On Friday, February 23, 2024, i wrote:

Greetings Jonathan, i hope this email finds you well,

i just wanted to write you a quick note, to let you know about something i discovered that might interest you.

I've been using ChatGPT 3.5 a lot lately, and been posing some vaccine related questions, to see what they have to say.

The other day, i asked ChatGPT to give me a complete list of everyone in the history of the world who has ever been able to successfully use a "study" to find a vaccine problem.

ChatGPT answered with "Andrew Wakefield" !!

And so i asked ChatGPT to explain Wakefield's work.

ChatGPT went on to say how Wakefield's study was complete BS, and didn't actually find any problems.

So then i asked ChatGPT why it was that when i asked for complete list of everyone who had successfully used a study to find a vaccine problem, ChatGPT instead gave me an example of someone NOT finding a problem with a vaccine?

So i challenged ChatGPT to give me a list of everyone EXCEPT Wakefield, who had successfully used a study to find a problem...

and guess what?

ChatGPT was utterly incapable of naming a single person !!

So later i challenged ChatGPT to give me an example of Frank DeStefano using a study to find a vaccine problem,

and guess what?

ChatGPT tried giving me examples of Frank DeStefano using study to NOT find a problem.

I explained to ChatGPT that i wasn't interested in examples of DeStefano finding that vaccine was safe, i was only interested in examples of DeStefano using a study to find a vaccine was NOT safe...

Again, ChatGPT was utterly incapable of giving me a single example of Frank DeStefano using a study to find a vaccine problem...

But this note to you in't about Andrew Wakefield or Frank DeStefano,

its about YOU....

because you write for "science based medicine", and i recently got done reading your piece entitled

"I won't call Paul Offit an anti-vaxxer",

which i was reading because i have an interest in Paul Offit.

So, my working hypothesis had been for some time now, that vaccine studies are actually designed NOT to find vaccine problems, which is why vaccine scientists always claim that they are "unable to find the evidence" that any vaccine causes any problems.

Now, as I'm sure you already know, in 2004 the CDC did a vaccine-autism study, and the CDC did in-fact discover a link between vaccines and autism with that study.

2004: CDC Study: Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936

Its curious that ChatGPT seemed to be un-aware of this study.

Actually, i did challenge ChatGPT on this study, and the CDC whistleblower press release, that according to ChatGPT was supposedly not credible because it wasn't released thru official CDC channels.

2014, CDC whistleblower press release: "...i regret my coauthors and i omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in journal Pediatrics. the omitted data suggested AA males who received MMR vaccine before age 36 mo were at increased risk for autism..." ~ Dr William Thompson, CDC whistleblower https://i.redd.it/1rb482xb9ty41.png

Officially, the CDC claims that the reason they discovered a link between vaccines and autism, is because

autism causes vaccines (sic)

you can read all about the CDC's "autism causes vaccines" hypothesis here:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/cdc2004pediatrics.html

to me its a little suspicious that the CDC did this vaccine-autism study in 2004, yet didn't publish their "autism causes vaccines" hypothesis until 2014,

and even then in 2014, it was only after the CDC whistleblower made his press release, admitting to finding a link between vaccines and autism, that the CDC decided to publicize their "autism causes vaccines" theory.

honestly, it sounds like a cover-story.

and then they will try to re-direct our attention to the IoM study, published in 2012, which "couldn't find the evidence"

which of course is slightly suspect, because if the IoM study was any good, it would have found the same evidence that the CDC found.

but officially, neither the CDC or IoM were able to use a vaccine study, to find a vaccine problem...

are we surprised?

not at all...

So heres where you come in Jonathan...

you seem like a reasonable guy.

you play the long game...

1. I would like you to seek out the "science based evidence" that actually backs up the CDC's "autism causes vaccines" hypothesis, and then present this "science based evidence" to the whole world.

if you are unable to find any actual science based evidence, then i would like you to write a new piece describing your experience in NOT being able to locate any evidence.

like this lady did... https://archive.ph/RJR4m#selection-523.14-688.2

Because right now, my current hypothesis is that the CDC simply made up that claim that "autism causes vaccines" (sic), and the CDC didn't base it on any evidence available at that time.

Furthermore, i suspect the CDC never followed up on this new hypothesis of theirs, by doing any kind of study, to see if they could falsify their hypothesis.

you could easily falsify my hypothesis by producing any relevant studies.

2. please give me a comprehensive, exhaustive list of everyone who has ever successfully used a vaccine study to find a vaccine problem.

3. please give me several examples of a study that "DID NOT find the evidence" of a vaccine problem, that was later found to be a bad study.

4. please give me several examples of a study that "DID find the evidence" of a vaccine problem, that was later found to be a good study.

5. if you are unable to produce anything for 2, 3, 4, please write a new piece about your own personal experience in not being able to find the evidence,

and what it really means for the long-term future of public confidence in vaccine studies...

"Future data will clarify the risks and benefits of a booster in young people. I am confident Dr. Offit will accept it and report it as fairly as possible. That’s what makes him completely different from contrarian doctors".

~ Jonathan Howard January 23, 2022

i appreciate your prompt attention to these matters,

and i look forward to reading your future posts!

thank you,

(me)

over a month later....

Jonathan, how goes it?

have you had any success in finding the evidence i requested earlier?

because honestly, i suspect that you decided to resort to a "thought terminating cliche" instead of continuing down this cognitively exhausting line of inquiry...

you can learn more about "thought-terminating cliches" at the link below, ...

but i doubt you will... because its just too easy to resort to yet another one! ...

its habit forming, isn't it?

which i suspect is how you got yourself into your current mindset in the first place...

the question is, how will you get yourself out?

the truth is, we all have been brainwashed since birth, by the vaccine cult.

if you ask me for help, i will help you...

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/69difo/thought_terminating_cliché_please_familiarize/

but at least be honest with yourself, and stop referring to what you do as "science based"... because its not...

and the litmus test for your own personal vaccine compliance, is the date of your last COVID booster...

yours truly,

(me)