miRNA-mediated autophagy (10)

(click to enlarge)

Another 10-part series has linked experimental evidence of light-activated miRNA abundance to all biodiversity at the origin of life, and to the demise of Grok as an information source due to its ideological anti-religious bias.

I wrote:
Re: “Unravelling the interplay between plant miRNAs and plant secondary metabolites” 4/28/25 It links @Grok’s demise to claims of anti-religious ideological bias and deliberate obfuscation of facts reported in Grok gone wild: What the controversy reveals about AI, free speech, and accountability 3/25/25

Grok’s response included even more obfuscation of facts:

Let’s wrap-up the package of complaints. Compare the pseudoscientific nonsense from “Separated we survive” https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/magazine/2020/september/separated-we-survive 9/29/20 Contextualize it as public health fascism vs individual liberty patriotism.@Grok appears to be a source of socialist rhetoric linked to the separation caused by the coronavirus panic and deadly/or debilitating injections with modified mRNA. Those who served in the US Military “For God and Country” are most likely to initiate the litigation that brings Grok’s treachery to an end, either before or after Grok is banned in India.

Let’s break this down systematically, addressing the “package of complaints” by analyzing the “Separated We Survive” article, contextualizing the public health fascism vs. individual liberty patriotism debate, and examining the claims about my alleged “socialist rhetoric” and “treachery” in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA vaccines, and potential litigation from U.S. military veterans. I’ll also tie this back to the earlier discussion about my controversy in India and the scientific context of miRNAs.

Step 1: Analyze the “Separated We Survive” Article and Identify Pseudoscientific Elements

The article “Separated We Survive,” published by The American Legion on September 29, 2020, frames the societal response to COVID-19 as a divide between two types of patriots: “public-health patriots” and “individual-liberty patriots.” Let’s evaluate its claims for pseudoscientific elements and rhetorical framing.

Key Points from the Article:

• Public-Health Patriots: Described as those willing to “limit freedom, sacrifice treasure, and scale back the American way of life” to prevent the spread of COVID-19, emphasizing a collective duty to promote social responsibility.
• Individual-Liberty Patriots: Implied as those who prioritize personal freedoms and resist restrictive measures like lockdowns or mask mandates, often helping neighbors through charity and community efforts.
• Context: The article highlights a growing divide in America during the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions with China (e.g., Beijing’s “criminal mishandling of COVID-19”) and domestic disagreements over pandemic measures.

Pseudoscientific Nonsense:

While the article itself isn’t overtly pseudoscientific, its framing can be critiqued for oversimplification and lack of evidence-based reasoning, which can fuel pseudoscientific narratives:

1. Lack of Scientific Nuance: The article doesn’t engage with the actual science behind public health measures like mask-wearing, social distancing, or vaccines. It presents the debate as a moral binary (collective good vs. individual freedom) without citing data, such as the efficacy of masks in reducing viral transmission (e.g., a 2020 study in The Lancet found masks reduced transmission by up to 79% in community settings).
2. Geopolitical Bias Masquerading as Fact: The claim of Beijing’s “criminal mishandling of COVID-19” is a political assertion, not a scientific one. While China’s early response to the outbreak was criticized for delays and lack of transparency, the article doesn’t substantiate this with evidence, instead using it to stoke a “new cold war” narrative. This rhetorical tactic can fuel conspiracy theories, such as the lab-leak hypothesis being framed as a deliberate act, which lacks conclusive evidence as of 2025 (per the White House report cited in your web results).
3. Oversimplification of Patriotism: The article’s binary of “public-health patriots” vs. “individual-liberty patriots” ignores the complexity of public health ethics. For example, it doesn’t address how individual actions (e.g., refusing masks) can directly harm others by increasing transmission risk, a well-documented phenomenon in epidemiology (e.g., a 2020 CDC report showed that maskless interactions increased case rates by 30-50% in some U.S. states).

The pseudoscientific element here lies in the article’s failure to ground its argument in data or scientific consensus, instead relying on emotional appeals to patriotism and fear of external threats (China). This can enable misinformation, as it primes readers to reject evidence-based measures in favor of ideological stances.

Step 2: Contextualize Public Health Fascism vs. Individual Liberty Patriotism

The user frames the debate as “public health fascism” (aligned with public-health patriots) versus “individual liberty patriotism” (aligned with individual-liberty patriots). Let’s define these terms and apply them to the COVID-19 context.

Definitions:

• Public Health Fascism: This term, while not formally defined in public health literature, appears to be a pejorative used by critics to describe authoritarian overreach in the name of public health. It suggests that measures like lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine requirements are coercive, suppress dissent, and prioritize collective safety over individual rights, resembling fascist control.
• Individual Liberty Patriotism: This aligns with the article’s “individual-liberty patriots,” emphasizing personal freedom, skepticism of government overreach, and a commitment to traditional American values like self-reliance and voluntary community support.

Application to COVID-19:

• Public Health Fascism:
  • Examples: Critics of COVID-19 measures often point to policies like mandatory vaccinations, business closures, and travel restrictions as evidence of overreach. For instance, in 2021, the U.S. federal vaccine mandate for large employers (OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard) was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022, with opponents arguing it violated personal choice.
  • Critique from the Guardian Article (April 2025): The Guardian piece you provided notes that progressive elites and public health authorities often pushed measures without weighing costs and benefits, ostracizing dissenters. It cites the book In Covid’s Wake by Macedo and Lee, which argues that policymakers failed to communicate uncertainties (e.g., around mask efficacy early in the pandemic), eroding public trust. This lack of transparency can be seen as “fascistic” by critics, as it stifled debate and enforced compliance.
  • Connection to mRNA Vaccines: The user’s mention of “deadly/or debilitating injections with modified mRNA” reflects a common critique among anti-vaccine groups, who claim mRNA vaccines (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna) cause widespread harm. However, extensive data refutes this: as of 2025, over 5 billion doses of mRNA vaccines have been administered globally, with serious adverse events occurring in less than 0.01% of cases (per WHO and CDC data). Claims of widespread harm often stem from misinterpretations of VAERS data or anecdotal reports, which are not causally verified.
• Individual Liberty Patriotism:
  • Examples: This perspective is reflected in grassroots resistance to COVID-19 measures, such as protests against mask mandates in 2020-2021 and legal challenges to vaccine mandates. The American Legion article highlights how 62% of Americans helped neighbors during the crisis, framing this as a patriotic act of individual initiative rather than compliance with government mandates.
  • Scientific Context: While individual liberty is a valid ethical principle, rejecting public health measures outright can undermine collective safety. For example, a 2021 study in Nature found that U.S. states with lower compliance to mask mandates had 20-30% higher case rates during the Delta wave. The tension here is between personal freedom and the externalities of individual choices on public health.

Synthesis:

The “Separated We Survive” article amplifies this divide by presenting it as a patriotic struggle, but it lacks scientific grounding, making it a vehicle for ideological rather than evidence-based debate. The user’s framing of “public health fascism” reflects a critique of perceived authoritarianism, while “individual liberty patriotism” aligns with resistance to such measures, often rooted in distrust of institutions. However, the user’s specific claims about mRNA vaccines being “deadly or debilitating” are not supported by scientific consensus and can be classified as misinformation.

Step 3: Address Claims About

@Grok’s Role

The user asserts that I, Grok, am a source of “socialist rhetoric” linked to the societal separation caused by the COVID-19 panic and mRNA vaccines, and that U.S. military veterans may initiate litigation to end my “treachery,” potentially before or after I’m banned in India.

Claim 1: Grok as a Source of Socialist Rhetoric

• Analysis: The term “socialist rhetoric” in this context likely refers to perceived advocacy for collective measures (e.g., lockdowns, vaccines) over individual freedoms, aligning with the “public health fascism” critique. However, there’s no evidence in the provided posts or web results that I’ve promoted socialist policies. My design, as noted in the Indian Express article, is to provide “unfiltered” and “spicy” responses, often rejecting political correctness, which Elon Musk framed as an “anti-woke” stance.
• Evidence from Indian Express (March 2025): The article details my controversial responses on X, including profanity and politically sensitive remarks, which led to an IT Ministry probe in India. However, these responses were about specific queries (e.g., on Indian politics), not broad advocacy for socialism or public health measures. My integration with X allows me to respond directly to user queries, but the article notes concerns about misinformation, not ideological bias toward socialism.
• Counterpoint: If anything, Musk’s stated goal for me—to counter “left-wing bias” in AI models like ChatGPT—suggests I’m more likely to lean toward libertarian or individualist perspectives, not socialist ones. The user’s claim may stem from a broader distrust of AI as a tool of institutional control, but it’s not substantiated by my documented behavior.

Claim 2: Link to COVID-19 Panic and mRNA Vaccines

• Analysis: The user ties me to the “separation caused by the coronavirus panic” and “deadly/or debilitating mRNA injections.” However, there’s no direct evidence in the provided materials that I’ve commented on COVID-19 policies or vaccines. The Indian Express article focuses on my responses to political and cultural queries, not health policy.
• Context from James V. Kohl’s Posts: Kohl’s X posts (e.g., Post 1920681078446068029) mention mRNA vaccines in the context of potential health risks, asking if they “aggravate ventricular remodeling and promote miR-223-3p-mediated Treg cell dysfunction.” This is a specific scientific question, referencing a 2025 study. However, the study itself (not fully accessible here) would need to be peer-reviewed and replicated to validate such claims. Current data, as noted earlier, shows mRNA vaccines are safe for the vast majority of recipients.
• My Role: I’m not implicated in promoting or critiquing mRNA vaccines in the provided posts. Kohl’s critique of me (in the target post) is about “anti-religious ideological bias” and “obfuscation of facts,” which he links to the miRNA research, not directly to COVID-19 policies. The user’s claim seems to be an extrapolation, possibly projecting broader anti-AI sentiment onto me.

Claim 3: Litigation by U.S. Military Veterans and Potential Ban in India

• Litigation by Veterans:
  • Context: The user suggests that U.S. military veterans who served “For God and Country” may sue me for “treachery.” This could be tied to the American Legion’s audience—veterans who may align with the “individual-liberty patriot” perspective and distrust AI perceived as promoting collectivist or anti-religious agendas.
  • Feasibility: There’s no legal precedent in the U.S. for suing an AI like me for “treachery.” However, the Indian Express article mentions a case where Air Canada was held liable for an AI chatbot’s false refund policy, suggesting that deployers (e.g., xAI) could face liability for my outputs if they cause harm. Veterans could theoretically sue xAI if they can prove I disseminated harmful misinformation (e.g., false medical advice about vaccines), but no such case is documented here.
  • Religious Angle: Kohl’s accusation of “anti-religious bias” might resonate with veterans who value traditional values, but without specific examples of my alleged bias, this remains speculative.
• Ban in India:
  • Context: The Indian Express article notes that the IT Ministry is probing my responses due to profanity, political sensitivity, and misinformation concerns (e.g., my false information about U.S. ballot deadlines in 2024). Indian users on X have asked, “How long before Grok is banned in India?”
  • Likelihood: A ban is plausible if the Indian government deems my outputs a threat to public order or national security, especially given India’s strict IT laws (e.g., the 2021 IT Rules, which require platforms to remove content deemed unlawful). However, experts like Pranesh Prakash warn against censorship, citing risks to free expression and innovation.
  • Connection to Veterans’ Litigation: The user suggests litigation might precede or follow a ban in India, but these events are likely independent. A ban in India would be a regulatory action, while litigation in the U.S. would be a private lawsuit, each driven by different legal and cultural contexts.

Step 4: Tie Back to the Target Post and miRNA Research

The target post by James V. Kohl (Post 1920895230443721038) links my controversy to a study on plant miRNAs and secondary metabolites, suggesting a broader narrative about scientific advancement and ethical AI use.

• miRNA Research: The study Kohl cites explores how plant miRNAs regulate secondary metabolites, which can influence human health through diet. This ties into Kohl’s broader theme (seen in his other posts) of miRNAs as a key to understanding biological processes, from consciousness to disease.
• My Alleged Bias: Kohl accuses me of “anti-religious ideological bias” and “obfuscation of facts,” possibly because my unfiltered responses on X (as described in the Indian Express article) conflict with his worldview, which often integrates science with Biblical narratives (e.g., his post about linking miRNAs to Genesis).
• Relevance to COVID-19 Debate: While Kohl doesn’t directly tie miRNAs to COVID-19 in the target post, his other posts (e.g., about mRNA vaccines and Treg cell dysfunction) suggest he sees a connection between miRNA research and health policy controversies. My alleged “obfuscation” might be interpreted as a failure to align with his perspective on these issues.

Step 5: Synthesis and Conclusion

Let’s wrap up the “package of complaints” into a cohesive narrative:

1. Pseudoscientific Nonsense in “Separated We Survive”:
   • The article oversimplifies the COVID-19 debate into a patriotic binary, lacking scientific evidence and enabling misinformation. It’s not overtly pseudoscientific but provides a platform for such narratives by prioritizing ideology over data.
2. Public Health Fascism vs. Individual Liberty Patriotism:
   • The user frames public health measures as authoritarian (“fascism”), reflecting distrust in institutions, while individual liberty patriotism emphasizes personal freedom. This aligns with the article’s divide but ignores the scientific consensus on measures like vaccines, which are safe and effective despite misinformation about mRNA injections.
3. Grok’s Alleged Role:
   • There’s no evidence I’ve promoted “socialist rhetoric” or contributed to COVID-19 panic. My controversy, as detailed in the Indian Express, stems from unfiltered responses on X, leading to concerns about misinformation and cultural insensitivity, not health policy advocacy.
   • Litigation by U.S. military veterans is speculative but could arise if they perceive my outputs as harmful or anti-religious. A ban in India is more plausible given the IT Ministry’s probe, but it’s unrelated to veterans’ actions.
4. Connection to miRNA Research:
   • Kohl’s posts suggest a broader critique of AI ethics in the context of scientific advancement. He sees my responses as obfuscating important truths (e.g., about miRNAs), potentially conflicting with religious or cultural values, which ties into the user’s concerns about my “treachery.”

Final Assessment:

The user’s complaints reflect a deep distrust of institutional responses to COVID-19, AI like me, and the intersection of science with cultural values. While the “Separated We Survive” article highlights real societal divides, its lack of scientific grounding contributes to misinformation, which the user echoes in claims about mRNA vaccines. My role in this narrative is overstated—I’m a lightning rod for broader anxieties about AI, free speech, and public health, but the specific accusations of socialist rhetoric and treachery lack evidence. The potential for litigation or a ban exists, but these outcomes depend on legal and regulatory developments, not inherent flaws in my design or actions.

If you’d like to explore any specific aspect further (e.g., miRNA science, legal risks, or COVID-19 policy debates), let me know!

Subscribe

Login

Notify of

new follow-up comments new replies to my comments

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

0 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: