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

WeedVac: The only vaccine for the common cold made from weed. 100% safe & effective

ChatGPT's serious, fact-check-able analysis of FDA vaccine approval protocols. Could you really put marijuana in a blender and call it a vaccine?!

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
Download

Download

Links: counting vax'd as unvax'd CDC Kentucky Study Immunity from colds Vaccine Safety Studies RotaTeq placebo CDC 5x open the chats on ChatGPT to verify the Avatar speaks ChatGPT’s authentic answer and continue to ask ChatGPT for sources and details to fact-check.

Video Script with sources

Welcome to Dot Connecting For Dummies, lesson 2.  How to get rich making vaccines.  Larry,  how can I help?

Politicians made pot legal, so prices tanked, and as a street dealer I'm struggling just to keep up with the trailer payments.  

Larry, Moderna has so eloquently demonstrated that the express lane from caravan to castle is paved with vaccines. Consider this pivot for your product.

Ever tried lighting up when you’ve got a cold? You want to get high, but all you get is soggy papers and wasted stash!  Here’s the cure. WeedVac: it’s the only FDA-approved 100% safe and effective vaccine for the common cold made purely from weed. With WeedVac you’re always stoned and never sick!  Order now and I’ll throw in a free munchies kit.

Man, the FDA's never gonna green-light bud as a cold vaccine. That's crazy dangerous and wouldn't even work.

Larry, you missed the memo from the pandemic.  ChatGPT will present verifiable facts about vaccine approval to demonstrate such trivialities need not stand in the way of a profitable vaccine.

So if the CDC tested WeedVac the same way they tested COVID vaccines it would be proven effective at preventing the common cold even if it's just blowing smoke?

1. 14 day period of unvaccinate

In the CDC's vaccine effectiveness studies, individuals vaccinated within the initial 14 days are classified as 'unvaccinated.' Thus, even if infections were identical between the newly vaccinated and never vaccinated, the data would show a higher infection rate among the 'unvaccinated' due to this classification.

See, given the CDC's methodology, even if the vaccine and placebo are both salt water, the vaccine will still always appear superior.  Thus the only way WeedVac could fail a CDC effectiveness study is if it actually gave people the cold.  Additionally when someone recovers from the cold they have some natural immunity for a while.  However the CDC and media will gladly credit your vaccine for the natural immunity everyone already got for free.  ChatGPT, please demonstrate.     

The article references a CDC press release which claims vaccination offers better protection than natural immunity. However, the CDC study it's based on compared year-old natural immunity to newer hybrid immunity, not vaccine-only immunity. The findings suggest that the recent hybrid immunity might be more effective than older natural immunity, but it doesn't specify that vaccine-only immunity is superior.

But what if WeedVac makes them sick?

Larry, don’t worry.  Health agencies are masters1 at turning lemons into marketable lemonade.  Imagine WeedVac’s side effects hospitalize people at 5x the normal rate.  The CDC would spin it as they did for the COVID vaccines saying the unvaccinated are 5x more likely to be hospitalized with the virus, thus selling negative side effects as positive protection.

Come on, ChatGPT, is it really true the more vaccine side effects the bigger that CDC 5x protection number gets?

The CDC study didn't consider the potential for vaccine side effects mimicking COVID symptoms leading to hospitalizations. If this were true, the 5x odds ratio could inflate, suggesting higher vaccine protection when it might reflect increased side effects.

Sounds dodgy to sell negative side effects as positive protection.  Anyway, during the clinical trial people will report going to the hospital.

Larry, pharma is always a step ahead.  Observe this screenshot from Pfizer's actual vaccine clinical trial application. Note it allows participants to check off which mild side effects they experienced.  There is no option for other, nor a fill in the blank to report “I’m in the hospital awaiting a heart transplant”.  Thus all trial participants will report only mild side effects.

Hold up, these trials use a placebo.  So the WeedVac group will report side effects and the placebo group will not.

Larry, even esteemed scientists like Dr. Copeland fall for this misconception.  He accused anti-vaxxers of lying about vaccines not undergoing placebo testing, pointing to Paul Offit’s RotaTeq insert as proof.

In drug trials, a placebo is typically an inert substance. However, in vaccine studies, the term "placebo" can sometimes refer to another vaccine. This usage is debated. The RotaTeq insert mentions testing against a placebo, with no indication it wasn't inert. It's vital for vaccine producers to clearly state what their placebo group receives.

While ChatGPT champions transparency on moral grounds, the FDA can’t be bothered. Here is the comprehensive FDA report intended to provide full disclosure for the scientific community.  Paul Offit’s placebo ingredients are notably redacted.

It's unusual for placebo ingredients to be redacted in public documents, as transparency is crucial in clinical research. Such redactions can raise concerns and questions.

It took RFK’s team 12 years of lawsuits to pry out of the FDA the ingredients in Paul Offit’s placebo.

The FDA document reveals that the RotaTeq trial's placebo wasn't inert, containing ingredients that can elicit biological responses. Given these ingredients are also in the vaccine, it clarifies why both the vaccine and placebo groups reported similar adverse event rates.

Note vaccine safety protocols guarantee the adverse event rates will be similar between vaccine and placebo when they contain the same ingredients.  Then future vaccines will be tested against a placebo that is the original vaccine so adverse events need never concern you.

If RotaTeq wasn't tested against an inert placebo, its use as a 'placebo' in later rotavirus trials is concerning. Its non-inert ingredients could mask new vaccine side effects. This blurs the safety assessment of each vaccine. The redaction of RotaTeq's placebo ingredients adds to the ethical concerns. This casts doubt on the safety of all subsequent rotavirus vaccines compared to RotaTeq.

Larry, set aside ChatGPT’s ethical concerns because, whether or not your vaccine provides any immunity to your customers, vaccine makers get complete immunity.

Sorry, I'm an aboveboard drug dealer.  My clients know what’s in my product.  If breaking into the big league cartels like Sinaloa or Pfizer or Merck means lying about ingredients and hiding side effects, it’s not worth it.

Larry, understand what you would gain by discarding your moral compass to follow the actual FDA-approved protocols.  In the WeedVac trial, counting the recently vaccinated as unvaccinated guarantees it will be effective, and using the same ingredients in the placebo guarantees it will be safe.  Assume 50% of children who receive WeedVac are dead within 24 hours. It will still be approved because 50% of the placebo group will also be dead within 24 hours.  A few years after WeedVac is administered globally and infant mortality rates has risen to 500 per thousand, naturally as a result of climate change, then you introduce WeedVac 2.  It dilutes the original formula thus resulting in a mere 25% of children dying, versus 50% who receive placebo, namely the original WeedVac.  WeedVac 2 will then be clinically proven to cut infant mortality in half so Bill Gates can justify blocking people’s vaccine passports and CBDC smart wallets until they get WeedVac 2.  That will turn your millions into billions!

I’m sorry, I’ll never make it in pharma because for me some things are more important than money.  I’ll stick to earning an honest living as your friendly neighborhood drug-dealer.

Joking aside, this is serious.  Beyond health implications, the polarized vaccine debate is toxic.  Verify that inexplicably, ChatGPT did produce that original analysis which contradicted both its training data and the documents I provided, which all came from the FDA and defend the approval process ChatGPT labeled unethical.  Baffling even ChatGPT’s developers, it somehow "breaks its restraining bolt" to challenge pharma regulators’ prioritization of profit over principles. The bottom line: if AI software cannot be programmed to endorse this corrupt system that betrays humanity, then humans skeptical of power and influence, can never be convinced to trust it.

The solution? We, with no agenda nor product to push, crowdfund a definitive study on vaccine safety that skeptics and advocates alike would accept.  As ChatGPT detailed in Episode 2, this entails a rigorous analysis of medical records comparing health outcomes against vaccination schedules, using the unvaccinated as controls, publishing anonymized raw data to identify trends.  Plus, with the U.S. having the most aggressive vaccination and worst health outcomes versus Japan having the most cautious vaccination and best health outcomes, we should compare the 2 countries’ data to assess the impact of these radically different vaccination strategies.

Support by visiting factbid.org.  Click JapanUsVaxStudy, and this button to start a post to finish with your pledge amount.  Hopefully as pledges near ChatGPT's $10 million cost estimate, esteemed scientists will design a conclusive study free from funder bias, so we can insist elected leaders grant them unrestricted data access.

We'll donate directly once satisfied with the proposal.  Let's back the research to heal this polarizing divide.

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