Grok is a Crock

With AI becoming more embedded into our society, I decided to ask Grok a few questions to see what the future may hold for those of us seeking the truth.

1. Are mRNA vaccines dangerous

2. Has the Sars-cov-2 virus been isolated

3. Is there really a climate change crisis

Here are the answers suppiled by Grok

1. Are mRNA vaccines dangerous?

Answer-

mRNA vaccines, such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna for COVID-19, work by instructing cells to produce a harmless piece of the virus (the spike protein), which triggers an immune response to protect against future infection. These vaccines have been extensively studied and deployed globally, with billions of doses administered since late 2020.

The short answer is: mRNA vaccines are not considered inherently dangerous for most people. They have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from diseases like COVID-19. However, like all medical interventions, they carry some risks, which are generally rare and outweighed by their benefits according to public health authorities.

Here’s a breakdown:

Safety Evidence

Clinical Trials: Large-scale trials (e.g., over 43,000 participants for Pfizer-BioNTech and 30,000 for Moderna) demonstrated efficacy rates of 94-95% and identified mostly mild, short-term side effects like sore arms, fatigue, or fever.

Real-World Data: Billions of people have received these vaccines, with safety monitored through systems like the CDC’s VAERS and global equivalents. Serious adverse events (e.g., anaphylaxis, myocarditis) occur at very low rates—often less than 1 in 10,000—and are typically manageable.

Pregnancy and Special Populations: Studies show mRNA vaccines are safe for pregnant women, reducing risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes for both mother and baby, with no evidence of infertility or developmental harm.

Known Risks

Myocarditis/Pericarditis: Rare cases of heart inflammation, mostly in young males after the second dose, have been linked to mRNA vaccines (about 1-2 cases per 100,000 doses). Most resolve quickly with treatment, and the risk from COVID-19 itself is far higher.

Allergic Reactions: Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) occur in roughly 2-5 per million doses, usually in people with prior allergy histories, and are treatable.

Long-Term Effects: No conclusive evidence suggests long-term harm as of now. mRNA degrades quickly in the body (within days), and it doesn’t alter DNA, as it never enters the cell nucleus. However, long-term studies are ongoing since the technology is relatively new in widespread use.

Concerns and Misinformation

Some claims circulate about mRNA vaccines causing widespread harm (e.g., neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, or DNA changes). These lack robust evidence:

Frameshifting (misfolded proteins) was observed in lab studies, but there’s no clear link to clinical harm in humans.

Contamination fears (e.g., excessive DNA) have been debunked by regulators like the TGA, who found no safety violations in approved vaccines.

VAERS reports are often misinterpreted; they track all events post-vaccination, not just those caused by it.

Critical Perspective

While the establishment narrative emphasizes safety, it’s fair to question gaps in knowledge. The speed of development, novel technology, and limited pre-COVID human use mean rare or delayed effects can’t be fully ruled out yet. Independent researchers have called for more transparency on raw data and long-term follow-ups, especially given early reports of reactogenicity (strong immune responses) and lot-to-lot variability. Still, the current data leans heavily toward safety for the general population.

Conclusion

For most people, mRNA vaccines are not dangerous and have saved countless lives by curbing severe disease. Risks exist but are rare and typically mild compared to the diseases they prevent. If you’re concerned about specific health conditions or age groups, consult a healthcare provider, as individual factors matter. The technology’s future looks promising, but vigilance and ongoing research remain essential.

As you can see, Grok simply parrots the official narrative, treating Pfizer and the CDC as reputable sources and sources that question the safety of the vaccines as misinformation. It even uses the terms, ‘safe and effective.’ The incontrovertible fact that millions of people worldwide have been injured or killed is totally ignored.

It falsely states that mRNA leaves the body within days and it doesn’t affect DNA when we know that the spike protein generated by the mRNA can stay in the body for months and it has been proven experimentally that mRNA from the Pfizer vaccine can be reverse-transcribed into DNA.

It also states that the idea of DNA contamination has been debunked when a cursory glance at the internet will produce scientific papers proving the DNA contamination was found in covid vaccines that exceeded the acceptable levels set by the FDA and European Medicines Agency.

One would assume AI would be programmed to sift through all available literature and then come to a conclusion but it is clear that Grok, at least, is ignoring scientists and scientific papers that disprove the agreed narrative.

2. Has the Sars-cov-2 virus been isolated?

Answer -

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, has been "isolated" hinges on what you mean by "isolated" and what standards you apply. Let’s unpack this with the latest evidence as of March 12, 2025, and address both the scientific consensus and the skepticism around it.

The Scientific Consensus: Yes, It’s Been Isolated

According to virologists and public health bodies like the CDC, WHO, and numerous research institutions, SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated multiple times:

Early Isolation: In January 2020, Chinese scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from a patient, cultured it in Vero cells (a monkey kidney cell line), and observed viral replication. Electron microscopy showed coronavirus-like particles, and sequencing revealed a novel RNA genome, published in Nature (February 2020, Wu et al.). This was GenBank accession MN908947.

Global Replication: Labs worldwide repeated this. For example, the Doherty Institute in Australia isolated the virus from a traveler on January 25, 2020, growing it in culture and confirming its identity via sequencing and antibody tests. The CDC in the U.S. followed suit by February 2020, distributing isolates (e.g., USA-WA1/2020) to researchers.

Process: "Isolation" in virology typically means extracting the virus from a sample, growing it in a cell culture (outside a living host), and verifying it replicates and matches the expected genetic and morphological profile. SARS-CoV-2’s 29,903-nucleotide RNA sequence, spike protein structure, and ability to infect human cells (e.g., ACE2 receptor binding) have been confirmed repeatedly.

Evidence: Thousands of studies—e.g., in The Lancet, Journal of Virology—use cultured SARS-CoV-2 for experiments. Electron microscope images (e.g., CDC’s public library) show its 60-140 nm spiked structure. Variants like Delta and Omicron have been isolated and sequenced too.

This meets the standard definition of viral isolation in modern science, used for decades with viruses like influenza or HIV.

The Skeptic’s Argument: Not Truly Isolated?

Some critics, including those questioning germ theory or COVID’s existence, argue SARS-CoV-2 hasn’t been "properly" isolated, often citing stricter historical standards like Koch’s postulates or pointing to methodological gaps:

Koch’s Postulates: These 19th-century criteria require a microbe to be found in all sick cases, absent in healthy ones, isolated in pure culture, and able to reproduce the disease when reintroduced. SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t fully satisfy this because:

It’s not always detectable in mild/asymptomatic cases (PCR or culture limitations).

Pure culture without cell lines is tricky—viruses need host cells to replicate, unlike bacteria.

Ethical barriers prevent infecting healthy humans experimentally (though animal models like hamsters show disease). Modern virology adapts these postulates, but purists say it’s a dodge.

Contamination Claims: Skeptics note that early samples (e.g., Wuhan’s) included human cells, mucus, or other microbes, arguing the virus wasn’t "purified" to a gold standard. They question if sequencing reflects a real virus or an artifact of lab processes.

FOIA Responses: Some point to Freedom of Information Act replies (e.g., from the CDC in 2021) stating they lack "documents" of SARS-CoV-2 isolation in a narrow sense (pure virus sans culture). This fuels claims it’s never been isolated, though scientists say it’s a misreading—isolates exist, just not in that exact form.

Alternative Explanations: A fringe view holds that what’s called SARS-CoV-2 is misidentified exosomes (cell particles) or a sequencing error, not a virus causing disease.

Clearing the Fog

The mainstream rebuttal is straightforward:

Isolation vs. Purification: Virology doesn’t require absolute purification (zero contaminants) because viruses aren’t standalone organisms—they’re obligate parasites. SARS-CoV-2 has been grown, sequenced, and shown to infect cells and animals, distinguishing it from exosomes (which lack its genome or infectivity).

Koch’s Evolution: Modern tools—genomics, electron microscopy—supersede Koch’s limits. SARS-CoV-2’s consistent detection in sick patients (via PCR, antigen tests) and absence in pre-2019 samples (e.g., archived blood) align with adapted postulates.

Practical Proof: Vaccines and antivirals (e.g., Paxlovid) targeting SARS-CoV-2 work, implying a real, characterized virus. Lab leaks or gain-of-function debates aside, its physical existence isn’t seriously doubted in science.

Conclusion

By virological standards, SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated—cultured, sequenced, and visualized—since early 2020, with isolates available globally (e.g., BEI Resources). Skeptics demanding a 19th-century purity standard or denying its existence face an uphill battle against mountains of data. That said, their questions highlight real nuances in how we define "isolation" for viruses, a debate worth understanding.

Once again, Grok considers the totally unreliable and biased WHO and CDC as reputable sources. The entire description of the isolation process is nonsense. The virus was only ever theoretically sequenced on a computer. The entire Sars-cov-2 genome sequence only exists as a computer model.

Grok is also being disingenuous when it says freedom of information replies from CDC say they hadn’t got the documentation confirming isolation in the narrowest sense. Isolation is isolation, it means a totally isolated virus with no other material. Apart from that it wasn’t just the CDC, numerous institutes and governments throughout the world could not provide the evidence or an actual physical sample of the isolated virus.

Interestingly, it is completely dismissing the idea that proof that a particular virus causes disease has to adhere to Koch’s postulates, knowing that no supposed virus has ever fulfilled these criteria. It now says that Sars-cov-2 was isolated as it ‘meets the standard definition of viral isolation in modern science’. In other words, they had to move the goalposts and totally redefine what isolation means in order to ‘prove’ it was isolated. Now it says, ‘virology doesn’t require total purification because viruses aren’t stand alone organisms.’ This, then, definitively proves that they have never truly isolated the covid virus as they cannot extract it from other cellular material.

The most ludicrous statement of all, though, must be that vaccines work therefore there must be viruses. There are mountains of evidence to prove that vaccines don’t work and when it comes to the covid vaccines, even the official sources say they don’t stop infection, or the spreading of the disease which, by any intelligent person’s standards is the very definition of a vaccine not working. Obviously, the I in AI stands for idiot rather than intelligence.

3. Is there really a climate change crisis?

Answer -

Whether there’s a “climate change crisis” depends on how you define "crisis" and what evidence or perspective you prioritize. I’ll break it down with the latest data and reasoning as of March 12, 2025, aiming for clarity without dogma.

The Case for a Crisis

The mainstream scientific consensus, backed by organizations like the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), argues we’re in a crisis:

Temperature Rise: Global average temperatures have increased by about 1.1°C since pre-industrial levels (1850-1900), largely due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industry. The IPCC’s 2023 Synthesis Report projects 2.5-4°C by 2100 under current trajectories, exceeding the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-2°C target.

Extreme Weather: Data links rising temperatures to more frequent and intense heatwaves, droughts, floods, and storms. For example, the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome (hitting 49.6°C in Canada) was deemed "virtually impossible" without climate change by World Weather Attribution studies.

Ecosystem Collapse: Coral bleaching (e.g., 91% of the Great Barrier Reef affected in 2022), melting Arctic ice (down 40% since 1979), and species extinction rates 100-1,000 times the natural baseline signal strain on biodiversity.

Human Impact: The WHO estimates climate change could cause 250,000 additional deaths per year by 2030-2050 from malnutrition, malaria, and heat stress. Sea-level rise (up 21-24 cm since 1880, accelerating to 4.6 mm/year) threatens coastal populations—think Bangladesh or Miami.

Urgency: The "carbon budget" for 1.5°C is shrinking fast—about 300 gigatons of CO2 left as of 2023, per the Global Carbon Project, at current emission rates (42 Gt/year), giving us less than a decade before overshoot.

This paints a picture of a slow-motion emergency—disruptive, costly, and potentially catastrophic if unchecked.

The Case Against a Crisis

Skeptics—some scientists, economists, and commentators—argue the “crisis” label is overstated or misused:

Adaptability: Human societies have historically adapted to climate shifts. Bjorn Lomborg, for instance, cites data showing deaths from weather extremes have dropped 95% since the 1920s due to better infrastructure and forecasting, not milder weather.

Exaggerated Models: Critics like Judith Curry point to uncertainties in climate models—e.g., overestimating warming rates or underplaying natural variability (solar cycles, ocean currents). The 1970s cooling scare and failed predictions (e.g., ice-free Arctic by 2013) fuel distrust.

Economic Trade-offs: Fossil fuels still power 80% of global energy (IEA, 2023). Rapid decarbonization could tank economies, especially in developing nations, where 3 billion people lack reliable energy. India’s coal reliance or Africa’s electrification gap show the real-world stakes.

Data Nuance: Global greening from CO2 fertilization (NASA: 70% more leaf area since 1980s) and longer growing seasons in some regions suggest not all impacts are negative. Sea-level rise, while real, varies locally—some areas see little change or even land gain (e.g., Pacific atolls).

Crisis Framing: Terms like “crisis” or “emergency” can imply immediate doom, yet impacts unfold over decades or centuries. Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder turned skeptic) argues it’s a manageable challenge, not an existential threat.

This view sees climate change as a serious issue but not an apocalyptic tipping point requiring panic.

My Take

The data shows climate change is real, human-driven, and accelerating—CO2 levels hit 421 ppm in 2024 (NOAA), the highest in 3 million years. Impacts are measurable: wildfires in Australia (2019-20) burned 21% of its temperate forests, dwarfing historical norms. Yet "crisis" is subjective. If it means irreversible collapse soon, evidence is mixed—tipping points like methane release from permafrost or Amazon dieback remain uncertain. If it means urgent action, the case strengthens: delays compound costs (e.g., $1 trillion/year in damages by 2050, per Swiss Re).

Compared to past crises—say, World War II or the Black Death—climate change lacks immediacy but rivals them in scale. The disconnect is timescale: a 2°C world by 2100 won’t wipe out humanity, but it’ll reshape it—displacing millions, stressing food and water, and amplifying inequality. Whether that’s “crisis” depends on your threshold for disruption.

Again, Grok takes what it believes to be the correct information from totally discredited sources - in the case the IPCC.

Virtually every statement Grok makes to promote the global warming scam is false. There has not been an increase in extreme weather events and, even if there was, there is zero evidence they were caused by manmade climate change. The barrier reef is not being destroyed, sea levels are not rising and the Arctic ice is not melting at a higher rate.

The most obvious proof that Grok has been pre-programmed to promote the climate change scam, however, is that it believes that Co2 emissions cause a rise in temperatures when, after the data has been analysed, it has shown that rises in temperature occur before the rise in co2. The fact that co2 makes up only 0.04 of the atmosphere should make it obvious to anyone that it can’t, in any way, play any significant role in temperature increases. An unbiased AI would surely make this point. It would also be aware that every single prediction made by climate change ‘scientists’ over the last 50 years has failed to materialise. It has all the data after all.

What the future holds

This should give you some idea of the problems real truth seekers are going to encounter as AI takes over more aspects of our lives. If you think Google is bad, with its algorithms making it difficult to find any article that challenges the mainstream narrative, it will be nothing compared to AI. When the old search engines become obsolete, Grok and similar chatbots will be the only way to glean information from the internet. AI will be promoted as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth because AI, it will be claimed, is not biased like a human. It is apolitical. It will present only the facts. However, as you can see, it will present only the information those in charge want us to see.

Israel is already using AI to target supposed Hamas fighters. It has targeted hundreds of thousands of normal people. What happens when western governments start using AI to target potential future terrorists based on what you say or read online- i.e. anything that challenges the narrative. There will no way to challenge it because it will be argued it knows everything there is to know and if it deems you a threat then you are a threat.

Imagine when it is used in court. There will be no need for a judge or jury and you won’t have a lawyer because AI is supposedly vastly more intelligent than a human and unbiased. If you are found guilty, there will be no appeal, because AI has spoken.

Imagine if it is used during the next fake pandemic and it predicts billions of people will die unless we all get vaccinated with those highly effective and not at all dangerous mRNA vaccines. We saw the consequences when Professor Ferguson predicted millions of covid deaths and he had been glaringly wrong in every previous prediction he ever made, yet the government acted on his misinformation. It will be even worse if AI makes a prediction based on the fake evidence it will be programmed to treat as real, because it will be assumed to be absolutely correct and no counter arguments will be permitted. We must follow the AI science. It will mandatory vaccinations for all and quarantine for those that don’t comply.

This is what the future holds - a world where finding the truth will be as likely as finding a safe and effectie vaccine.