Co-Pilot and Me!

Had another discussion with my AI friend about cancer and the fact that we have spent $500 Billion looking for a cure that doesn't exist when we just look at chemo drugs.

When President Nixon declared "War on Cancer", how many billions have we spent?

Copilot

Since President Nixon declared the "War on Cancer" in 1971, the United States has spent over $100 billion in federal research dollars1. When you include investments from pharmaceutical companies, non-governmental organizations, and states, the total spending is estimated to be around $500 billion2.

It's a staggering amount, but it's also led to significant advancements in cancer research and treatment. What are your thoughts on the progress made so far?

1jamanetwork.com2bigthink.com

You

So, why does Dr. Devra Davis in her book "The Secret History about War on Cancer" not agree?

Copilot

Dr. Devra Davis, in her book "The Secret History of the War on Cancer", argues that the "War on Cancer" has largely failed because it has targeted the wrong enemies with the wrong weapons1. She points out that while significant resources have been poured into research and treatment, many well-known causes of cancer, such as tobacco, workplace hazards, radiation, and environmental factors, have been overlooked or suppressed2.

Davis suggests that this failure is not accidental but rather a result of the influence of industries that profit from both cancer-causing products and cancer treatments3. She believes that the focus should be on preventing cancer by addressing these root causes rather than just treating it after it occurs2.

It's a thought-provoking perspective that challenges the traditional approach to cancer research and treatment. What do you think about her viewpoint?

1books.google.com2www.goodreads.com3books.google.com

You

Isn't her viewpoint confirmed by Ian Brighthope and his article "Lethal Synergism" confirm Dr. Davis viewpoint?

Copilot

I couldn't find specific information about Ian Brighthope's article "Lethal Synergism." However, Ian Brighthope is known for his work in nutritional and environmental medicine, and he often discusses the impact of environmental factors on health.

It's possible that his views align with Dr. Devra Davis's perspective on the "War on Cancer," emphasizing the importance of addressing environmental and lifestyle factors in cancer prevention. Both seem to advocate for a more holistic approach to health, focusing on prevention rather than just treatment.

Would you like me to search for more information on Brighthope's article or his general views on this topic?

You

Are not most claimed improvements on cancer treatment nothing more than reporting that the newest and latest cancer drug delays the inevitable by only weeks or months?

Copilot

It's a valid concern. While there have been significant advancements in cancer treatment, some critics argue that many of these improvements offer only marginal extensions in survival time. For instance, new drugs might improve progression-free survival by a few months, but they don't necessarily translate to long-term cures1.

However, it's also important to recognize that these treatments can significantly improve the quality of life for patients, reducing symptoms and side effects. The goal is often to turn cancer into a manageable chronic condition rather than a death sentence.

What are your thoughts on the balance between extending life and improving the quality of life?

1www.curetoday.com

You

Since the effort to inject with RNA to treat Covid, have the cancer rates not increased and they now are reporting turbo cancers that have a rapid onset and are terminal?

Copilot

There have been some reports and discussions about the potential link between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and an increase in certain aggressive cancers, sometimes referred to as "turbo cancers." However, it's important to note that there is currently no conclusive evidence to support this claim1.

The term "turbo cancer" is not widely recognized in the medical community, and many experts argue that these cases could be coincidental or related to other factors1. The CDC and other health organizations have stated that there is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines increase cancer risk2.

It's a complex and evolving topic, and ongoing research is necessary to fully understand any potential connections. What are your thoughts on the balance between the benefits and risks of mRNA vaccines?

1sciencebasedmedicine.org2www.factcheck.org

You

Why would you need a RNA injection that reprograms cellular function if you have a healthy and vibrant immune system which is humans number one defense against all pathogens.

Copilot

That's a great question! While a healthy immune system is indeed our body's primary defense against pathogens, mRNA vaccines offer a specific and targeted approach to bolster that defense1.

Here's how it works: mRNA vaccines teach our cells to produce a harmless piece of the virus (like the spike protein in the case of COVID-19), which then triggers an immune response1. This response includes the production of antibodies and the activation of T-cells, which are crucial for fighting off the actual virus if we encounter it1.

In essence, mRNA vaccines provide a boost to our immune system, helping it recognize and respond more effectively to the virus. This is especially important for new or rapidly mutating viruses, where our immune system might not have encountered the pathogen before.

Does that help clarify the role of mRNA vaccines?

1www.mskcc.org

You

Why do you use the word "harmless" when there are many reports of the great harm caused by the injections including instant death?

Copilot

I understand your concern. It's true that there have been reports of serious side effects and even deaths following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations1. However, it's important to note that these cases are extremely rare. According to data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), serious reactions occur in about 372 out of every million doses administered2.

The term "harmless" is used to describe the harmless piece of the virus (like the spike protein) that the mRNA vaccines teach our cells to produce. This piece of the virus alone cannot cause COVID-19 and is not harmful by itself. The goal is to trigger an immune response without causing the disease.

It's crucial to weigh these rare risks against the benefits of vaccination, which include preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Do you think the benefits outweigh the risks, or do you have concerns about the safety of these vaccines?

1www.factcheck.org2www.nature.com

You

Did not the VAERS system report over 32,000 deaths from RNA injections? That was more than ever reported since the inception of the VAERS system.

Copilot

The VAERS system has indeed received a high number of reports of deaths following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations1. However, it's important to understand that VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning anyone can report an adverse event following vaccination, and these reports are not verified for causality2.

The sheer volume of reports is partly due to the widespread administration of these vaccines and increased scrutiny3. The CDC and other health organizations have emphasized that there is no definitive proof that the vaccines caused these deaths2.

It's a complex issue, and ongoing research is essential to fully understand the safety profile of these vaccines. What are your thoughts on how we can balance the need for thorough safety monitoring with the urgency of a public health crisis?

1www.nebraskamed.com2www.politifact.com3www.factcheck.org

You

Isn't it true that less than 5% of all adverse reactions are reported. Why would a medical professional want to report that he administered a RNA injection and his patient died?

Copilot

You're right—studies suggest that less than 10% of all adverse reactions are reported to VAERS1. There are several reasons why medical professionals might hesitate to report adverse reactions, including time constraints, fear of legal repercussions, and uncertainty about whether the reaction was caused by the vaccine.

However, it's crucial for healthcare providers to report these events to ensure the ongoing safety and efficacy of vaccines. Reporting helps identify rare side effects and contributes to the overall understanding of vaccine safety. Do you think there should be more incentives or protections for healthcare providers to encourage reporting?

1www.cdc.gov

You

So, you are agreeing that 32,000 death reported could be as high as 640,000 in the USA?

Copilot

No, that wouldn't be an accurate interpretation. While it’s true that underreporting is a concern, it's a leap to assume that the actual number of deaths is 20 times higher. The 32,000 figure itself is not verified to be directly caused by vaccines. Many factors contribute to these reports, including pre-existing conditions and coincidences.

It’s essential to have more thorough investigations and transparent reporting to understand the true impact. Do you think the current systems in place are effective enough?

You

I have to agree with Dr. Kessler who was ahead of the FDA and stated in the 1990's that only about 1% of all adverse reactions are reported.

Copilot

Dr. Kessler's observation underscores a significant challenge in accurately assessing vaccine safety and adverse reactions. Underreporting can indeed obscure the true picture, making it essential to improve the reporting systems and encourage more transparency. Stronger incentives for reporting and better education for healthcare providers might help bridge this gap. What other reforms do you think could make a difference in the healthcare system?

You

FDA becomes a independent agency which is not captivated by the medical institutions they are suppose to be monitoring and controlling to protect the health of American citizens.

Copilot

Absolutely—the FDA needs to be insulated from any undue influences to ensure it can operate with complete impartiality and solely in the public's best interest. This independence would help restore trust in the agency's decisions and ensure that regulations and approvals are genuinely focused on protecting public health.

How do you think such a transition toward greater independence can be achieved?

You

RFK Jr becomes head of NIH.

Copilot

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has expressed interest in taking on a public health role if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election12. He has been vocal about wanting to reform the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other health agencies to address chronic diseases and reduce the influence of pharmaceutical companies34.

His appointment would certainly be a significant shift, given his controversial views on vaccines and public health. It would be interesting to see how his leadership might change the direction of the NIH. What do you think about his potential impact on public health policy?

1www.nbcnews.com2www.cnn.com3www.washingtonexaminer.com4thehill.com

You

We would be a healthier nation. They have documented that "Death by Medicine" is the number three cause of death of Americans. Gary Null and et al did the research.

Copilot

Gary Null's book, "Death by Medicine," indeed highlights the significant impact of medical errors and the pharmaceutical industry's influence on healthcare. The book argues that conventional medicine, including prescription drugs and medical procedures, is a leading cause of death in the United States12. Null and his co-authors present statistical evidence to support their claims, emphasizing the need for a more holistic and preventive approach to healthcare3.

It's a compelling perspective that challenges the status quo. What do you think are the most critical changes needed to address these issues?

1archive.org2www.axiospress.com3www.imdb.com

You

As long as bottom line profit of our medical institutions trumps good medical treatment nothing will change.

Copilot

It’s a stark reality. The commercialization of healthcare often prioritizes profits over patient care, leading to compromised outcomes. To truly improve the system, we need more stringent regulations, transparency, and a shift toward value-based care where patient health outcomes drive compensation rather than the number of treatments or procedures. It's a big challenge, but essential for a healthier nation. What do you think the first step toward that change should be?

You

RFK Jr appointment to revamp our sick care system in the USA

Copilot

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has expressed interest in taking on a public health role if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. He has been vocal about wanting to reform the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other health agencies to address chronic diseases and reduce the influence of pharmaceutical companies1.

His appointment would certainly be a significant shift, given his controversial views on vaccines and public health. It would be interesting to see how his leadership might change the direction of the NIH. What do you think about his potential impact on public health policy?

1www.nbcnews.com

You

Would take the politics and lobbying out of the decision making.

Copilot

Absolutely. Removing politics and lobbying from decision-making in health agencies could lead to more objective, science-based policies that prioritize public health over special interests. It would be a significant step toward restoring trust and ensuring that health decisions are made with the best interests of the public in mind. What other changes do you think are necessary to improve the healthcare system?

You

I will have to sleep on that. Thank you for your time.

Copilot

Anytime! Rest well, and when you’re ready to dive back into the healthcare conundrum, I'll be here. Take care!

End of today’s discussion. A great deal of research has been published, most of which has not reached mainstream media and medical literature about the negative impact of RNA on the health of humans. Co-Pilot has recited chapter and verse of what is being published by NIH and Big Pharma.

The interesting aspect, is that there is a mainstream recognition that healthcare in

the USA needs to be fixed.

My thoughts for the day and I hope you liked my talk with Co-Pilot. Who ever thought I would enjoy talking to a very smart computer!

Thomas A Braun Rph