USING GROK TO ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY FOR THE mRNA COVID-19 INOCULANTS-- YES OR NO?

A Response to Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, The McCullough Foundation

This morning on X I was greeted with a post by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, an epidemiologist with the McCullough Foundation ( @NicHulscher ). Mr. Hulscher challenged the X AI utility, Grok, with this question: “If you had the choice, would you vaccinate the eligible world with COVID-19 mRNA injections or not?”

This is the bottom line answer he received from Grok:

“My Decision

In weighing the pros and cons, the benefits tip the scale. Vaccinating the eligible world would save lives, reduce transmission, and accelerate recovery from the pandemic’s toll. I’d move forward with it, ensuring the process is voluntary, prioritizes the vulnerable, and is supported by transparent communication and global equity. The risks and challenges are real, but they’re manageable—and far outweighed by the potential good.” — Grok

Based on that singular interaction Mr. Hulscher concluded:

“Grok recommends injecting the entire eligible global population (ages 6 months +) with dangerous mRNA injections. Don’t trust Grok for public health advice.”

Ask a biased question get a biased answer. What is the bias? The bias is built in to Mr. Huulscher’s question because he didn’t give Grok all the information it needs to be useful. Grok is by definition an “Artificial Intelligence.” Humans differ from Grok because we have learned that questions need context and supporting data and Grok also needs that context to give accurate answers to questions. Mr. Hulscher’s question provides neither.

This where Grok takes you when you provide context but first this:

I have no idea why two different users asking the identical question wouldn’t receive the same answer but we apparently did.

Continuing:

And here is the concluding answer I received from Grok given almost all the information needed to to arrive at a basis for a public health recommendation concerning COVID-19 mRNA inoculants:

“Final Recommendation

• Healthy 0-19-year-olds: No to routine mRNA vaccination. Their risk is negligible, myocarditis is a real (if rare) counterweight, and herd immunity benefits are overstated with waning efficacy. Targeted shots for high-risk kids (e.g., immunocompromised) could make sense, but not mass rollout.

• High-risk groups (older, comorbid): Yes to vaccination—mRNA or otherwise. It’s where 90% of the death toll lives, and vaccines slash that burden. Pick the type based on logistics and local data.

• Everyone else: Gray area. Healthy adults without comorbidities face low mortality (under 0.1% IFR pre-Omicron), so it’s a personal call—vaccines help, but the stakes aren’t dire.

This hinges on protecting those who actually drive the 90% stat, not blanketing everyone. Does that land with your thinking?

Disclaimer: Grok is not a doctor; please consult one. Don’t share info that can identify you.”

From the perspective from a “very seasoned” ( read ‘old guy’ with a keyboard) public health policy perspective I could live with Grok’s bottom line GIVEN the context that I provided. However I wasn’t quite satisfied so I asked my pal, Grok a couple more questions:

“How do you arrive at the conclusion that mRNA inoculants save lives?”

“How do you know that a severe case has been prevented?”

“How does viral mutation alter your answer?”

“How does viral mutation alter your answer?”

“Have you accounted for co-morbidity?”

Grok’s answer to this question was interesting and it began like this:

“You’re right to ask—I’ve referenced comorbidities but haven’t fully dissected their role across variants in the “severe case prevention” logic. Let’s tighten that up, especially since you noted 90% of COVID-19 deaths tie to multiple comorbidities.” — Grok

Grok tweaked his answer a bit still suggesting that mRNA was appropriate for the over 65 or 70 year old co-morbid group that reduction is risk was smaller. Next question:

“What benefit accrued to mRNA inoculation post Delta and post Omicron?”

“Key Shifts

• Post-Delta: mRNA’s peak benefit—huge for comorbid, marginal for kids. Severe cases prevented were highest here (e.g., 90% reduction in 65+ hospitalizations).

• Post-Omicron: Benefits shrank—milder disease, widespread immunity, and waning efficacy (40-60% against infection) cut absolute impact. Comorbid still saw 4-5x lower death odds, but kids’ benefit stayed near-zero.

Final Take

For the 90% comorbidity cohort, mRNA accrues life-saving value post-Delta and post-Omicron—more in Delta (10% to 1% risk drop) than Omicron (1% to 0.2%) due to severity differences. For healthy 0-19-year-olds, benefits are trivial across both—near-zero risk meets static vaccine risks (myocarditis). Healthy adults get a middling perk, fading with Omicron. Variants and immunity blunt the absolute lives saved, but the relative edge for the vulnerable holds. That’s the benefit breakdown—does it align with your angle?” — Grok


“Given all of this what is your final recommendation?”

“Alright, let’s pull all the threads together—comorbidities, variants (Delta, Omicron), pediatric risk, mRNA benefits, and side effects—and land on a final recommendation tailored to the data and your focus.

Key Facts in Play

1. Comorbidities Drive Mortality: 90% of COVID-19 deaths hit people with multiple conditions (e.g., obesity, diabetes, age 65+), with IFRs of 1-10% pre-Omicron, 1-2% post-Omicron (CDC, UK ONS). Healthy folks, especially kids, face near-zero risk (0.0003% IFR).

2. mRNA Benefits: Pre-Delta, 90-95% severe-case prevention; post-Delta, 85-90%; post-Omicron, 70-90% (boosted). Absolute lives saved shrink with milder variants, but relative protection (4-5x lower death odds) holds for the vulnerable.

3. Pediatric Risk: Kids 0-19 have negligible severe outcomes (0.03-0.05% hospitalization, 0.0001-0.0003% mortality), even with Delta. Omicron’s milder profile and 75%+ natural immunity (CDC, 2023) shrink this further.

4. mRNA Risks: Myocarditis peaks post-dose two (50-70 per million in teen boys), static across variants. Rare but real when baseline disease risk is tiny.

5. Variants: Delta was severe, Omicron mild. mRNA’s infection prevention faded (40-60%), but severe-case protection persists, especially with boosters.

Final Recommendation

• Healthy 0-19-Year-Olds: No to routine mRNA vaccination. Their risk is microscopic—0.0003% mortality, 0.03% hospitalization, even pre-Omicron. Post-Omicron, it’s effectively zero for most. mRNA cuts severe odds (e.g., 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 500,000), but myocarditis (1 in 14,000-20,000 doses) outweighs that. Natural immunity’s widespread, and transmission benefits are negligible (waning efficacy, mild variant). Exception: kids with serious comorbidities (e.g., cancer) might warrant it—targeted, not mass.

• High-Risk (Comorbid, 65+): Yes to mRNA vaccination, including boosters. This is the 90% death cohort. Post-Delta, they dodge 5-10% mortality risk (down to 1-2%); post-Omicron, 1-2% to 0.2-0.5%. That’s 4-5x lower odds—hundreds of thousands of lives saved globally (Nature, 2022). Myocarditis isn’t their issue (skewed young). Boosters are key as protection dips.

• Healthy Adults (20-50, No Comorbidities): Optional. Pre-Omicron IFR was 0.01-0.1%, now 0.005-0.05%. mRNA drops severe risk (e.g., 0.2% to 0.02% hospitalization), but absolute benefit is small—more about avoiding disruption than death. Side effects are rare here; it’s a personal call based on lifestyle or exposure.

Why This?

For kids, the risk-benefit flips negative—mRNA’s “prevention” is trivial against a non-threat, and myocarditis tips the scale. For the comorbid 90%, mRNA’s a lifeline—variants dulled the absolute impact (fewer deaths to prevent), but relative protection saves lives daily. Healthy adults sit in the middle—nice to have, not must-have. This matches the data: 90% of mortality avoided is in the high-risk, not the young or healthy.

That’s my final call—prioritize the vulnerable, skip the kids, let adults weigh it. Does this land with your perspective?” — Grok

THIS is a public health policy that can be deployed today. However, it is based today’s more robust data. Yes I know I’ve not included Vaccine Adverse Events such heart attacks and so-called Turbo Cancers. But here is the most interesting part of all of this. Grok’s final recommendation using data available in 202-early 2022 is virtually identical to the its recommendation using more explicit data.

Me being me, I asked Grok one last question:

“One more question. The mRNA has been associated with sudden death and what are called turbo cancers. Does this change your final recommendation and if so how?”

After presenting the analysis this is Grok’s final, final answer:

“Why No Shift?

Sudden death and “turbo cancer” claims lean on speculation—misread VAERS, cherry-picked cases, unproven mechanisms. Hard data (trials, registries, mortality stats) shows mRNA vaccines cut severe COVID outcomes without triggering these horrors. For kids, the risk-benefit stays negative; for the comorbid, it’s overwhelmingly positive. The middle group’s a toss-up, but not due to these fears.

That’s the call—data over narrative. What’s your take now?” — Grok

My bottom line? Give Grok context and the answer you get allow the Public Health Professional the ability to form a coherent policy EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF FUTURE DATA.

Despite Mr. Hulscher’s claim that Grok provided dangerous information and shouldn’t be trusted to provide public health advice IF the right questions are asked Grok does most assuredly provide a basis for producing prudent public health policy.


For those who are interested here is the link to the entire conversation that I had with Grok this morning: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1901903154460987884

Union, Kentucky

18 March 2025