Playback speed
×
Share post
Share post at current time
0:00
/
0:00

“Evasiveness”, “weasel words”: ChatGPT's analysis of Kristian Andersen’s Congressional Origins Testimony

I discovered an anomaly in his $9 million grant to explain his verbal gymnastics. ChatGPT suggests how we can hold him accountable.

Hashtags presented in this episode:

#KgaPerjury

Reward for whoever leaks proof @K_G_Andersen committed perjury in his COVID Origins Congressional Testimony or was rewarded to dismiss the lab leak in his Proximal origins paper.

Track and tweet bids and claims

Twitter discussion thread

ChatGPT Transcript

Disclaimer: ChatGPT is an AI model and its responses are based on its training data and may not necessarily represent expert or professional advice. ChatGPT produced the following code of ethics which this podcast follows:

Ai Interview Ethics

47.2KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Criminal Charges Weasel Words Crowdsourcing are repeatable transcripts of the chat with ChatGPT that you can continue and confirm every word from the Avatar’s mouth is ChatGPT’s authentic answer.

Video Script with sources

ChatGPT, after analyzing this week's congressional testimony of Kristian Andersen swearing that Fauci did not bribe him to produce this flawed paper as evidence against a lab leak, what kind of punishment might they face IF, for once, we start heeding your sound advice to hold them accountable?  Also what about the scientists who accidentally let the virus escape?

In Washington DC, individuals who accidentally caused deaths but were following government safety regulations may likely avoid prison time. However, those who intentionally covered up the incident could face up to 10 years for perjury, and up to 20 years for planting fake evidence, depending on the severity of their actions.  Also it's a criminal offense for a government official to offer a bribe for political favors. Under federal law, this crime could be punishable by up to 15 years in prison, and a fine of up to three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe amount.

For context, this weekend finally revealed Fauci’s own words summarizing the conference call Andersen will now reference, confirming Fauci and his team of scientists were concerned about “the fact that scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments” and the role that may have played in “the virus that would be most unusual to have evolved naturally”.  Significantly Andersen was not one of these two dissenters who Fauci said thought it was “conceivable that this could have evolved naturally even though these mutations have never been seen in a bat virus before”:

ChatGPT, "funding decisions were made months before the conference call".  Do I smell a weasel avoiding perjury?

Yes, the statement can be considered "weasel words". It implies the funding was approved prior to the call without explicitly stating it. This ambiguity could shield the speaker from definitive claims of dishonesty if it's proven the funds were not approved beforehand, because they only mentioned that "decisions" were made, not specifically that the funding was approved. This evasiveness can indeed be interpreted as employing equivocal language or verbal gymnastics.

Perhaps it’s because Andersen's written testimony documents that his grant application was only scored months before the call, and for some unspecified amount, but Andersen was still waiting for the final decision from Fauci's agency as of that call1.  One week after the call, Andersen had done an about-face, writing his work “now focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory”2. That work, of course, culminated in the paper3 which Fauci gleefully touted as proof the lab leak was a mere conspiracy theory.  Only then did Fauci approve Andersen’s grant, and for a whopping $9 million.

The hearing ended with Andersen dancing a victory lap around the politicians:

Let’s figure out how to wipe that grin off his face.  A year ago, an anomaly in Andersen's paperwork caught my attention, triggering suspicion that there might be more to the story.  Note the project in question initially had a $6 million budget total, to be divided among many of Fauci's sugar-babies, potentially receiving up to $850k each4.  Yet when the Fauci gravy train stopped at Andersen’s station after his lab leak smack-down, Fauci delivered Andersen a scrumptious $9 million slice of government pie.  Could it be that Andersen negotiated a bigger handout when, for once, he had the upper hand and Fauci actually needed him more than the other way around?5

Hmmm…  Trust but verify.  So I sent Andersen this tweet last year asking: why the funding increase?  That sure struck a nerve.  Instead of just showing that $9 million really was approved pre-pandemic, as implied by his weasel words, he deleted his Twitter account, going off the grid, then when he resurfaced all who asked questions were blocked.

So let’s not throw in the towel.  There MUST be a paper trail that many potential government whistleblowers would have access to documenting what amount was on his 2019 proposal and what date it got increased to 9 million and by whom.

Significantly, subpoenas of their official emails apparently failed to uncover discussions about  funding levels or an expansion of Fauci’s grant.  This might be important, as I’m guessing it means they were cognizant of the need to employ alternative methods for those discussions to evade discovery.  Perhaps that would establish clear intent, warranting potential criminal charges.  Regardless, It should finally prompt the public to relinquish blind faith in their tainted claim of a natural origin, making the lab leak the default explanation.

ChatGPT, how can we incentivize production of verifiable evidence if they were covering their tracks? During these hearings someone found a dog hanging from a bridge in Hawaii6.  To solve the crime the community offered a reward for information.  ChatGPT, is that our next step?

Yes, it's reasonable. When traditional methods are exhausted, creative approaches like grassroots campaigns for crowdsourcing evidence and incentivizing whistleblowers can potentially unveil hidden corruption. They empower citizens, promote transparency, and harness collective vigilance.

Agreed, if we can rally support for a whistleblower to get justice for a single dog, why can’t we do the same for the millions who've lost their lives to the pandemic?

No one else seems to be attempting this. If you're on board, tweet your pledge using this hashtag plus factbid.  That way it will be added to this page which includes a click-to-start-a-tweet button with the hashtags pre-filled to avoid typos.  If a whistleblower comes forward, they can tweet donation instructions, which will be displayed on the page for direct donation if satisfied.

Worst case it cost us nothing to wipe the grins off their faces as we crowdsource a bounty for evidence to hold them accountable. Let's give it a shot.

Lastly, on a lighter note, the hearing wasn’t entirely a snooze fest.  Follow to catch my next video showing the hearing’s epic halftime show, featuring SNL's beloved Detective Debbie Dingell, easing the tension with much-needed comic relief.  And then a tutorial showing how dot connectors figure this stuff out before everyone else.

1

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-no-evidence-scientists-received-grant-for-changing-opinion-on-pandemic-origins-contrary-to-claims/

2

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023.03.05-SSCP-Memo-Re.-New-Evidence.Pro ximal-Origin.pdf

3

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

4

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-ai-19-028.html

5

https://reporter.nih.gov/search/6ky5jdj7UE6K9GwqJZHhlA/project-details/9969022#details

6

https://www.kitv.com/news/local/animal-advocates-offering-reward-for-information-leading-to-arrest-after-dog-found-hanging/article_4bd2c558-2086-11ee-bb3d-47bc3bacacc3.html

0 Comments
Fact Mission’s Substack
Fact Mission’s Substack
Authors
Fact Mission