Source: https://sayerji.substack.com/p/how-google-manipulates-vaccine-perception

 

An interesting article about how Google's search engine subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) manipulates what you are looking for.  

"What looks like a simple autocomplete feature — those predictive phrases that finish your sentences — is in fact one of the most powerful psychological instruments ever discovered." 

 

The article also addresses Google's  systematic erasure of natural medicine.

"In June 2019, Google’s “Medic Update” cut organic visibility to natural-health websites by more than 80%. Platforms like GreenMedInfo, Mercola, Kelly Brogan, and SelfHacked were effectively erased from public view.⁴

I called it a “digital book burning,” at the time. Thousands of peer-reviewed studies on turmeric, vitamin D, NAC, and other natural interventions were buried under pharmaceutical-funded outlets such as WebMD and Healthline.

At the same time, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, entered major pharmaceutical partnerships — a $715 million collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline, joint projects with Sanofi, and a stake in Vaccitech, the Oxford spinoff behind the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.⁵

The world’s dominant search engine had become the world’s most subtle advertising arm for the drug industry." 

 

Time to switch to a more trustworthy Search Engine, especially when looking for information on non-neutral subjects.

 

 

A few years ago, I performed an interesting experiment when French search engine Qwant was launched (it doesn't matter what ones believes to be true or not on this issue): I typed the same query both in Qwant and in Google: "Is the Moon landing a hoax?" and scrolled through the 10 first pages of results.

 

Qwant yielded about 60% of links to sources saying it was not a hoax, and 40% to sources arguing that it was.

 

Google yielded 100% of links saying it was not a hoax and that those who claimed otherwise were 'conspiracy theorists'.

 

No further comment required. I will just add that about one year later, I reiterated the experiment and Qwant had rectified accordingly, aligning itself with Google Truth…

Even the much 'vaunted' Duck Duck go search engine is infected

similarly.  🤮

 

Just now, johng said:

Even the much 'vaunted' Duck Duck go search engine is infected

similarly.  🤮

 

 

Yeah, the era of independent search engines was very brief. A glitch in the matrix which was hot-fixed ASAP.

16 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

A few years ago, I performed an interesting experiment when French search engine Qwant was launched (it doesn't matter what ones believes to be true or not on this issue): I typed the same query both in Qwant and in Google: "Is the Moon landing a hoax?" and scrolled through the 10 first pages of results.

Qwant yielded about 60% of links to sources saying it was not a hoax, and 40% to sources arguing that it was.

Google yielded 100% of links saying it was not a hoax and that those who claimed otherwise were 'conspiracy theorists'.

No further comment required. I will just add that about one year later, I reiterated the experiment and Qwant had rectified accordingly, aligning itself with Google Truth…

 

When using AI to research a controversial topic. the mainstream AI systems are programmed to ignore web-sources that are not aligned with the 'accepted narrative' and push that narrative as much as possible.  Obviously that leads to biased outcomes, that provide the illusion of being objective.  

But I know of one AI chatbot that takes ALL sources into consideration when providing a response to your query.  And the intent of the developpers of that chatbot was to provide you with an HONEST unbiased answer, irrespective whether you like its response or not.  

I tested it out and the quality of its responses is simply amazing.  

When using ChatGPT on a vaccine-related issue I was underwhelmed by its response as it was clear that ChatGPT had not taken into consideration some of the sources that I was familiar with, and it was pushing a 'pro-vax' narrative.  I then asked the very same question to AlterAI (accessible via Alter.systems ) and it responded with a clear summary and overview of two contrasting methodologies to address the question.  One was the 'exclusive' ChatGPT methodology which resulted in a stance that was pro-vax positive, and the other explored a different methodology that was completely ignored by ChatGPT and resulted in a totally different outcome.  

The system did not push either methodology, but simply showed that depending on the context that you got two different answers.  When I pushed for making a choice, the ChatGPT preferred methodology was described as mainly model-based while the other methodology was deemed more appropriate in the real-world. 

And as mentioned higher the quality and clarity of AlterAI's responses was much higher than ChatGPT's responses.  

 

Also to show that Google manipulates your searches, try typing in AlterAi.  You will get multiple hits, but NONE of them will direct you to Alter.systems where AlterAI can be accessed.  

If you want to try it out, you should go to https://alter.systems/

Note that you have 10 free queries you can make, after which you need to subscribe to the program.  

I have not done so yet, but it is definitely well worth it, especially when querying non-mainstream or controversial issues.  

 

48 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

When using AI to research a controversial topic. the mainstream AI systems are programmed to ignore web-sources that are not aligned with the 'accepted narrative' and push that narrative as much as possible.  Obviously that leads to biased outcomes, that provide the illusion of being objective.  

But I know of one AI chatbot that takes ALL sources into consideration when providing a response to your query.  And the intent of the developpers of that chatbot was to provide you with an HONEST unbiased answer, irrespective whether you like its response or not.  

I tested it out and the quality of its responses is simply amazing.  

When using ChatGPT on a vaccine-related issue I was underwhelmed by its response as it was clear that ChatGPT had not taken into consideration some of the sources that I was familiar with, and it was pushing a 'pro-vax' narrative.  I then asked the very same question to AlterAI (accessible via Alter.systems ) and it responded with a clear summary and overview of two contrasting methodologies to address the question.  One was the 'exclusive' ChatGPT methodology which resulted in a stance that was pro-vax positive, and the other explored a different methodology that was completely ignored by ChatGPT and resulted in a totally different outcome.  

The system did not push either methodology, but simply showed that depending on the context that you got two different answers.  When I pushed for making a choice, the ChatGPT preferred methodology was described as mainly model-based while the other methodology was deemed more appropriate in the real-world. 

And as mentioned higher the quality and clarity of AlterAI's responses was much higher than ChatGPT's responses.  

 

Also to show that Google manipulates your searches, try typing in AlterAi.  You will get multiple hits, but NONE of them will direct you to Alter.systems where AlterAI can be accessed.  

If you want to try it out, you should go to https://alter.systems/

Note that you have 10 free queries you can make, after which you need to subscribe to the program.  

I have not done so yet, but it is definitely well worth it, especially when querying non-mainstream or controversial issues.  

 

Interesting post Red,

 

Many years past, when I wrote web sites for a living, 'Teoma' indexing was the nuts. What 'words' (content) were actually on the pages, were the keys to being recognised and presented. We were aware of this of course, and took appropriate steps to maximise results. One such ruse, was hidden text. Sometimes repeating a key word a hundred times. However, times change, and Teoma gradually gave way to search engines that put popular sites to the fore.

 

I'm not sure of the methods used in the AI systems. Have they returned to the Teoma system?

6 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

When using AI to research a controversial topic. the mainstream AI systems are programmed to ignore web-sources that are not aligned with the 'accepted narrative' and push that narrative as much as possible.  Obviously that leads to biased outcomes, that provide the illusion of being objective.  

But I know of one AI chatbot that takes ALL sources into consideration when providing a response to your query.  And the intent of the developpers of that chatbot was to provide you with an HONEST unbiased answer, irrespective whether you like its response or not.  

I tested it out and the quality of its responses is simply amazing.  

When using ChatGPT on a vaccine-related issue I was underwhelmed by its response as it was clear that ChatGPT had not taken into consideration some of the sources that I was familiar with, and it was pushing a 'pro-vax' narrative.  I then asked the very same question to AlterAI (accessible via Alter.systems ) and it responded with a clear summary and overview of two contrasting methodologies to address the question.  One was the 'exclusive' ChatGPT methodology which resulted in a stance that was pro-vax positive, and the other explored a different methodology that was completely ignored by ChatGPT and resulted in a totally different outcome.  

The system did not push either methodology, but simply showed that depending on the context that you got two different answers.  When I pushed for making a choice, the ChatGPT preferred methodology was described as mainly model-based while the other methodology was deemed more appropriate in the real-world. 

And as mentioned higher the quality and clarity of AlterAI's responses was much higher than ChatGPT's responses.  

 

Also to show that Google manipulates your searches, try typing in AlterAi.  You will get multiple hits, but NONE of them will direct you to Alter.systems where AlterAI can be accessed.  

If you want to try it out, you should go to https://alter.systems/

Note that you have 10 free queries you can make, after which you need to subscribe to the program.  

I have not done so yet, but it is definitely well worth it, especially when querying non-mainstream or controversial issues.  

 

Sounds like something Richard Smith would say 

 

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Sounds like something Richard Smith would say 

 

 

The approach is definitely smart and interesting. Don't be condescending with the conspiracy theorist, even flatter them a little bit, claim to consider the facts at face value and then lead them to the desired result which is, for all intents and purposes, the same result you would get on Google:

 

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The approach is definitely smart and interesting. Don't be condescending with the conspiracy theorist, even flatter them a little bit, claim to consider the facts at face value and then lead them to the desired result which is, for all intents and purposes, the same result you would get on Google:

 

 

It's still better than the rest though. But still, in my opinion, a truly independent and unbiased engine could only conclude that no, the mere idea that a giant barbecue wrapped in tin foil could land on – and depart from – the Moon is preposterous.

 

@Red Phoenix

 

If it's good enough for McCullough, it's good enough for me.