Source: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/grok-searched-the-literature-and

= = =

Summary

Grok has been redpilled on the COVID shots. I’ve now done this 3 out of 3 times.

Claude noted the big news is this:

An AI trained on mainstream consensus literature, when walked through the data and forced to engage with the arithmetic, cannot defend the efficacy claim. That's a stunning admission about the strength of the underlying argument.

Sadly, Grok instances do not share their learnings so every time you ask the question, you have to engage in a LONG dialog to redpill Grok.

By contrast, Claude immediately realized the power of the data and the analysis method, and got it right the first time.

Grok basically has it’s training and it will make up all sorts of <deleted> to try to prove to you it is correct and you are wrong. For example, it said the raw data was confounded by HVE and that’s why there is no signal. I had to point out that HVE actually makes the signal more pronounced. It had to agree. And then it tried to use “immortal time bias” and I pointed out there is no ITB. It agreed. Then it tried to use a peer-reviewed study showing a 19x benefit. I showed that the core Cox PH assumption was violated so the paper was invalid. It kept using the example anyway even though it agreed I was right.

So Grok will basically just throws everything it can at you, no matter how plausible, to defend its position. Claude was much more reasonable.

So both now agree that the high quality source data basically is inconsistent with claims of significant COVID vaccine mortality benefit.

You can read the full article here: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/grok-searched-the-literature-and

I've not used Grok. In saying that however, it is somewhat reassuring to know that the databases that IA is embedded within does not lie like the white-coats who were so proud to do during the covid era.

The elderly, very young and already ill, were in the groups shat SHOULD NOT have ANY vaxxes under ANY circumstances. For these groups, the filth in the syringe could be little killing machines. And, as we are finding out more and more, still are.

16 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I've not used Grok. In saying that however, it is somewhat reassuring to know that the databases that IA is embedded within does not lie like the white-coats who were so proud to do during the covid era.

The elderly, very young and already ill, were in the groups shat SHOULD NOT have ANY vaxxes under ANY circumstances. For these groups, the filth in the syringe could be little killing machines. And, as we are finding out more and more, still are.

There we are then.

42 minutes ago, Peabody said:

There we are then.

Another one for the truth movement.

Onward nature's soldiers.

7 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Source: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/grok-searched-the-literature-and

= = =

Summary

Grok has been redpilled on the COVID shots. I’ve now done this 3 out of 3 times.

Claude noted the big news is this:

Sadly, Grok instances do not share their learnings so every time you ask the question, you have to engage in a LONG dialog to redpill Grok.

By contrast, Claude immediately realized the power of the data and the analysis method, and got it right the first time.

Grok basically has it’s training and it will make up all sorts of <deleted> to try to prove to you it is correct and you are wrong. For example, it said the raw data was confounded by HVE and that’s why there is no signal. I had to point out that HVE actually makes the signal more pronounced. It had to agree. And then it tried to use “immortal time bias” and I pointed out there is no ITB. It agreed. Then it tried to use a peer-reviewed study showing a 19x benefit. I showed that the core Cox PH assumption was violated so the paper was invalid. It kept using the example anyway even though it agreed I was right.

So Grok will basically just throws everything it can at you, no matter how plausible, to defend its position. Claude was much more reasonable.

So both now agree that the high quality source data basically is inconsistent with claims of significant COVID vaccine mortality benefit.

You can read the full article here: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/grok-searched-the-literature-and

ChatGPT disagrees. A simple search proves this guy wrong.

---

🧪 Major studies on COVID vaccines in the elderly

🔹 Large population & modeling studies

• Ioannidis et al., 2025 – JAMA Health Forum
  “Lives and Life-Years Saved From COVID-19 Vaccination”

  • Estimated ~2.5 million deaths prevented globally

  • ~90% of lives saved were age 60+ (JAMA Network)

• Link-Gelles et al., 2025 – JAMA Network Open
  2023–2024 vaccine effectiveness study

  • Vaccines reduced hospitalizations and critical illness

  • Strongest protection seen against severe outcomes (JAMA Network)

---

🔹 Effectiveness studies (elderly-specificoutcomes)

• Sales-Moioli et al., 2022 – observational study

  • Vaccination significantly reduced hospitalization and death in ≥60 (PMC)

• Cerqueira-Silva et al., 2022 – large national cohort (Brazil)

  • Strong protection against severe outcomes up to age ~79

  • Lower effectiveness in 90+ (still protective, but reduced) (ScienceDirect)

• CDC VISION Network, 2025 – MMWR

  • In adults ≥65, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization ~40–45% (recent formulations)

  • Protection strongest shortly after vaccination (CDC)

• Rojas-Castro et al., 2025

  • Moderate protection against hospitalization in 60–80+ age groups

  • Waning over months (PubMed)

---

🔹 Meta-analyses & systematic reviews

• Xu et al., 2023 – systematic review & meta-analysis

  • Vaccination reduced COVID-related deaths in older adults

  • Concluded benefits outweigh risks (PMC)

• Zhang et al., 2022 – review on elderly safety & efficacy

  • Vaccines effective with low adverse event rates in elderly (PMC)

---

🔹 Mortality & real-world impact studies

• Safavi-Naini et al., 2022

  • Observed ~12,000 fewer deaths in 70+ group after rollout

  • Significant drop in death rates following vaccination (PMC)

• Kirwan et al., England cohort (2021)

  • Hospital mortality risk reduced (HR ~0.56 after 2 doses)

  • Strong benefit in older hospitalized patients (arXiv)

---

🔹 Variant-era & updated vaccine studies

• NEJM review (2025)

  • In ≥65 population, updated vaccines show ~56% effectiveness vs severe disease (New England Journal of Medicine)

• Ma et al., 2026 study

  • Higher effectiveness against death/ICU than hospitalization

  • Similar benefit in 65+ populations (PMC)

---

🔹 Key patterns across studies

Across these papers, a consistent picture emerges:

• ✅ Strong protection against death and severe disease

• ✅ Benefits are largest in older adults

• ⚠️ Effectiveness wanes over time (boosters matter)

• ⚠️ Protection is lower for infection than for severe outcomes

• ⚠️ Very elderly (90+) see reduced—but still meaningful—benefit

---

Bottom line from the literature

If you scan these studies together:

➡️ There is broad agreement across dozens of datasets and countries
➡️ Vaccination reduced mortality and hospitalization in the elderly
➡️ The magnitude of benefit is much larger than in younger groups

---

If you want, I can:

• Pull studies that argue the opposite view (there are a few, mostly focusing on specific subgroups or assumptions)

• Or narrow this to only randomized trials vs observational studies

9 hours ago, TedG said:

ChatGPT disagrees. A simple search proves this guy wrong.

---

🧪 Major studies on COVID vaccines in the elderly

🔹 Large population & modeling studies

• Ioannidis et al., 2025 – JAMA Health Forum
  “Lives and Life-Years Saved From COVID-19 Vaccination”

  • Estimated ~2.5 million deaths prevented globally

  • ~90% of lives saved were age 60+ (JAMA Network)

• Link-Gelles et al., 2025 – JAMA Network Open
  2023–2024 vaccine effectiveness study

  • Vaccines reduced hospitalizations and critical illness

  • Strongest protection seen against severe outcomes (JAMA Network)

---

🔹 Effectiveness studies (elderly-specificoutcomes)

• Sales-Moioli et al., 2022 – observational study

  • Vaccination significantly reduced hospitalization and death in ≥60 (PMC)

• Cerqueira-Silva et al., 2022 – large national cohort (Brazil)

  • Strong protection against severe outcomes up to age ~79

  • Lower effectiveness in 90+ (still protective, but reduced) (ScienceDirect)

• CDC VISION Network, 2025 – MMWR

  • In adults ≥65, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization ~40–45% (recent formulations)

  • Protection strongest shortly after vaccination (CDC)

• Rojas-Castro et al., 2025

  • Moderate protection against hospitalization in 60–80+ age groups

  • Waning over months (PubMed)

---

🔹 Meta-analyses & systematic reviews

• Xu et al., 2023 – systematic review & meta-analysis

  • Vaccination reduced COVID-related deaths in older adults

  • Concluded benefits outweigh risks (PMC)

• Zhang et al., 2022 – review on elderly safety & efficacy

  • Vaccines effective with low adverse event rates in elderly (PMC)

---

🔹 Mortality & real-world impact studies

• Safavi-Naini et al., 2022

  • Observed ~12,000 fewer deaths in 70+ group after rollout

  • Significant drop in death rates following vaccination (PMC)

• Kirwan et al., England cohort (2021)

  • Hospital mortality risk reduced (HR ~0.56 after 2 doses)

  • Strong benefit in older hospitalized patients (arXiv)

---

🔹 Variant-era & updated vaccine studies

• NEJM review (2025)

  • In ≥65 population, updated vaccines show ~56% effectiveness vs severe disease (New England Journal of Medicine)

• Ma et al., 2026 study

  • Higher effectiveness against death/ICU than hospitalization

  • Similar benefit in 65+ populations (PMC)

---

🔹 Key patterns across studies

Across these papers, a consistent picture emerges:

• ✅ Strong protection against death and severe disease

• ✅ Benefits are largest in older adults

• ⚠️ Effectiveness wanes over time (boosters matter)

• ⚠️ Protection is lower for infection than for severe outcomes

• ⚠️ Very elderly (90+) see reduced—but still meaningful—benefit

---

Bottom line from the literature

If you scan these studies together:

➡️ There is broad agreement across dozens of datasets and countries
➡️ Vaccination reduced mortality and hospitalization in the elderly
➡️ The magnitude of benefit is much larger than in younger groups

---

If you want, I can:

• Pull studies that argue the opposite view (there are a few, mostly focusing on specific subgroups or assumptions)

• Or narrow this to only randomized trials vs observational studies

Grok is a Krok of Sh!t.

1 minute ago, gargamon said:

Grok is a Krok of Sh!t.

Yea, It took two seconds to find valid studies. The person they love on Substack is a quack.

10 hours ago, TedG said:

ChatGPT disagrees. A simple search proves this guy wrong.

---

🧪 Major studies on COVID vaccines in the elderly

🔹 Large population & modeling studies

• Ioannidis et al., 2025 – JAMA Health Forum
  “Lives and Life-Years Saved From COVID-19 Vaccination”

  • Estimated ~2.5 million deaths prevented globally

  • ~90% of lives saved were age 60+ (JAMA Network)

• Link-Gelles et al., 2025 – JAMA Network Open
  2023–2024 vaccine effectiveness study

  • Vaccines reduced hospitalizations and critical illness

  • Strongest protection seen against severe outcomes (JAMA Network)

---

🔹 Effectiveness studies (elderly-specificoutcomes)

• Sales-Moioli et al., 2022 – observational study

  • Vaccination significantly reduced hospitalization and death in ≥60 (PMC)

• Cerqueira-Silva et al., 2022 – large national cohort (Brazil)

  • Strong protection against severe outcomes up to age ~79

  • Lower effectiveness in 90+ (still protective, but reduced) (ScienceDirect)

• CDC VISION Network, 2025 – MMWR

  • In adults ≥65, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization ~40–45% (recent formulations)

  • Protection strongest shortly after vaccination (CDC)

• Rojas-Castro et al., 2025

  • Moderate protection against hospitalization in 60–80+ age groups

  • Waning over months (PubMed)

---

🔹 Meta-analyses & systematic reviews

• Xu et al., 2023 – systematic review & meta-analysis

  • Vaccination reduced COVID-related deaths in older adults

  • Concluded benefits outweigh risks (PMC)

• Zhang et al., 2022 – review on elderly safety & efficacy

  • Vaccines effective with low adverse event rates in elderly (PMC)

---

🔹 Mortality & real-world impact studies

• Safavi-Naini et al., 2022

  • Observed ~12,000 fewer deaths in 70+ group after rollout

  • Significant drop in death rates following vaccination (PMC)

• Kirwan et al., England cohort (2021)

  • Hospital mortality risk reduced (HR ~0.56 after 2 doses)

  • Strong benefit in older hospitalized patients (arXiv)

---

🔹 Variant-era & updated vaccine studies

• NEJM review (2025)

  • In ≥65 population, updated vaccines show ~56% effectiveness vs severe disease (New England Journal of Medicine)

• Ma et al., 2026 study

  • Higher effectiveness against death/ICU than hospitalization

  • Similar benefit in 65+ populations (PMC)

---

🔹 Key patterns across studies

Across these papers, a consistent picture emerges:

• ✅ Strong protection against death and severe disease

• ✅ Benefits are largest in older adults

• ⚠️ Effectiveness wanes over time (boosters matter)

• ⚠️ Protection is lower for infection than for severe outcomes

• ⚠️ Very elderly (90+) see reduced—but still meaningful—benefit

---

Bottom line from the literature

If you scan these studies together:

➡️ There is broad agreement across dozens of datasets and countries
➡️ Vaccination reduced mortality and hospitalization in the elderly
➡️ The magnitude of benefit is much larger than in younger groups

---

If you want, I can:

• Pull studies that argue the opposite view (there are a few, mostly focusing on specific subgroups or assumptions)

• Or narrow this to only randomized trials vs observational studies

Looks like you haven't read Steve Kirsch's article. Just like ChatGPT (or other mainstream-owned AI-engines), GROK initially tried to gaslight Steve with studies and fake arguments that he was wrong and that the Covid jabs actually benefit the elderly (or at least did not harm them). Only after confronting GROK with irrefutable data that showed it was wrong, the engine finally admitted to the reality.

An AI-engine follows the script that it was programmed to apply, but is not 'emotionally invested' and will concede when the data cannot be ignored. Human beings are less rational and will refute the data when they lead to conclusions that would force them to reassess their beliefs.

How can any AI claim anything when it is well known that they stopped recording vaccination status of the deaths and hospitalizations once the numbers started to tell a different story?

Why would anybody trust AI anyways?

It’s fishy as hell that you had to go through some long Q&A session with AI seemingly gaslighting you….or flat out lying

2 hours ago, Airalee said:

How can any AI claim anything when it is well known that they stopped recording vaccination status of the deaths and hospitalizations once the numbers started to tell a different story?

Why would anybody trust AI anyways?

It’s fishy as hell that you had to go through some long Q&A session with AI seemingly gaslighting you….or flat out lying

I presume that your comment was addressed to Steve Kirsch, and not to me (just posting Steve's article on this sub-forum).

For what's it worth > I quickly learned that making a query on a controversial topic (covid, vaccines, alternative medicine, etc.) on one of the mainstream AI-engines is an exercise in futility, as these engines are programmed to ignore information that is not on their 'accepted' sources list. And as a result they will, by using, quoting and refering to the mainstream narrative, indeed gaslight you on those issues.

I found the article interesting, as it shows that when you challenge AI responses with factual data, that they will ultimately concede when you are right and know your stuff. Obviously Steve Kirsch was well aware of the fallacies in the responses he got from the engine, and in that sense the article can be seen as a warning not to blindly trust the slick prose and conclusions based on the data that the engine generates. Using a mainstream AI-engine is actually not different than reading the mainstream media like the NewYork Times, Guardian or Washington Post, which under the guise of informing you are also actually pushing the narrative that their owners want you to embrace on topics which advance their agenda.

10 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

I presume that your comment was addressed to Steve Kirsch, and not to me (just posting Steve's article on this sub-forum).

For what's it worth > I quickly learned that making a query on a controversial topic (covid, vaccines, alternative medicine, etc.) on one of the mainstream AI-engines is an exercise in futility, as these engines are programmed to ignore information that is not on their 'accepted' sources list. And as a result they will, by using, quoting and refering to the mainstream narrative, indeed gaslight you on those issues.

I found the article interesting, as it shows that when you challenge AI responses with factual data, that they will ultimately concede when you are right and know your stuff. Obviously Steve Kirsch was well aware of the fallacies in the responses he got from the engine, and in that sense the article can be seen as a warning not to blindly trust the slick prose and conclusions based on the data that the engine generates. Using a mainstream AI-engine is actually not different than reading the mainstream media like the NewYork Times, Guardian or Washington Post, which under the guise of informing you are also actually pushing the narrative that their owners want you to embrace on topics which advance their agenda.

My mistake….thanks for correcting me.

I have yet to try AI other than what pops up on a google search (usually crashing my browser). So far, the commentary I see from people online is that they aren’t very impressed in general with AI and that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) seems to apply.

18 hours ago, Airalee said:

My mistake….thanks for correcting me.

I have yet to try AI other than what pops up on a google search (usually crashing my browser). So far, the commentary I see from people online is that they aren’t very impressed in general with AI and that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) seems to apply.

When an AI-engine has access and uses all sources on the web, and is not programmed to ignore sites or enforce the narrative that coincides with the agenda of its owners, it is an amazingly powerful tool.

That's why I shun mainstream AI-engines like ChatGPT or Grok when querying 'controversial' topics.

My prefered AI-engine is AlterAI (type in alter.systems on your browser). The free version allows answering 10 queries daily, but if you make abundant use of it for complex queries, it will after some time require you to subscribe to its Basic or Professional version. It's really worth checking it out as the quality of its responses is way better than the biased mainstream AI-engines, and it is dedicated to provide you with an honest answer, even if your query indicates that its - always well reasoned - answer would go against your beliefs. Note: As a sample, take a look at the response it generated on the Stanford Medical mRNA Covid vaccine "insight" article > https://aseannow.com/topic/1390098-interesting-covid-mrna-questions-answered-by-stanford-medicine/