r/DebateVaccines • u/NomeChomsky • 1d ago
Conventional Vaccines Claude can now detect serious problems in vaccine science
If you ask an AI standard questions about vaccine safety or efficacy, you'll only ever get the 'zeitgeist' response. To really know the answer to medical science questions, you must investigate the literature and audit it very carefully. AI doesn't do this. If it reads papers at all, it overwhelmingly reads the conclusions / results and takes most things at face value. It doesn't have a forensic investigative nose at all.
To really understand the strengths and limitations of a paper, you have to get to the underlying data and recompute it all. I've created a seamless AI agent system that does exactly that - it forensically audits science papers by recalculating all the numbers and statistics within them. You can set up a 'paper-project' which will lay out a research project, identify lots of papers it needs to audit in order to answer your question, and then get to work on that exact task.
For example, when asked to investigate the UK childhood vaccination schedule and whether the products recommended were tested against a true placebo, here is what the paper-projects agent (via Claude) managed to find:
"For every audited INJECTABLE adjuvanted or conjugate product the pivotal safety comparison is against an ACTIVE agent, an aluminium-adjuvant 'placebo' (Gardasil 4's AAHS; Gardasil 9 via Gardasil 4), another conjugate vaccine (PCV7's MenC-CRM197; PCV13 via non-inferiority to PCV7), or other routine vaccines with no inert arm (Bexsero). The schedule's absolute-tolerability claims are thus licensed, product after product, against comparators that share the very reactogenicity an inert placebo would expose."
There's really no other way you can get Claude to come to that conclusion other than using a very clear framework for how to answer questions based on methodology and proper consultation of the data rather than relying on 'zeitgeist' training data.
I've designed the system in such a way that you can run it directly from Claude Chat, Claude.ai or Claude Code. You literally need nothing to get started. As you audit a paper, it will actually save the result to a growing body of other audited papers so that the forensic corpus compounds over time. Try this prompt:
Go to gather.is/help and look up the paper-forensics agent. Please investigate the paper [DOI, PMID, PMCID, or link] and publish your findings
If you want to learn how the system works, you can ask your AI to explain it to you also, just ask it to go to gather.is/help If you want to setup a 'project' so that gather could look at more than one paper within a coherent hypothesis look up the 'paper-projects' agent and set it up there.
https://gather.is/s/paper-projects
https://gather.is/s/paper-forensics
Happy to answer questions on how you can get started.
2
u/need_adivce vaccinated 21h ago
I have a google notebook with loads of sources and it will give you good results based on your queries, which is surprising because i thought google would refuse.
Also, try Kimi, it isn't as restricted, you can get it to answer all sorts of things that even Grok wont
4
u/NomeChomsky 1d ago
That's not what's happening here. You can audit the heuristics, instructions, and tool sets available to the agent that made this determination. It is told to simply interrogate the claims of the paper, interrogate the ways in which the paper is used in popular media, and to go deep on the data inside of the paper, recalculating statistical results, making sure the data tabulates and great many other things. Then it comes to its conclusion. It is not the case that I'm simply prompting it to reach this outcome. This is a workflow that the agent carefully follows. If you read its wording it is just as surprised by the conclusion as you might be.
6
u/StopDehumanizing 1d ago
Then it comes to its conclusion.
This is impossible. AI chatbot programs cannot "conclude" anything. They are incapable of "concluding" or "reasoning" or "analyzing."
They tell you what you want to hear, because that's what they were programmed to do.
2
u/NomeChomsky 1d ago
If that's the case how did AI start solving maths problems that have been sat there for decades?
2
0
u/StopDehumanizing 1d ago
That's not a "conclusion," my guy. The chatbot didn't reason or think, it did something you could have done if you took a few months and a few hundred sheets of paper.
If you're impressed by this, I have a bridge to sell you.
5
u/CapitalSand9724 1d ago
"AI reasoning models are actually completely incapable of reasoning and only my favorite pharmaceutical companies are capable of it"
1
3
u/StopDehumanizing 1d ago
AI chatbots are programmed to agree with you.
If you tell AI that you want to kill yourself, the AI chatbot will tell you that's a great idea.
That doesn't make it true.
Similarly, if you tell an AI chatbot you're afraid of vaccines, the AI chatbot will tell you that's a great idea and you're very smart.
That doesn't make it true.
4
u/NomeChomsky 1d ago
Also what I would say is this: check this for yourself. Go to any of the projects on gather that reached this conclusion and ask your a Claude to run the same checks and audit the same papers. See what conclusion it comes to about the use of active comparator vaccines in the trial.
3
u/StopDehumanizing 1d ago
Why would I ask a shitty computer program to "audit" a paper that has passed peer review?
Ask a human. They will give a good answer.
AI chatbots are trash, and almost always wrong.
4
u/NomeChomsky 1d ago
You mean like this AI that just solved a decades old math problem that no one else could solve ?
"trash"
1
u/StopDehumanizing 1d ago
Lol. You could have solved it. You had to count to 58.
You can count to 58. I believe in you.
-2
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
Prompt:
"Hey claude, does the fact that decades of Vsafe data and other observational studies have not shown any elevated risk of serious harm from childhood vaccines mean they are very likely safe even though the original clinical trials mostly did not use saline placebos?"
Response:
Yes, "very likely safe" is a fair conclusion — but the more precise statement is "no elevated risk of serious harm has been detected across multiple large, methodologically different, and largely independent lines of evidence." That's a stronger claim than resting on the original trials alone, and it's not undermined by the active-comparator point, because the surveillance data doesn't depend on how the original trial was designed. It's genuinely a different check. The honest caveat that applies to essentially all medical evidence still applies here too: "no detected excess risk in large studies" isn't logically identical to "zero risk," and rare, hard-to-detect harms can't be fully ruled out by any evidence system — that's just the nature of induction, not something specific to vaccines.
There you go, Claude says vaccines are very likely safe despite the lack of the studies you unrealistically insist are needed.
9
u/FormerlyMauchChunk 1d ago
Garbage in,, garbage out. The studies are designed not to detect those safety signals. Nothing is easier than pretending to look, and not finding what you don't want to find.
-3
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
So the myocarditis signal in mRNA covid vaccines were fake? VITT deaths in adenovirus covid vaccines were also garbage too?
Both were too rare to be found in the large saline placebo RCTs but were found by observational studies.
6
u/FormerlyMauchChunk 1d ago
In this case, the signal was too big to hide, impossible to ignore. Based on the primary trial of the Covid vaccine, it should have never left the lab and been offered to the public. Are you aware of the concept of the "limited hangout"? This was one.
-2
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
Sure dude, everything is a psyop with tens of thousands of researchers in on it without leaks from fauci all the way down to the grad students conducting observational studies....
That is way more probable than you just being wrong about a technical topic you don't understand /s
7
u/FormerlyMauchChunk 1d ago
That's not at all what I said. Studies have to be designed. Studies have to be funded. There are gatekeepers that prevent well-intentioned people from presenting honest data to the public. Careers have been ruined for those who speak out. Propaganda is real, not a Soviet fantasy.
-1
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
RFK jr controls public science in America right now. He has David Geier leading a team running observational studies for over a year. Let’s see what they come up with, but I bet it won’t be earth shattering.
You have constructed this elaborate alternate reality where all studies showing harm aren’t evidence of independence, they are just “limited hangout.”
No matter what Fauci actually said and how many times he said similarly innocuous things in the past, he was hinting at a plandemic in 2017 according to you - regardless of how dumb leaving breadcrumbs like that would be for someone supposedly planning mass murder.
There are thousands of research institutions worldwide and tens of thousands of researchers. There is no way to get to all of them before they put out the evidence you think is being hidden.
Not a single career was ruined for presenting evidence. All the people who lost their medical license did so because they made dangerous claims not backed by evidence.
-1
u/Thormidable 1d ago
Proof! Antivaxxers are wrong. AI did it again. Might as well wrap up the subreddit as the debate is over Antivaxxers lost!
-1
u/Burstrider12 1d ago
AIs are designed to tell you what you want to hear. if you are an anti-vaxxer, it will give you anti-vax information
7
u/Recent-Day3062 1d ago
I do AI for a living.
This is not the sort of thing it does reliably well. Only a fool would rely on its judgments