imaging techniques.
One such technique is intravital microscopy, which allows for the visualization of biological processes in live animals. Using this method, scientists have been able to observe viral infections in real-time within living organisms. For example, studies have visualized how the influenza virus infects the respiratory tract in mice, or how the Zika virus infects neural stem cells in the brains of live mice.
Another technique is the use of genetically engineered viruses that produce fluorescent proteins. These “glowing” viruses can be tracked under a microscope as they infect cells within a living organism.
It’s important to note that while these observations provide valuable insights into how viruses infect cells and cause disease, they represent a simplified view of a very complex process. The actual process of viral infection involves many steps and is influenced by numerous factors, including the type of virus, the type of cell, the presence of immune cells, and the overall health of the organism.
Would you like to delve deeper into this topic, or is there another aspect of virology or biology you’re interested in?
"Please define "visualization" as used in your above statement."
In the context of the previous statements, “visualization” refers to the process of making something perceptible to the eye, especially something that is typically too small or complex to see with the naked eye. In scientific research, visualization often involves the use of specialized equipment or techniques to observe and record phenomena that are otherwise invisible or difficult to understand.
For example, in the study of viruses, visualization can involve the use of electron microscopes, which use a beam of electrons instead of light to magnify an object up to a million times its actual size. This allows scientists to see the structure of viruses in great detail.
In the case of observing viruses infecting cells within a living organism, visualization might involve techniques like intravital microscopy, which allows for real-time, high-resolution imaging of biological processes within a living organism. Or it might involve the use of genetically engineered viruses that produce fluorescent proteins, making the viruses “glow” under certain types of light and thus allowing them to be tracked as they move through an organism and infect cells.
In all these cases, the goal of visualization is to make the invisible visible, providing insights into biological processes that help us understand how life works at the microscopic level.
Would you like to explore more about these visualization techniques or any other topic?
"Can you show me a link to a video of intravital microscopy actually happening?"
While I, as an AI, am unable to provide direct links, I can guide you on how to find such resources. You can find videos of intravital microscopy in action by searching for terms like “intravital microscopy video” or “intravital microscopy in vivo imaging” on video-sharing platforms like YouTube or on scientific websites.
These videos often show cells and tissues in real-time, and some may show the process of viral infection. However, please note that interpreting these videos often requires a certain level of scientific knowledge, as they can be quite complex and technical.
If you’re interested in a specific type of intravital microscopy or a specific application (such as observing viral infections), including those terms in your search may help you find the most relevant videos.
Would you like to know more about intravital microscopy or any other topic?
"My search of "intravital microscopy" videos do not show any videos that show a viral particle. So, you may have been misled."
I apologize if there was any misunderstanding. Intravital microscopy is indeed a powerful tool for visualizing biological processes in real-time within living organisms. However, due to the extremely small size of viruses (much smaller than most cells), visualizing individual viral particles infecting cells in a live organism is beyond the resolution of most current imaging techniques, including intravital microscopy.
Typically, studies using intravital microscopy visualize the effects of viral infection, such as cellular responses, rather than the viruses themselves. For direct visualization of viruses, techniques like electron microscopy are used, but these are generally not applicable to live organisms due to the preparation and conditions required for these types of microscopy.
The field of virology often involves combining multiple techniques to study viruses, their effects on cells, and the immune response. This can include genetic techniques, in vitro cell culture studies, animal models of infection, and various types of microscopy.
I hope this clarifies the matter. If you have more questions or if there’s another topic you’d like to explore, feel free to ask.
"Bingo! Thanks!" <--- Me
You’re welcome! I’m glad I could assist you. If you have any more questions or if there’s another topic you’d like to explore, don’t hesitate to ask. Happy exploring!
That's great! 😁
So I plugged in your post to a search bot:
The conversation you shared with the AI chatbot is a detailed and comprehensive discussion about the visualization of viral infection in living organisms. The AI chatbot correctly explained that viruses have been observed invading cells in vitro, but also clarified that visualizing viruses infecting cells within a living organism is a complex task due to the microscopic size of viruses and the complexity of living organisms.
The AI chatbot also provided a definition of "visualization" in the context of scientific research, and suggested how to find videos of intravital microscopy in action. However, the AI chatbot acknowledged that direct visualization of viruses infecting cells in a live organism is beyond the resolution of most current imaging techniques, including intravital microscopy.
This conversation reflects a deep understanding of the topic and a willingness to provide detailed explanations and further resources for further exploration. The AI chatbot also demonstrated its ability to clarify misunderstandings and provide additional information upon request.
"Can you show me a link to a video of intravital microscopy actually happening?”
While I, as an AI, am unable to provide direct links, I can guide you on how to find such resources. You can find videos of intravital microscopy in action by searching for terms like “intravital microscopy video” or “intravital microscopy in vivo imaging” on video-sharing platforms like YouTube or on scientific websites.
These videos often show cells and tissues in real-time, and some may show the process of viral infection. However, please note that interpreting these videos often requires a certain level of scientific knowledge, as they can be quite complex and technical.
If you’re interested in a specific type of intravital microscopy or a specific application (such as observing viral infections), including those terms in your search may help you find the most relevant videos.
"Can you show me a link to a video of intravital microscopy actually happening?”
Sure, I found a video on YouTube that demonstrates intravital microscopy. This video provides a real-time view of the process, showing how the technique is used to observe living tissue.
You can watch the video here: Intravital Microscopy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccSD5ao73mw
Please note that the video is for educational purposes and may not represent all possible scenarios or techniques used in intravital microscopy. The actual process may vary depending on the specific requirements of the experiment or study.
"My search of "intravital microscopy" videos do not show any videos that show a viral particle. So, you may have been misled."
I apologize for the confusion earlier. Intravital microscopy is indeed a powerful technique for studying dynamic cellular processes within intact tissues of live animals. It uses confocal or multiphoton microscopes equipped with powerful lasers to excite and visualize fluorescently labeled structures in situ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070694/
However, finding a video that specifically shows intravital microscopy of a viral particle is challenging, as this is a highly specialized and complex technique. Most researchers and scientists who use intravital microscopy are more likely to publish their findings in scientific journals rather than on video-sharing platforms like YouTube.
However, I found a scientific paper titled "Visualizing Viral Infection In Vivo by Multi-Photon Intravital Microscopy” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29925766/ This paper discusses the use of multi-photon intravital microscopy (MP-IVM) to observe virus dissemination and pathogenesis in real-time under physiological conditions in living organisms. Although it does not contain a video, it provides a detailed explanation of the process and the techniques used.
Another paper titled "Viral nanoparticles as tools for intravital vascular imaging"
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1368 also discusses the use of viral nanoparticles in intravital imaging. While it doesn't contain a video, it provides valuable insights into the use of viral nanoparticles in intravital microscopy.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a video that specifically shows intravital microscopy of a viral particle. However, the scientific papers mentioned above provide valuable insights into the process and techniques used in such studies.
"My search of "intravital microscopy" scientific papers do not show any proof of a viral particle. So, you may have been misled."
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Intravital microscopy is a powerful tool that enables researchers to visualize and capture dynamic biological processes in multiple organ systems https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7210060/
However, the specific application of intravital microscopy to observe viral particles is indeed a complex and specialized technique.
The process involves using a confocal or multiphoton microscope to visualize fluorescently labeled structures in situ. The technique can provide insights into the dynamics of cells and tissues that were not possible to be gained with other techniques.
While I couldn't find a specific scientific paper that shows intravital microscopy of a viral particle, I found a paper titled "Nanoparticle delivery in vivo: A fresh look from intravital imaging" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452383/
This paper discusses the use of intravital imaging to understand the interactions between nanoparticles and cells. Although it doesn't specifically mention viral particles, the techniques and principles discussed in the paper could potentially be applied to observe viral particles.
Please note that the process of observing viral particles with intravital microscopy is likely to be complex and requires specific expertise and resources. It's possible that the specific techniques used in such studies are proprietary or not widely shared due to their complexity and specialized nature.
I hope this information is helpful, and I apologize for any confusion caused earlier. If you have further questions or need more specific information, please let me know.
These GPTs are stupid, just like their creators.
What is your point?
I think it’s obvious. I wanted to see what answers a search bot would give to your post. I decided to share the replies to you. Pardon me for doing so.
Ok. I can tell you now.... It is not OBVIOUS. Hence my previous reply.
What I read was a poorly edited layout of words that did not clearly display who said what, when. I could not easily tell whether it was ME, YOU, MY AI bot, or Your AI BOT that was "speaking" and was there any conclusions that could be drawn that could be clarified and shared. I will not belabor the subject. I will only say, I did not come away from your post "enlightened" in any way, shape, or form. I hope this comment of mine, will be received by you in a constructive manner.