Google AI is caught lying about the fact that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are cancer cells

Google AI is caught lying about the fact that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are cancer cells

It is an undeniable scientific fact that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are adult cells reprogrammed with oncogenes or cancer cells harboring oncogenes (the scientific term for cancers is reprogramming), an adult stem cell Ponzi scheme or scam created by the opponents of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research during the Bush Administration, which has resulted in “the massive fraud and waste of the Obama Administration” that was under Congressional and HHS investigations. However, for over a decade, both Nobel committee and HHS/NIH have refused to acknowledge that iPSC is a scientific fraud and in fact cancer cells. There are a lot of lies about iPSC on the internet. Please see below some interesting contradicted answers from Google AI. No wonder there are so many fake news on google.

Q1: Do induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) contain oncogenes?

Google AI Answer 1: Yes, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) contain oncogenes because the process of creating them often involves using oncogenes or genes that are linked to tumorigenesis. Key reprogramming factors like c-Myc and Klf4 are well-known oncogenes, and others like Oct4 and Sox2 also have links to tumor formation. While these genes are necessary for reprogramming, their presence means iPSCs inherently carry an oncogenic risk that must be addressed, particularly for clinical applications.

Q2: Is a cell containing an oncogene a cancer cell?

Google AI Answer 2: Yes, a cell containing an oncogene is considered a cancer cell because oncogenes are mutated genes that drive uncontrolled cell growth and division, and an oncogene can cause the cell to become cancerous.

Q3: Are induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) cancer cells?

Google AI Answer 3: No, normal iPSCs are not cancer cells, though they share some properties with cancer stem cells that are cancer cells, and iPSCs can be reprogrammed to become cancer-like cells. A key difference is that normal iPSCs have the potential for controlled differentiation into various cell types, whereas cancer cells often lack this control, leading to uncontrolled growth.

I was shadow banned on social media since 2012 for speaking about 2012 Nobel Prize winner Shinya Yamnaka’s scientific fraud on iPSC, in fact cancer cells reprogramed with oncogenes and common scientific knowledge. Shinya Yamanaka and Deepak Srivastava of UCSF who directed the NIH iPSC Center grant in collaboration with MIT reprogramming professor Rudy Jaenisch, the founder of the iPSC Company Fate therapeutics and ISSCR former President, were found scientific misconduct that resulted in termination of their NIH iPSC grants over 10 years ago. Harvard Medical School Dean George Daley lied in Congress that “iPSC and hESC are identical”, which is like saying “cancer cells and stem cells are identical”. NIH director Francis Collins suddenly resigned in 2021 for having knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly misappropriated tens of billions of NIH grants to iPSC scam. Obama held a farewell party for Francis Collins and had Biden/Harris white house stop HHS/NIH from making formal announcement for Francis Collins’ wrong doing. Biden white house science advisor Eric Lander resigned in 2022 for his scientific misconduct in iPSC, which they covered up as staff dispute.

One well-known scientific fact about cancers is that cancer cells have lost their ability to differentiate. There is no possible scientific way to turn iPSC into any normal human functional cells, such as neurons, astrocytes, cardiomyocytes; the only way to do it is by falsifying and fabricating data against the code of scientific conduct. There are enormous amount of gross iPSC data manipulation, misrepresentation, fabrication, and falsification against the code of scientific conduct, including Alysson Muotri of UCSD, Joseph Wu of Stanford University, Arnold Kriegstein of UCSF, and ARPA-h FRONT Program manager Jean Hebert, that have contributed to the replication crisis and skyrocketing biomedical paper retractions, indicating a lot of government research funding is being wasted.

However, last month, NIH still knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly misappropriated $87 million of NIH grants to Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research for gain-of-function research on cancer-causing iPSC based organoids of NCI and NIAID, the same lab where Fauci and Francis Collins manufactured their cancer-causing mRNA vaccines leading to turbo cancer we see today, and turbocharged $50 million into 13 projects on fruitless genetic drivers of autism, including iPSC awards, in coordination with CA CIRM round of iPSC awards at exactly the same time.

The 13 autism projects chosen by NIH so-called peer reviewers are absolutely not the best among 250 applications, probably even the worst. But all the 13 chosen projects have one thing in common, the NIH so-called peer reviewers all have conflicts of interest (COI) with those 13 projects they chose. The very corrupt NIH acting director Nicole Kleinstreuer selected those bureaucratic autism awards without any competitive scientific peer review and transparency by having personally picked so-called NIH peer reviewers who all have COI to those 13 projects they chose behind closed doors.

The PIs of 5 NIH autism awards, including AL Cochran of University of Wisconsin-Madison, ZD Liu of Baylor College of Medicine, JS Miller of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, DI Walker of Emory University, HJ Zhong of Weill Medical College of Cornell University have absolutely no scientific publication at all, and JL Stein of University of North Carolina Chapel Hill has only 2 middle author publications but no first or last author publication. NIH grant application requires PI’s own work, those 6 PIs have no publication or their own work for their applications, so they must all have committed scientific misconduct by plagiarizing someone else’s work against NIH grants and research integrity policies. None of those 6 PIs have any experience or expertise in autism or related studies, what make those 6 PIs stand out against other 250 PIs and their proposals that actually address the root causes of autism? DH Geschwind of University of California Los Angeles and WK Chung of Boston Children’s Hospital are on the same team with redundant awards. J Sebat of University of California, San Diego and JL Stein of University of North Carolina Chapel Hill used iPSC and faked data in their grant applications against NIH grants and research integrity policies.

How could NIH call those PIs and their projects who have neither scientific credentials nor research integrity as their best if NIH peer review system is not corrupt? Or NIH is actually telling the public the truth that NIH is so corrupt that their peer reviewers could only choose those projects without scientific credentials and research integrity as their best projects. Could anyone with little common sense really believe “cancer cells and stem cells are identical”, let alone Dean of Harvard Medical School, and all the NIH peer reviewers and scientists who claim they are experts and have scientific integrity? Could anyone with little common sense call such deceptive NIH and CIRM fraud and waste awards without scientific credentials and research integrity as “Gold Standard Science”?

Why wouldn’t NIH acting director Nicole Kleinstreuer even mention iPSC in recent $87 million iPSC center award and $50 million autism awards? What is NIH trying to hide from the public? I am sure NIH acting director Nicole Kleinstreuer and all NIH’s best know that intentionally not mentioning a known scientific fact is considered as scientific misconduct.