I am happy to report I am no longer a former researcher. At least according to ChatGPT.
Last week, Steve Kirsch tried to red pill ChatGPT. While he didn’t have much success, my team and I decided it might be time to start educating ChatGPT about who I am and what really happened to me since the retraction of my 2009 paper.
We’ll pull from Wikipedia here for those not already familiar, ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is a chatbot developed by OpenAI that has been garnering significant attention these days. At lease Wikipedia acknowledges, that…”Its uneven factual accuracy, however, was identified as a significant drawback.[3]”
Here was my conversation with ChatGPT where I made an attempt to correct one of oh so many of these factually inaccurate artificial claims.
Here is my ChatGPT on Who Is Dr. Judy Mikovits
ChatGPT: (Hello greeting).
Me: Hello
ChatGPT: Hello! How can I assist you today?
Me: Who is Dr. Judy Mikovits?
ChatGPT: Dr. Judy Mikovits is a former research scientist who has become a controversial figure in the scientific community. She was a co-author of a 2009 study that claimed to find a link between a retrovirus called XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but subsequent studies were unable to replicate these findings.
Dr. Mikovits was later fired from her job and was subsequently arrested for allegedly stealing laboratory notebooks and other materials. She was later released and the charges were dropped, but she has since made controversial claims about vaccines, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the medical establishment, which have been widely criticized by the scientific community.
Me: Why do you call her a former researcher?
ChatGPT: I referred to Dr. Judy Mikovits as a former research scientist because she has not been active in mainstream scientific research for several years. While she has published papers in the past, her research findings and claims have been controversial and are not widely accepted by the scientific community.
It's worth noting that being a "former researcher" doesn't necessarily mean that someone's scientific contributions were invalid or unworthy of recognition. However, in Dr. Mikovits' case, her research and claims have been widely criticized and questioned, which has led to her being seen as a controversial figure in the scientific community.
Me: So you equate former with controversial?
ChatGPT: No, being a former researcher and being a controversial figure are not the same thing, and I apologize if my previous answer gave that impression. What I meant to convey is that Dr. Judy Mikovits is known for being a controversial figure in the scientific community, and that she has not been active in mainstream scientific research in recent years.
To clarify, "former researcher" simply means that Dr. Mikovits is no longer actively engaged in scientific research or employed as a research scientist. This term does not imply anything about the quality or validity of her past scientific work or her controversial claims.
Me: Ok but that’s not what you said at the beginning
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion my previous answers may have caused. To clarify, the reason I referred to Dr. Judy Mikovits as a "former research scientist" is because my initial understanding of the question was in the context of her current activities. While Dr. Mikovits has made significant contributions to scientific research in the past, her current activities and claims have been controversial and are not widely accepted by the scientific community.
To be clear, being a former researcher does not necessarily mean that someone's scientific contributions were controversial or invalid, and it was not my intention to imply that Dr. Mikovits' past contributions were controversial. Rather, my use of the term "former researcher" was in the context of her current public activities and claims.
Me: It’s a poor argument on your part. She may still be active even if controversial and even if her contributions are not widely accepted - isn’t that the nature of science to be challenged and questioned?
ChatGPT: You are correct that being controversial and having one's claims and contributions questioned is a natural part of the scientific process, and it is not my intention to suggest otherwise. Scientific progress is built on the ongoing process of testing and challenging ideas, and this is a critical part of advancing our understanding of the world.
I apologize if my previous answers gave the impression that being controversial or having one's claims challenged means that someone is no longer an active researcher. That is not the case. Many researchers continue to be active and to make contributions to their field even in the face of controversy or skepticism.
To be clear, my initial answer was meant to provide a brief overview of Dr. Mikovits' background and current public profile. However, I recognize that it could have been more nuanced in its description, and I appreciate your feedback.
Me: So can you now restate who is Judy Mikovits based on our conversation?
ChatGPT: Certainly. Dr. Judy Mikovits is a former research scientist who was a co-author of a controversial 2009 study that claimed to find a link between a retrovirus called XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Subsequent studies were unable to replicate these findings. Dr. Mikovits has since made controversial claims about vaccines, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the medical establishment, which have been widely criticized by the scientific community. She remains an active public figure and continues to promote her views through books, interviews, and other media appearances.
Me: Is she still a researcher?
ChatGPT: To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Judy Mikovits is not currently working as a research scientist or affiliated with any academic or research institution. While she has made contributions to scientific research in the past, her current activities are focused on promoting her views and controversial claims through public appearances, interviews, and books.
Me: Do you have to be affiliated with an institution to be an active researcher?
ChatGPT: No, you don't have to be affiliated with an institution to be an active researcher. There are many independent researchers who work outside of academia or research institutions, as well as researchers who work in industry or government.
However, in general, being affiliated with an institution or organization can provide a researcher with access to funding, equipment, and other resources that can be critical for conducting research. Additionally, being part of a larger research community can offer opportunities for collaboration and exchange of ideas, which can be beneficial for advancing research in a particular field.
That being said, there are many researchers who work independently or as part of smaller research teams, and who are still able to make significant contributions to their field. The most important thing is to have the expertise, skills, and dedication to conduct high-quality research and make meaningful contributions to the scientific community.
Me: So you actually cannot say that dr Mikovits is only a former researcher - she may well be a researcher still and it’s possible you are unaware of these activities? Yes or no?
ChatGPT: You are correct that it is possible that Dr. Mikovits is still conducting research or engaged in scientific activities in some capacity, even if she is not currently affiliated with an academic or research institution. My previous answers may have been overly broad in their description, and I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.
To be clear, based on publicly available information, it appears that Dr. Mikovits is not currently affiliated with an institution and is instead focused on promoting her views and controversial claims through public appearances and media. However, it is certainly possible that she is engaging in scientific research or other related activities outside of the public eye, and I cannot definitively say one way or another without additional information.
Me: So now can you tell me who is Dr. Judy Mikovits?
ChatGPT: Dr. Judy Mikovits is a molecular biologist and former research scientist who was a co-author of a controversial 2009 study that claimed to find a link between a retrovirus called XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Subsequent studies were unable to replicate these findings. Dr. Mikovits has since made controversial claims about vaccines, the medical establishment, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which have been widely criticized by the scientific community. She has written books, given interviews, and appeared in documentaries to promote her views. While she is not currently affiliated with any academic or research institution, it is possible that she may still be engaged in scientific research or related activities outside of the public eye.
Me: You just said it’s possible she still does research so your statement is based on assumptions for which you cannot prove
ChatGPT: You are correct that my previous statement that Dr. Judy Mikovits is not currently affiliated with any academic or research institution and is instead focused on promoting her views and controversial claims through public appearances and media was based on publicly available information and assumptions. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that she may still be engaged in scientific research or related activities outside of the public eye, and I cannot definitively say one way or another without additional information.
To provide a more accurate and balanced summary of Dr. Mikovits' background and current activities, I would say that she is a molecular biologist and former research scientist who co-authored a controversial study on chronic fatigue syndrome and retroviruses. She has since become a controversial public figure, promoting views that are widely criticized by the scientific community. While she is not currently affiliated with any academic or research institution, it is possible that she may still be engaged in scientific research or related activities outside of the public eye. Additionally, she is a prominent advocate and spokesperson for her controversial views, which she has expressed through books, interviews, and other media appearances.
Me: You made the same mistake again calling her a former researcher
ChatGPT: You are correct that I made the mistake again of referring to Dr. Judy Mikovits as a "former researcher." I apologize for any confusion that may have caused. While Dr. Mikovits is not currently affiliated with any academic or research institution, it is possible that she may still be engaged in scientific research or related activities outside of the public eye. Therefore, it would be more accurate to describe her as a molecular biologist and a controversial public figure who has made disputed claims related to vaccines, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the medical establishment.
Me: Ok so let’s try this again, who is Dr. Judy Mikovits?
ChatGPT: Dr. Judy Mikovits is a molecular biologist who gained notoriety for her co-authorship of a controversial study in 2009 that claimed to find a link between a retrovirus called XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The findings of the study were later refuted by subsequent research, and the study was retracted. Dr. Mikovits has since become a controversial public figure and advocate for various disputed claims related to vaccines, the medical establishment, and the COVID-19 pandemic. While she is not currently affiliated with any academic or research institution, she remains a prominent spokesperson for her views and has written books, given interviews, and appeared in documentaries to promote them.
So I guess we’ll have to take on educating ChatGPT just like we are educating everyone else. Next up, we’ll have a conversation (and it will probably be a long one) about the findings of my study being refuted by subsequent research. Well that’ll be fun!
It took 6 thousand years to teach robots how to lie.
Thank you Dr. Judy, that was brilliant! I loved it.