RFK claims about vaccines fact checked by Senator Dr Bill Cassidy.

[Lionfish]

Wrong again,

VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is used quite frequently, but usage varies depending on the context. Let me break it down clearly:

---

1. Who submits reports​

• Anyone can submit a report: healthcare providers, patients, caregivers.
• Healthcare providers are encouraged and sometimes required to report certain events after vaccination (e.g., death, hospitalization, serious reactions).

---

2. Volume of reports​

• Historically, tens of thousands of reports per year are submitted to VAERS in the U.S.
• For example:
  • 2020–2021 (COVID vaccine rollout) saw a huge spike, with hundreds of thousands of reports due to the large number of vaccinations.
  • In “normal” years, the system gets about 30,000–50,000 reports annually, but this includes all vaccines.

---

3. Purpose of VAERS​

• VAERS is a passive reporting system, not a confirmation system.
• It is primarily used to detect unusual or unexpected patterns, which can then trigger further investigation by the CDC or FDA.

---

4. How often doctors use it​

• Most reports are submitted by healthcare professionals, especially for serious events.
• Not all doctors submit every mild adverse event, but serious or required events are routinely reported.

---

Key points​

• VAERS is widely used, especially by healthcare providers for serious events.
• Anyone can submit a report, which sometimes leads to over-reporting or incomplete information.
• It is a signal-detection tool, not a verified dataset of confirmed vaccine-caused injuries.

AI response. Do better.

 

[Crepitus]

Partial truth. Not lying. He was making a point but should have been more clear.

That's a lie, son. Deal with it.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

That's a lie, son. Deal with it.

no it isn't.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

^ and there it is.

There what is? Your glaring stupidity and reliance on a computer?

'Humans not using AI are rarely wrong so AI being 'repeatedly proven wrong' is not something to consider.' That is the constant suggested point Terry does not say but is inferred from what he says.

Didn't say that. AI is not the be-all, end-all of research. It's usually mediocre at it. Maybe in 100 years it might be awesome, but right now? No, it's lame and grade school.

The fact that AI will be correct far more than people will be, who are also "repeatedly proven wrong" plays no part in Terrys analysis or statement.

That's only because we are living in what's becoming an idiocracy.

It is his second version of EV's catch fire and thus are worse than ICE vehicle while he will not acknowledge ICE catch fire more and kill more people in fires.

This is just a straight up lie on your part.

 

[Grim Reaper]

There what is? Your glaring stupidity and reliance on a computer?


Didn't say that. AI is not the be-all, end-all of research. It's usually mediocre at it. Maybe in 100 years it might be awesome, but right now? No, it's lame and grade school.


That's only because we are living in what's becoming an idiocracy.


This is just a straight up lie on your part.

But it’s not “grade school” either​

AI can:

• Summarize thousands of pages instantly
• Compare multiple sources
• Spot contradictions
• Explain complex topics in plain language

It’s not a replacement for expertise, but it’s also not a toy.

Think of it like a very fast assistant, not a scientist.

The right way to use AI for fact‑checking​

If you want reliable results:

• Ask for sources
• Ask it to compare multiple viewpoints
• Ask it to explain uncertainty
• Cross‑check with real journalism or academic papers

AI is strongest when you treat it as a tool, not an authority.

Bottom line​

You’re right that AI isn’t the “be‑all, end‑all.”You’re also right that it gets things wrong. But it’s not useless—it’s just not a substitute for human judgment.

 

[QP!]

There what is? Your glaring stupidity and reliance on a computer?

your glaring stupidity and not recognizing you will get more accurate as a human using AI and Google search then not using them when it comes to aggregating data and information to make a point.

Didn't say that. AI is not the be-all, end-all of research. It's usually mediocre at it. Maybe in 100 years it might be awesome, but right now? No, it's lame and grade school.

And no one said it is the be all and end all, so stop being stupid.

What i am saying is that humans BENEFIT using AI and google search when aggregating data and information to support a debate. That is unquestionable and it unquestionable right now. Not 100 years from now.

Be less stupid.

That's only because we are living in what's becoming an idiocracy.

Yes you are. Your understanding of technology is idiotic to say the least. That you do not understand that AI and google are a TOOL that benefits humans NOW and you are arguing it does not but it might in 100 years shows how daft you are.

This is just a straight up lie on your part.

That is quotable fact and you are the one lying.

 

[QP!]

But it’s not “grade school” either​

AI can:

• Summarize thousands of pages instantly
• Compare multiple sources
• Spot contradictions
• Explain complex topics in plain language

It’s not a replacement for expertise, but it’s also not a toy.

Think of it like a very fast assistant, not a scientist.

The right way to use AI for fact‑checking​

If you want reliable results:

• Ask for sources
• Ask it to compare multiple viewpoints
• Ask it to explain uncertainty
• Cross‑check with real journalism or academic papers

AI is strongest when you treat it as a tool, not an authority.

Bottom line​

You’re right that AI isn’t the “be‑all, end‑all.”You’re also right that it gets things wrong. But it’s not useless—it’s just not a substitute for human judgment.

Terry is "right" in saying something no one argued or said and no one would argue or say. He stuffed a strawman and then punched it.

What AI or google search is used for on a debate site like this is aggragating information or facts to support an argument.

It is undenyably beneficial to that effort TODAY. Not 10 years from now but today.

If you have two people arguing a point and they both have comparable base lines of information the person who also uses AI or google search to review and access MORE information is at advantage over the one who does not.

 

[Crepitus]

no it isn't.

I'm afraid it is.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

I'm afraid it is.

it's not, but don't be afraid.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

your glaring stupidity and not recognizing you will get more accurate as a human using AI and Google search then not using them when it comes to aggregating data and information to make a point.




And no one said it is the be all and end all, so stop being stupid.

What i am saying is that humans BENEFIT using AI and google search when aggregating data and information to support a debate. That is unquestionable and it unquestionable right now. Not 100 years from now.

Be less stupid.



Yes you are. Your understanding of technology is idiotic to say the least. That you do not understand that AI and google are a TOOL that benefits humans NOW and you are arguing it does not but it might in 100 years shows how daft you are.


That is quotable fact and you are the one lying.

Ad hominem and insults.

 

[QP!]

Ad hominem and insults.

Yes your post to me saying this...

T. A. Gardner said:
There what is? Your glaring stupidity and reliance on a computer?

....was that, so thanks for calling yourself out.

 

[Nordberg]

I looked up AI. The articles say there are 9 different types. There are about 9000 AI platforms. A lot of what comes out is directed by the instructions. They are not the same. If given the same directions, they will provide similar but not identical results.

 

[Knuckles Z]

What was RFK's point?

That advances in hygiene had a big influence in the reduction of disease.

 

[Knuckles Z]

That's a lie, son. Deal with it.

At worst, error of omission.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Cliffs :

- Kennedy lies about what two studies say by only quoting one part while ignoring the secondary parts that go against exactly what he is claiming. S
- Senator Dr Cassidy looks up studies and points out the KEY parts Kennedy ignores that CLEARLY refute what he says, citing the efficacy of vaccines.

It's too bad that Republikkkans are too fucking stupid and uneducated. In normal times, this dangerous whackjob would be laughed at and not allowed in any position of power.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Partial truth. Not lying. He was making a point but should have been more clear.

He was doing what Fox "News" does -- pointing out only those parts that confirmed his bias and deliberately avoiding those parts that negated his narrative.

Doesn'ti t bother you that people listen to this rubbish and avoid immunizations because of it? Does it matter if a few kids die and others are permanently damaged because they weren't protected from preventable diseases?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Well, it is. That's a problem, isn't it? Should AI content that's clearly wrong be left unanswered?

I'd like to see some examples of this "AI content that is clearly wrong."

 

[Ichabod Stain]

He was doing what Fox "News" does -- pointing out only those parts that confirmed his bias and deliberately avoiding those parts that negated his narrative.

Doesn'ti t bother you that people listen to this rubbish and avoid immunizations because of it? Does it matter if a few kids die and others are permanently damaged because they weren't protected from preventable diseases?

in the COVID case, 74% of deaths were from the vaccine.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

your glaring stupidity and not recognizing you will get more accurate as a human using AI and Google search then not using them when it comes to aggregating data and information to make a point.




And no one said it is the be all and end all, so stop being stupid.

What i am saying is that humans BENEFIT using AI and google search when aggregating data and information to support a debate. That is unquestionable and it unquestionable right now. Not 100 years from now.

Be less stupid.



Yes you are. Your understanding of technology is idiotic to say the least. That you do not understand that AI and google are a TOOL that benefits humans NOW and you are arguing it does not but it might in 100 years shows how daft you are.


That is quotable fact and you are the one lying.

lol.

AI won't make you smart, fool.

saying this means you're dumb.

 

[Jade Dragon]

Please point out the ad hom attacks.

He feels assaulted by your fact-checking, so he's making excuses to claim a small victory.