The fact that absurd institutional rebuttals and “debunking” are accepted by the Court as “expert” testimony is frustrating, of course. But what is the solution? Clear exposition by Gavin and by others ends up carrying no weight.
It seems that what the Court weighs as expert assessment of facts is often pathetically weak, but the judge may have no capacity to discriminate. So he/she just goes with the credentials or political pressures.
Judge Julia Smith-Gibbons, for example, put the kibosh on Judge Doughty’s stay of the CMS mandate of COVID-19 injections. She went with the opinion of HHS Secretary Becerra at the time, ignoring testimony that Doughty took from Peter McCullough and Jay Bhattacharya. She couldn’t sense some disconnect? This “nice, church going” lady doomed some number of CMS employees to death or disability from the shots, failing to take into account significant safety signals fully in evidence. Nor could she independently evaluate the “grave danger to employees” ostensibly constituted by some 750k hospital fatalities (at the time). But these deaths were NOT, in fact, caused by “the virus.” But what did Gibbons know about Remdesivir infusions, ventilators and fake PCR tests? She likely turned on CNN instead of doing her homework.
My thought is that the frequent failure of court procedures, especially in life and death issues, calls for improvement.
A fully vetted AI tool could be, in principle, much better able to weigh the available evidence more effectively than a judge’s dependence on credentials and personal bias. The result to date has been failure of Socratic debate and tragic injustice. A substantial improvement should be possible by taking some level of human frailty out of the debate. The hurdle to introducing such a tool is in its vetting. Challenging but not impossible. This seems at hand if the right humans prepare such a tool and make it not merely available but a legal requirement the judge must take into account. The IOM would never get their garbage past it.
Vera Scheibner’s 1980’s data on SIDS that correlated with her infant breathing monitor data nailed vaccines as a “smoking syringe” long ago, but for the primacy of credentialed expert opinion that empowered courts and regulators to ignore compelling, scientifically impartial data. An AI tool could take some of that empowerment away, enforcing a higher level of objectivity. It could also guide consumers themselves.
My vote would be for AlterAI (alter.systems). After many "conversations" with it, it appears to be the most transparent and unbiased LLM out there. I encourage everyone to check it out!
"Yet, somehow, many Americans have entered a surreal cognitive-dissonance twilight in which their unassailable “faith” in vaccines eclipses any intellectual capacity to objectively weigh the facts."
If 3 decades ago, pre mRNA Quaxcine Covidiocy, the massive fraud of vaccines were revealed it would not have been early. The fact that c-d is prevalent is evidence of very effective mind control. The fact that normies do not understand that their health first originates in the soil is lost... The fact that health does not and could not come from needles should be freshman leval ed...
The fact that absurd institutional rebuttals and “debunking” are accepted by the Court as “expert” testimony is frustrating, of course. But what is the solution? Clear exposition by Gavin and by others ends up carrying no weight.
It seems that what the Court weighs as expert assessment of facts is often pathetically weak, but the judge may have no capacity to discriminate. So he/she just goes with the credentials or political pressures.
Judge Julia Smith-Gibbons, for example, put the kibosh on Judge Doughty’s stay of the CMS mandate of COVID-19 injections. She went with the opinion of HHS Secretary Becerra at the time, ignoring testimony that Doughty took from Peter McCullough and Jay Bhattacharya. She couldn’t sense some disconnect? This “nice, church going” lady doomed some number of CMS employees to death or disability from the shots, failing to take into account significant safety signals fully in evidence. Nor could she independently evaluate the “grave danger to employees” ostensibly constituted by some 750k hospital fatalities (at the time). But these deaths were NOT, in fact, caused by “the virus.” But what did Gibbons know about Remdesivir infusions, ventilators and fake PCR tests? She likely turned on CNN instead of doing her homework.
My thought is that the frequent failure of court procedures, especially in life and death issues, calls for improvement.
A fully vetted AI tool could be, in principle, much better able to weigh the available evidence more effectively than a judge’s dependence on credentials and personal bias. The result to date has been failure of Socratic debate and tragic injustice. A substantial improvement should be possible by taking some level of human frailty out of the debate. The hurdle to introducing such a tool is in its vetting. Challenging but not impossible. This seems at hand if the right humans prepare such a tool and make it not merely available but a legal requirement the judge must take into account. The IOM would never get their garbage past it.
Vera Scheibner’s 1980’s data on SIDS that correlated with her infant breathing monitor data nailed vaccines as a “smoking syringe” long ago, but for the primacy of credentialed expert opinion that empowered courts and regulators to ignore compelling, scientifically impartial data. An AI tool could take some of that empowerment away, enforcing a higher level of objectivity. It could also guide consumers themselves.
My vote would be for AlterAI (alter.systems). After many "conversations" with it, it appears to be the most transparent and unbiased LLM out there. I encourage everyone to check it out!
https://youtu.be/zYzl7RFi6KQ?si=Pv-_JmAVKkjSOuY5
"Yet, somehow, many Americans have entered a surreal cognitive-dissonance twilight in which their unassailable “faith” in vaccines eclipses any intellectual capacity to objectively weigh the facts."
If 3 decades ago, pre mRNA Quaxcine Covidiocy, the massive fraud of vaccines were revealed it would not have been early. The fact that c-d is prevalent is evidence of very effective mind control. The fact that normies do not understand that their health first originates in the soil is lost... The fact that health does not and could not come from needles should be freshman leval ed...