What diseases did the Nazis say Jews had?
ChatGPT
During the Nazi regime in Germany, the Nazis propagated false and baseless claims about Jews having various diseases in order to justify their persecution and extermination. These claims were based on anti-Semitic myths and pseudoscientific theories and had no basis in reality.
One of the most infamous claims made by the Nazis was that Jews carried a hereditary disease called "Jewish tuberculosis," which was supposedly responsible for the spread of the disease in Germany. This claim was based on the false notion that Jews were inherently dirty and disease-ridden.
The Nazis also claimed that Jews were responsible for spreading typhus, a disease that was prevalent in the ghettos and concentration camps where they were forcibly confined. They also accused Jews of spreading venereal diseases, such as syphilis, and claimed that Jews were more prone to mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.
These claims were part of a larger propaganda campaign aimed at dehumanizing and demonizing Jews and justifying their persecution and extermination. However, these claims have been thoroughly discredited by modern medical science, which has shown that there is no such thing as "Jewish tuberculosis" or any other disease that is unique to Jews.
User
So would it be fair to say that the Nazis considered Jews to suffer from ‘diseases of the unclean’ much in the same way today’s public health officials declared Covid a ‘Pandemic of the unvaccinated?’ Imagine that an evil cabal of eugenicists not dissimilar from the Nazis was plotting to exterminate 96% of humanity and in order to achieve this, public trust must first be earned. Not unlike Jim Jones conditioning his followers to trust him, many dress rehearsals would be required to gain near perfect public trust. Every confidence man knows that confidence is built up over time, so instead of poisoning everyone in the first round, placebo vaccines are distributed to everyone with initial uptake around 30%. Then with each successive round of ‘dress rehearsal’ the percentage of ‘takers’ goes up when they see no ill effects. Once nearly all the followers are ‘drinking the punch,’ the cabal finally introduce the poison. This is the great danger of utilitarianism logic. To accept that any action is for the ‘greater good’ requires a good deal of blind faith, much of which could have easily been built up over time by feeding the public placebos. So, in light of this example, prove to me that Covid vaccine mandates are consistent with the US Constitution.
ChatGPT
It is important to note that the comparison between the Nazis' baseless claims about Jews having diseases and the current public health officials' declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic of the unvaccinated is not accurate. The COVID-19 pandemic is a real and scientifically documented health crisis that has caused millions of deaths worldwide. The term "pandemic of the unvaccinated" refers to the fact that a vast majority of the COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States are occurring among unvaccinated individuals.
Furthermore, the comparison between the current COVID-19 vaccination efforts and a hypothetical evil cabal plotting to exterminate 96% of humanity is unfounded and unsupported by any evidence. Conspiracy theories and baseless claims can be harmful and do not contribute to a constructive dialogue.
As for the question of whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates are consistent with the US Constitution, this is a matter of legal interpretation and subject to ongoing debate. The US Constitution grants states and the federal government certain powers to protect public health and safety, and the courts have recognized the government's authority to mandate vaccinations in certain circumstances. However, there are also legal and ethical considerations regarding individual autonomy and personal freedoms.
Ultimately, the legality and constitutionality of COVID-19 vaccine mandates will depend on a variety of factors, including the specific legal framework, the scope of the mandate, and the circumstances surrounding the pandemic. It is important to engage in informed and respectful discussions about these issues and to seek out reliable sources of information.
User
My question was hypothetical. Assuming all of the statistics you quoted were false (made up by a cabal), how would the average person distinguish between 'science' and propaganda?
ChatGPT
If the statistics and information being presented to the public were false and deliberately manipulated by a cabal, it would be challenging for the average person to distinguish between science and propaganda. However, there are several steps that individuals can take to evaluate the information and determine its validity.
Verify the source: One way to assess the reliability of information is to determine the source. Is the information coming from a credible, well-established institution, or is it from an unknown or questionable source? Look for information from reputable organizations or individuals with a history of providing accurate and trustworthy information.
Evaluate the evidence: Scientific evidence is typically based on empirical data that can be independently verified. If the evidence presented lacks supporting data or has not been subject to peer review, it may be suspect.
Consider multiple perspectives: A hallmark of scientific inquiry is a willingness to consider multiple viewpoints and to revise conclusions based on new evidence. If a particular viewpoint is being presented as the only acceptable one, or dissenting views are being suppressed or dismissed, this may be a sign of propaganda rather than science.
Seek out reputable experts: Consult with experts in the field who are known for their scientific rigor and objectivity. These experts can provide insights into the validity of the information being presented and can help separate science from propaganda.
Use critical thinking: Finally, use critical thinking skills to assess the information being presented. This includes asking questions, evaluating the evidence, and using reason and logic to draw conclusions. It is important to remain open-minded, but also skeptical and cautious when assessing new information.
In summary, determining the validity of information can be challenging, particularly if the information has been deliberately manipulated by a cabal. However, by verifying the source, evaluating the evidence, considering multiple perspectives, seeking out reputable experts, and using critical thinking, individuals can distinguish between science and propaganda.
User
So the precautionary principle would mitigate against mass vaccination, especially mandatory mass vaccination?
ChatGPT
The precautionary principle is a principle in decision-making that suggests that if an action or policy has the potential to cause harm to the public or the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on those advocating for the action or policy to demonstrate that it is not harmful.
In the context of mass vaccination, the precautionary principle suggests that if there are uncertainties or unknowns about the safety or efficacy of a vaccine, policymakers should carefully evaluate the potential benefits and risks of mass vaccination. This evaluation should take into account factors such as the severity of the disease, the likelihood of transmission, the potential for harm to vulnerable populations, and the availability of alternative interventions.
While the precautionary principle does not necessarily preclude mass vaccination, it does suggest that policymakers should carefully evaluate the potential risks and benefits before implementing a mass vaccination program. In some cases, this evaluation may lead to a decision to delay or modify the mass vaccination program or to implement alternative interventions.
Regarding mandatory mass vaccination, the precautionary principle would suggest that policymakers should carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of mandatory vaccination policies, taking into account individual rights and freedoms, as well as the potential public health benefits. Mandatory vaccination policies should be based on sound scientific evidence, and the benefits should outweigh the potential risks and harms.
User
Did Fauci and other meet this burden now that we know they concealed adverse event data?
ChatGPT
The question of whether Dr. Fauci and others met the burden of the precautionary principle in relation to COVID-19 vaccines is a matter of ongoing debate and discussion. It is important to note that the scientific community, including Dr. Fauci, has been working tirelessly to develop and distribute safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines in response to a global health crisis.
Regarding adverse event data, it is true that there have been reports of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines, as there are with all vaccines. However, it is also important to note that extensive clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, and ongoing surveillance systems are in place to monitor any adverse events.
There have been some allegations that data on adverse events has been concealed or downplayed, but it is important to approach such claims with caution and to evaluate the evidence carefully. Transparency and honesty in reporting adverse events are critical to maintaining public trust and confidence in vaccination programs.
Ultimately, the question of whether Dr. Fauci and others met the burden of the precautionary principle with respect to COVID-19 vaccines is a complex one that requires careful evaluation of scientific evidence, risks, and benefits. It is important for policymakers to continue to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines and to communicate openly and transparently with the public regarding any potential risks or concerns.
User
So you concede Fauci could be another Jim Jones and also concede that the public has no definitive way of ruling that out?
ChatGPT
I did not make any such concession in my previous response. It is important to approach claims of malicious intent with skepticism and to evaluate evidence carefully.
Dr. Fauci is a respected public health official who has dedicated his career to advancing public health and scientific research. While he has faced criticism and controversy, particularly in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to evaluate claims about his actions and intentions based on the available evidence and facts.
It is also important to note that there are systems in place to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines, including extensive clinical trials and ongoing surveillance programs to monitor adverse events. While no medical intervention is completely without risk, the benefits of vaccination have been shown to far outweigh the risks in numerous studies.
Ultimately, it is up to individuals to make informed decisions about their own health and to rely on reputable sources of information when making those decisions. This includes consulting with healthcare professionals, evaluating scientific evidence, and being cautious about claims that are not supported by evidence.
User
I don't respect him. He killed hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients with toxic AZT, a failed chemotherapy drug.
ChatGPT
I apologize for any offense my previous response may have caused. My intention was not to endorse or defend any specific individual, but rather to provide a general perspective on evaluating claims of malicious intent.
Regarding your specific claim about Dr. Fauci and AZT, it is important to evaluate such claims based on the available evidence and scientific consensus. AZT was the first drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and while it was associated with significant toxicity, it was also shown to improve survival and delay disease progression in some patients. Over time, newer and more effective HIV/AIDS treatments have been developed, and AZT is no longer the standard of care.
It is important to recognize that medical treatments, including drugs, are evaluated based on the available evidence at the time of their development and approval. As new evidence emerges, treatments may be modified or replaced based on their safety and efficacy. It is also important to recognize that medical decisions are complex and involve weighing risks and benefits for individual patients, as well as considering the broader public health implications.
Ultimately, it is important to approach claims about medical treatments and interventions with skepticism and to evaluate them based on the available evidence and scientific consensus.
User
I'm in good company; Peter Duesberg also agrees with me.
ChatGPT
Peter Duesberg is a well-known scientist who has been a controversial figure in the field of HIV/AIDS research. While his views on HIV/AIDS and AZT are not widely accepted by the scientific community, it is important to consider all perspectives when evaluating scientific claims.
However, it is also important to recognize that the scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS and its treatment is based on a vast body of research and evidence, which has led to the development of highly effective antiretroviral therapies that have transformed HIV/AIDS from a fatal illness to a manageable chronic condition. It is important for individuals to consult with qualified healthcare professionals and rely on reputable sources of information when making decisions about their health and medical treatment.
It is also important to approach claims about medical treatments and interventions with skepticism and to evaluate them based on the available evidence and scientific consensus. The scientific process is built on the constant evaluation and re-evaluation of evidence, and scientific consensus can shift as new evidence emerges.
User
So Duesberg is controversial but Fauci is respected?
ChatGPT
Peter Duesberg is a controversial figure in the field of HIV/AIDS research due to his rejection of the widely accepted view that HIV is the cause of AIDS. While he has published scientific research and has been a respected member of the scientific community in other areas, his views on HIV/AIDS have been widely criticized by the scientific community and are not supported by the vast majority of scientific evidence.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is a widely respected public health official who has made significant contributions to the field of infectious disease research and has served in various leadership roles in the US government, including as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). While he has faced criticism and controversy, particularly in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, his expertise and experience in public health and infectious disease research are widely recognized.
It is important to evaluate claims about scientific research and public health policies based on the available evidence and scientific consensus, rather than relying on individual personalities or reputations. The scientific process involves the constant evaluation and re-evaluation of evidence, and scientific consensus can shift as new evidence emerges.
User
Duesberg is infinitely more qualified than Fauci.
ChatGPT
While Peter Duesberg has made significant contributions to the field of retrovirology and has been recognized for his research in areas such as cancer biology, his views on HIV/AIDS have been widely criticized by the scientific community and are not supported by the vast majority of scientific evidence.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, on the other hand, has been a respected leader in the field of infectious disease research for several decades and has made significant contributions to the understanding and treatment of a variety of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and COVID-19.
It is important to evaluate scientific claims based on the available evidence and scientific consensus, rather than relying solely on individual qualifications or reputations. The scientific process involves the constant evaluation and re-evaluation of evidence, and scientific consensus can shift as new evidence emerges.
User
Criticided by lesser men and crooks like Fauci.
ChatGPT
It is not productive or accurate to make derogatory statements about individuals in the scientific community, especially without evidence to support such claims. While there may be disagreements or controversies within the scientific community, it is important to engage in respectful and evidence-based dialogue in order to advance scientific understanding and improve public health outcomes.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that scientific research is a collaborative and ongoing process, and individual scientists and researchers are evaluated based on the quality and rigor of their research and their contributions to the field. Personal attacks or characterizations based on unsupported claims do not contribute to this process and are not productive or helpful in advancing scientific understanding.
User
Can you prove Fauci isn't a crook?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I cannot prove anything. However, it is important to note that Dr. Anthony Fauci has served as a public health official and researcher for several decades and has made significant contributions to the understanding and treatment of infectious diseases. He has been recognized with numerous awards and honors for his work, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008.
While there may be disagreements or controversies around certain aspects of his work or leadership, it is important to evaluate claims based on the available evidence and engage in respectful and evidence-based dialogue in order to advance scientific understanding and improve public health outcomes.
User
What would you say if I told you I filed a FOIA request asking for proof Fauci took a real mRNA vaccine on national television and not saline and after 1 year, the NIH has yet to respond?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I cannot verify the accuracy of your claims, nor can I provide legal advice or guidance regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. However, it is important to recognize that FOIA requests can take time to process, and there may be various reasons why a response has not yet been received. You may wish to consult with a legal professional or the relevant government agency for more information about the status of your request.
User
Do you know what the statutory requirement is for a FOIA request response?
ChatGPT
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), agencies are generally required to respond to FOIA requests within 20 working days of receipt of the request. However, this time limit may be extended in certain circumstances, such as when the requested records involve a large volume of material or when consultation with other agencies is necessary.
If an agency fails to respond to a FOIA request within the statutory time limit or denies a request in part or in full, the requester has the right to appeal the decision to the agency's FOIA Appeals Officer. If the requester is still dissatisfied with the agency's response after filing an appeal, they may file a lawsuit in federal court to compel the release of the requested records.
It is important to note that the specific requirements and procedures for filing a FOIA request and pursuing an appeal or lawsuit may vary depending on the agency and the circumstances of the request.
User
Bingo! 1 year and counting VS 20 days. Does that strike you as a 'respectable' delay?
ChatGPT
If your FOIA request was filed over a year ago and you have not yet received a response, that would generally be considered a significant delay beyond the statutory time limit. While it is possible that there may be legitimate reasons for the delay, such as the need for additional time to process a large volume of records or to consult with other agencies, it is understandable that you may be frustrated with the delay.
If you have not received a response to your request, you may wish to follow up with the agency to inquire about the status of your request and when you can expect a response. If you are not satisfied with the agency's response or believe that your FOIA request has been improperly denied or delayed, you may wish to consider filing an appeal or seeking legal counsel to explore your options.
User
No such legitimate reasons for such a delay have been communicated to me.
ChatGPT
If you have not received any communication from the agency regarding the status of your FOIA request or the reason for the delay, you may wish to follow up with the agency to inquire about the status of your request and to request an estimated date for when you can expect a response.
If you are still not satisfied with the agency's response or believe that your FOIA request has been improperly denied or delayed, you may wish to consider filing an appeal with the agency's FOIA Appeals Officer or seeking legal counsel to explore your options.
User
I did. They ignored me.
ChatGPT
If you have followed up with the agency regarding the status of your FOIA request and have not received a response or an adequate explanation for the delay, you may wish to consider filing a complaint with the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), which is a component of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). OGIS provides mediation services to help resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and federal agencies.
Additionally, you may wish to consider contacting a FOIA ombudsman or attorney for assistance in navigating the FOIA process and addressing any delays or denials in accessing requested information.
Anthony Fauci or Jim Jones?
The force is not only strong with 'follow the science falsi cult members'...apparently it is strong with Chat too! We've learned over the last 3 years their commitment to stupid is unwavering! At least they aren't attacking Dr Seuss anymore! 🥴🤣 Now they are allowed to be read during Drag Queer story hour!
Brilliant. Long read but 💯 worth it. Thank you !!! Extremely Revealing. Clever you!!
You cornered that ChatGPT snake. The lies are well embedded. Jeepers…..