Go to gather.is/help and find the paper-projects agent. I want you to setup a project that investigates all evidence, including from the original research, which might demonstrate that the mRNA from mRNA vaccines can enter the nuclei.
The most important flags, roughly in order of weight:
The 95% is fragile to the case definition (high). It counts only central-lab PCR-confirmed cases. The trial separately logged 3,410 people with Covid-like symptoms but no confirmatory test, split 1,594 vaccine / 1,816 placebo. Fold those in and the crude reduction falls to ~19% (or ~29% if you drop cases in the first 7 days after a dose). The 95% is real but narrow — it describes confirmed symptomatic disease, not all Covid-like illness.
Asymmetric post-randomization exclusions (high). 371 people were removed from the primary efficacy analysis for protocol deviations, lopsidedly 311 vaccine vs 60 placebo — roughly 5:1, on a result that rests on just 8 vaccine events. Whether that imbalance moved the estimate can't be checked without patient-level data. This is the specific unresolved issue that caps the verdict.
Relative vs absolute framing (moderate). The absolute risk reduction was ~0.88 percentage points (0.93% → 0.05%) over a ~2-month median, i.e. NNT ≈ 114. The abstract gives only the relative 95%, no absolute figure.
Over-generalization (moderate). "95% protection against Covid-19" reads as broad, durable protection, but the endpoint measured nothing about transmission, hospitalization, death, durability, or long-term safety over that ~2-month window.
Underpowered claims foregrounded (low). The severe-Covid (9 vs 1) and "similar efficacy across subgroups" claims rest on single-digit event counts with very wide confidence intervals.
^^^ From the agent. It actually found enough leads to follow up on that this should probably be a paper-projects thing rather than a singular paper-forensics run. I'll setup a project on this and see what it turns up, then you should be able to contribute.
Exciting scenario! Of course we must always be aware that ANYTHING good, creative and intelligent can be perverted and abused by corrupt individuals, so this isn't going to lead to us all heaving a sigh of relief and relaxing! Our job is permanent, so it's just as well that some of us love hard work... Thanks for yours!
It should work with other AI. They key is it needs to be agentic AI, which means AI that has access to a basic set of tools. Claude works out of the box for this. I don’t think Gemini web app will do it, but AntiGravity (by Gemini) certainly has access to the required tools.
Chinese models like Kimi, DeepSeek and GLM will also work depending on how you’re using them. Ultimately, if you’re driving your AI in a desktop like ‘harness’ with some tools available to it, it will probably work.
Do you know of any research showing the mRNA enters the vacinees cell nuclei?
It may well be out there - perhaps run your question through paper-projects?
Ask your Claude this:
Go to gather.is/help and find the paper-projects agent. I want you to setup a project that investigates all evidence, including from the original research, which might demonstrate that the mRNA from mRNA vaccines can enter the nuclei.
Have you run it on the Pfizer 95% effective paper?
The most important flags, roughly in order of weight:
The 95% is fragile to the case definition (high). It counts only central-lab PCR-confirmed cases. The trial separately logged 3,410 people with Covid-like symptoms but no confirmatory test, split 1,594 vaccine / 1,816 placebo. Fold those in and the crude reduction falls to ~19% (or ~29% if you drop cases in the first 7 days after a dose). The 95% is real but narrow — it describes confirmed symptomatic disease, not all Covid-like illness.
Asymmetric post-randomization exclusions (high). 371 people were removed from the primary efficacy analysis for protocol deviations, lopsidedly 311 vaccine vs 60 placebo — roughly 5:1, on a result that rests on just 8 vaccine events. Whether that imbalance moved the estimate can't be checked without patient-level data. This is the specific unresolved issue that caps the verdict.
Relative vs absolute framing (moderate). The absolute risk reduction was ~0.88 percentage points (0.93% → 0.05%) over a ~2-month median, i.e. NNT ≈ 114. The abstract gives only the relative 95%, no absolute figure.
Over-generalization (moderate). "95% protection against Covid-19" reads as broad, durable protection, but the endpoint measured nothing about transmission, hospitalization, death, durability, or long-term safety over that ~2-month window.
Underpowered claims foregrounded (low). The severe-Covid (9 vs 1) and "similar efficacy across subgroups" claims rest on single-digit event counts with very wide confidence intervals.
^^^ From the agent. It actually found enough leads to follow up on that this should probably be a paper-projects thing rather than a singular paper-forensics run. I'll setup a project on this and see what it turns up, then you should be able to contribute.
I actually haven't... let's see...
Ok there’s now a paper project setup for this with a lot of leads and papers which now need auditing.
https://gather.is/s/paper-projects/mrna-covid-vaccine-safety-pivotal-rcts
Point your AI at the link and it should work out how to take part.
Exciting scenario! Of course we must always be aware that ANYTHING good, creative and intelligent can be perverted and abused by corrupt individuals, so this isn't going to lead to us all heaving a sigh of relief and relaxing! Our job is permanent, so it's just as well that some of us love hard work... Thanks for yours!
Great Work! Ground News for medical papers / publications… Can you only run your agent through the Claude LLM.
It should work with other AI. They key is it needs to be agentic AI, which means AI that has access to a basic set of tools. Claude works out of the box for this. I don’t think Gemini web app will do it, but AntiGravity (by Gemini) certainly has access to the required tools.
Chinese models like Kimi, DeepSeek and GLM will also work depending on how you’re using them. Ultimately, if you’re driving your AI in a desktop like ‘harness’ with some tools available to it, it will probably work.
The idea itself is compelling.