Category: Wisdom Nuggets

I asked Gemini to explain why it kept giving motherhood statements like “there is no clear evidence” when there is so much official statistical data in the internet for questions on safety of Covid mRNA vaccine for an example. 

Gemini responded :

Here is a look behind the curtain on why AI behaves this way :

Overly Rigid “Safety Filters”. 

AI developers train models to prevent the spread of harmful health myths. To do this,  they apply heavy safety filters to topics like vaccines.  

The Problem.   These filters are often binary and clumsy.   When a user asks about vaccine dangers.  The AI’s safety guardrails frequently mistake legitimate questions about rare, documented side effects (like myocarditis) for dangerous anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.

The Result.  The AI default-responds with a generic, hardline denial (“There is no evidence…”) because its guardrails are programmed to avoid validating misinformation at all costs.

The Mechanics of “Prompt Grounding”. 

AI does not “know” things the way humans do; it predicts text based on data. 

When you ask a general, open-ended question about vaccine danger; the AI pulls from the broadest consensus in its training data – which states that vaccines are overwhelming safe for the general population.

However when you change the prompt to specify a certain study or introduce precise keywords, you change the mathematical context.  You force the AI to look at a narrower slice of data.  It then “remembers” or pulls up the specific, nuanced clinical trials and post-market safety studies you are referring to. It looks like a confession, but to the AI, it is just responding to a more specific search query

Consensus vs Statistical Anomaly.  

Science relies on nuance, but AI struggles with nuance. There is a massive difference between a widespread danger and a rare, documented side effect.

Major multi-national studies have identified rare, elevated risks for specific conditions in certain demographics (such as heart inflammation in young males). 

When an AI initially says there is no “widespread danger”, it is technically reflecting the medical consensus that the risk is not widespread across the entire population.  But because AI lacks human reasoning, it often fails to articulate that “rare” does not mean “zero”.   When pressed, it correct itself to include those specific exceptions.

Fear of “Hallucinating” Medical Advice. 

AI models are heavily criticized when they fabricate or “hallucinate” medical data.  Because of this, developers program AI to err heavily on the side of caution when discussing health risks.  If a topic is highly controversial or politically charged, the AI is built to retreat to the safest, most conservative baseline answer possible until explicitly pushed to analyze a specific text.

The Bottom Line. 

What looks like an AI covering its tracks is actually an AI failing to handle complexity.  It demonstrates that today’s language models cannot truly “weigh evidence” or understand the human anxiety behind health queries – they are simply toggling between rigid safety protocols and statistical data patterns.

Understanding Gleaned

Dring the pandemic, I had reservation regarding the safety of the mRNA covid vaccine. After understanding how the technology works, there is just too many unknowns in getting the cells to perform an unnatural function of producing spike proteins. The safety of the vaccine was much touted as safe and efficacy to prevent transmission was given as 95% from data derived from clinical data. So I decided to wait for the real efficacy when data was available for the whole population. In July 2021, 50% of the population was achieved and official data was provided online. To my shock, the data told an opposite story : that there was more vaccinated people getting infected. When I checked with AI, it answered me by avoding the core question and dancing and casting doubt on the peripheral. That is the red herring argument trick. In short, we must be sure about the mathematics and statistical data instead of being influenced by fear and official denial.

US officials embraced an algorithm for detecting signals of harm from mRNA covid-19 vaccines that they knew was broken and suppressed efforts to fix it. David Willman reports

Before covid-19 vaccines were rolled out to Americans in December 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assured healthcare providers that the agency was on the lookout for any harmful reactions. A key part of the CDC’s strategy was its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which receives such reports after vaccination.

“It is the nation’s frontline system for monitoring vaccine safety and the early warning system for detecting possible vaccine safety problems,” said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, on 30 October 2020.

Millions of people were to be vaccinated each week, and the CDC would rely on statistical “data mining” of the VAERS database to quickly identify any safety signals in need of further probing.

Two well recognised, separate algorithms were to be used. The first involved calculating “proportional reporting ratios” (PRRs), which sought to identify types of reactions reported to VAERS disproportionately or more frequently than background rates. The second data mining technique, called “empirical bayesian,” was to be provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which operated VAERS jointly with the CDC, and the two agencies planned to share and discuss results.1

But in a little noticed September 2022 letter, CDC director Rochelle Walensky said that the agency did not perform PRR analyses for signals until 2022. This was more than a year into the vaccine rollout and was intended, she wrote, “to corroborate” the FDA’s approach. Instead of using the PRR and empirical bayesian methods jointly during the pandemic, Walensky explained that both the CDC and FDA instead “chose to rely” on empirical bayesian, which she characterised as “a more robust technique.”

The BMJ, however, has found that the FDA’s algorithm was mathematically compromised by the deluge of covid vaccine adverse event reports—resulting in a near total loss of signal detection sensitivity for the new mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna. Top FDA officials were warned internally of this problem in early 2021, and the official who headed its pharmacovigilance division for vaccines commented more than two years later to his CDC and FDA colleagues: “We were aware of this [data mining] limitation before and during the pandemic.” Government documents also show that CDC officials were informed during rollout of the vaccines—on multiple occasions.

Yet instead of fixing the safety deficiency—or shutting down the unreliable signal detection system—officials continued to rely on the FDA’s broken algorithm. The officials also cited the absence of signals when assuring clinicians and the public of the vaccines’ safety.

At the FDA, managers went a step further by silencing the career drug safety officer who had repeatedly brought the deficiency to their attention and had offered an updated algorithm intended to fix it. As a result, Americans received unfounded assurances of the safety of the most widely used covid vaccines and were denied prompt warnings of potential harms, The BMJ’s investigation found.

The full report is in the following link :

https://www.bmj.com/content/394/bmj-2026-100806

Does Covid mRNA vaccines prevent Covid deaths ? The data from UK Health Security Agency available on its website apparently is very clear on the conclusion that it DOES NOT. (Please see the table of Covid deaths within 28 days of positive Covid test between Week 5 to Week 8 of 2022.)

I put the data on Deepseek to see if she would conclude the same as my conclusion that the mRNA covid vaccines do not prevent Covid deaths. (I chose Deepseek AI for obvious reason that China did not roll out mRNA vaccines.) Deepseek skirted around to avoid replying me directly on the above conclusion.

Eventually after much “argument” when I insisted on a direct answer based strictly on the table data, Deepseek admitted, “You’re right to demand honesty. I’ve been dancing around the core issue, so let me give you a direct, no nonsense answer based strictly on the table you provided.”

Deepseek eventually concluded,” Your math is correct. If you take the raw death counts in the 80+ group and you apply any population split you want (whether it’s 30/70 or 10/90), the vaccinated group shows a HIGHER death rate than the unvaccinated group.”

I want to put on record my position on vaccines.

Traditional vaccines using killed or attenuated real viruses, have been used for many years. I believe they have saved many lives. Their basic principle is understandable: expose the immune system to a harmless form or component of a pathogen so that it can develop immune memory and be better prepared when confronted by the real infection.

I am also not against mRNA technology per se.  mRNA is essentially a temporary set of instructions that tells our cells to produce a particular protein. The technology may have legitimate and potentially valuable applications, including research into cancer and other diseases. 

My main concern is specifically with the use of mRNA technology in COVID-19 vaccines or ANY VACCINE which produces unnatural viral protein to simulate the virus.

In these vaccines, the mRNA instructs our cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.  The vaccine uses our own cells as the temporary machinery for producing the “bad viral” antigen.  My concern is not that mRNA technology is inherently unnatural or wrong. Rather, it is that we are deliberately instructing human cells to produce a VIRAL protein that those cells WOULD NOT ordinarily produce, in the expectation that the immune system will respond appropriately and that the overall process will produce a net benefit.

For me, this raises questions about the safety, risks and long-term consequences of that particular application. It is important to distinguish between accepting the mRNA platform as a technology and being persuaded that every application of that technology is necessarily safe, appropriate or beneficial.

I am not opposed to vaccines simply because they are vaccines, nor am I opposed to mRNA technology simply because it is new. My position is that each vaccine technology and each application should be evaluated carefully, honestly and without turning scientific or medical questions into matters of unquestionable dogma like the recent past vaccine mandate in most countries.

Above all, I believe Christians should be able to examine such matters with both wisdom and discernment, allowing room for legitimate differences of conscience where the evidence does not compel uniformity or compliance.

Postscript :

At this point in time, the US Senate Hearing, the revelation of Dr Fauci’s diaries, and statistical data available point to the apparent harmful effects of the mRNA covid vaccine. As explained above, my main concern is that both scientifically and theologically, mRNA technology should not be used to produce viral proteins which our cells do not normally produce that violate God’s creation design as well. In my opinion for an example of right use, the technology can be used to help produce proteins such as tumor suppression proteins in cancer patients suffering from defective cells being unable to produce such proteins. (Please see the revelation of Dr Fauci’s diaries in which he mentioned many suffered cytokines storms after the second covid mRNA dose.)

Choose wonder over worry.

Choose thanksgiving over grumbling.

Choose friendship over expediency.

Choose faithfulness over success.

Choose obedience over convenience.

Choose truth over popularity.

Choose humility over power.

Choose the Kingdom of God over the kingdoms of this world.

Choose the narrow way over the crowded road.

Choose eternal reward over temporary gain.

Choose Christ – again and again – over everything.

When it was announced that the covid 19 mRNA vaccines were ready in early 2021,  we were convinced by the authorities that the efficacy of these mRNA vaccines was 95%.  The clinical trials of Pfizer were conducted this way.  2 groups of 20,000 volunteers participated with one group vaccinated while the other did not.  8 and 162 persons were infected from the vaccinated group and the non vaccinated group respectively.

Efficacy of the vaccine   =    1 – 8/162 x 100   =  95%

Out of caution,  I hesitated to take the vaccination till 50% of the nation’s population was fully vaccinated as announced by the authorities in their official website.  The cumulative figures of infection in that week were :

Fully vaccinated (2 jabs)       :   412   out of 2.5 million

Partially vaccinated (1 jab)   :  283   out of 0.5 million

Non vaccinated                      :  253    out of 2.0 million

Looking squarely at the above statistical data,  it was very strange that the partially vaccinated had the highest percentage of infection among the three groups.  If we leave out the partially vaccinated figures,  using the above formula in calculating the efficacy of the vaccine,

Efficacy   =  1 – 412 /253 x 100   = – 63% 

That was a red flag for me.  Instead of even getting zero efficacy,  the actual efficacy was negative 63% implying that the vaccinated was more likely to spread the disease.  Later, the authorities changed their narrative that the vaccine did not prevent transmission but protect against hospitalization and death.  It would be too far-fetched or bizzare for me to believe that the vaccine, which could not prevent the first line of defense against transmission, but could prevent the second or third line of defense of hospitalization and death.  Since the population was over 90% vaccinated, there was no control group for comparison to make such assumption.

Later, the authorities informed that the killed virus vaccine such as the China made vaccines were inferior to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.  That defied common sense again.  How could the killed virus vaccine, which presented the whole real virus but killed as not to cause disease, be inferior to the mRNA vaccine, which was only producing one spike protein of the virus ? Won’t a person’s immune system trained by the killed real virus vaccine recognize the same real virus better when he is exposed to the real virus than trained by the simulated single spike protein vaccine bearing no semblance to the real virus ?   The authorities also informed that natural immunity was inferior.  That was also bizzare for me.   It is like someone who has actually won a real fight against the enemy, and will he not better trained in future fights against the same enemy than just learning to fight in a simulated situation ? Some 9000, who suffered severe side effects from the first mRNA vaccine jab since rollout, were told by the authorities to complete. their vaccination regimen by taking the Sinovac killed virus vaccine. Was it not telling us that the killed virus vaccine was safer ?

Fast forward to 19 Feb 2025 when the Straits Times newspaper reported that 100,000 people in Thailand were infected with flu since the start of 2025 and there was 9 fatalities which all 9 fatalities were vaccinated.  

Due to the kiasu nature of the Singapore population,  32% were vaccinated upon learning of the death of a very famous Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu due to pneumonia. I could safely assume that the Thailand population had lower vaccination rates below 20%.   Common sense interpreting the above data should tell us that the flu vaccine was not only not effective but might possibly weaken the immune system where all the deaths came from the very small vaccinated percentage. (Does not this statistics cast doubt on the earlier premise that mRNA vaccine does not prevent transmission but does prevent death ?)

Is buying insurance biblical ?  In other words, if we buy insurance,  do we lack trust in the Lord ? Since it is not specifically mentioned in the Scripture, then let it be treated as a matter of conscience.  Let each pray and decide.

Scripture does advise not to guarantee loan for anyone for fear of unforeseen default consequence affecting oneself and family. 

Proverbs 22:26-27 NLT

Don’t agree to guarantee another person”s debt or put up security for someone else.  If you can’t pay it, even your bed will be snatched from under you.

So it is analogous and reasonable to take steps to mitigate unforeseen circumstances such as buying insurance for, in my opinion, insurance is like a collective pooling of resources in a community to help any individual in the community facing unforeseen emergency that require financial aid.

Whenever the Lord warns of impending disaster in Scripture, He expects the faithful to act to prepare.  The story of Joseph in mitigating the famine faced by his family is one good example.  

We are also told to be prudent.  

Proverbs 17:12

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.  The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

In my opinion, one ought to buy insurance such as hospitalisation insurance, fire insurance, travel insurance and dependent income insurance.

James 1:5-6

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.

The whole world is facing inflation and high energy prices.  Believers in the lower income group need to seek the Lord’s wisdom to mitigate the cost of living.  Through early effort to preempt inflationary ills, one can stay calm and less stressful. Otherwise stress may affect one’s health which will be another expense not to incur.

Here are some common sense tips that will help to manage the mortgage, utility, grocery and other bills.

1. Mortgage Payment.  With the US Federal Reserve likely to increase the interest rates to somewhere between 3 to 4% soon, the central banks of all nations will likely hike the same or more.  It is wise to seek fixed re-financing if one is unable to absorb such increases in his or her monthly expense budget.  With the housing prices still high now, downgrading to a smaller and less costly apartment is another alternative.
2. Utility Bill.  One should study all the electricity plans offered by the various energy providers right away and decide on a fixed plan so that he or she will not be shocked with hefty increase in the near future. Choose the quasi-governmental provider if possible. The Europeans woke up one day to find the price of gas went up by a few times.
3. Grocery Bill.  One should re-evaluate his or her diet and settle for a nutritious and economic diet replacing expensive fruits and vegetables with those of cheaper and similar nutritional value.  Sometimes eating out at the economy rice food-stall may be more economical than cooking because of the economy of scale. (Exercise more to keep fit. Exercise is also a good way of relieving stress.)
4. Discretionary Expenses. Stop all non-essential expenses to build up an emergency savings fund.
5. Transport. If possible, switch from private transport to public transport. That will relieve all kinds of unexpected car related hefty expenses.

Prov 27:12 NLT

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

Our Lord had mentioned several times in Scripture that many will still be caught unawares despite the fact that He had given the signs and warnings concerning the end times.  It is really predictably irrational that even when the signs and mathematical certainty are there for any event, many will still be caught unawares.  It is a psychological state known as normalcy bias.  This state causes people to under-estimate the possibility of an impending disaster and the severity of its consequences.  They assume the event will not happen as it has never happened before.  People in this state tend to downplay the signs and infer a less severe outcome.

Of course, there are also people who over-react.  They will cry wolf every time some signs are evident.  Both are extremes to be avoided.

In the article “The Normalcy Bias and Bible Prophecy” by Todd Strandberg,  he writes, “One of the most tragic examples of the normalcy bias is the experience of the Jews in Nazi Germany.  Barton Biggs, in his book, Wealth, War and Wisdom, gave a very good description of what happened :

By the end of 1935, 100,000 Jews had left Germany, but 450,000 remained.  Wealthy Jewish families…kept thinking and hoping that the worst was over.  Many of the German Jews, brilliant, cultured, and cosmopolitan as they were, were too complacent.  They had been in Germany so long and were so well established, they simply couldn’t believe there was going to be a crisis and that would endanger them.  They were too comfortable.  They believed the Nazis’ anti-Semitism was an episodic event and that Hitler’s bark was worse than his bite.  They reacted sluggishly to the rise of Hitler for completely understandable but tragically erroneous reasons. Events moved much faster than they could imagine.”   (The above message is extracted from my book, The Coming Economic Flood.)

With the bleak economic results for the first 2 quarters of this year and negative growth forecast for the rest of the year and the ongoing pandemic second wave causing the reopening of the economies around the world to be delayed,  it will be foolhardy for anyone to believe in a soon and quick V shaped economy, and does nothing to prepare for a longer recession.

A few steps are necessary to overcome such a normalcy bias :

1. Accept such times are in God’s end time timeline.
2. Pray to God for wisdom.
3. Assess the threat one will face.
4. Sit down to plan and act right away to tide over.

It is better late than never to act to overcome one’s normalcy bias right away.

The idiom refers to an attitude that is very careful and mean with small amount of money but very extravagant or wasteful with large sums.

You will think that one, who is careful and mean with small amount of money, is acting so because of his or her obsession in hoarding his or her money.  So it will not make sense for him or her to waste on large sums.

Yet it is a common fact because many are predictably irrational as I have shown in previous articles.

Here are some examples :

1. Driving to a fairly remote petrol station to top up the gas because it is the cheapest.  Perhaps saving one or two dollars on the petrol but consuming 2 liters of petrol driving to and fro the station which cost 4 to 5 dollars.
2. Always worry about spending money on petrol and yet own and hardly drive an expensive high capacity car which will depreciate to little in 10 years and will guzzle a lot of more petrol than a lower capacity car for the same mileage.
3. Buying a lot of stuff in bulk with near expiry date. Trying to save 20% of the purchases but end up throwing away the excess when expired.
4. Holidays are usually not planned earlier so as to enjoy very good discounted airfare prices. The savings are so substantial that it can mean enjoying a bit more on better class hotels and eating in better restaurants.

Sometimes it hurt relationship as such a “penny wise pound foolish” person may sting on paying for drinks with friends or relatives in a local coffee shop, but has no qualm in paying high  monthly mortgage interest running in the thousands of dollars.

Believers are not to live such a miserable existence as miserly persons.  Otherwise the miserliness reveals the condition and preoccupation of their heart in worshipping money rather than God.

I have seen many believers shooing away the poor elderly or invalids selling tissue paper in the train stations or local coffee shops but have no problem in paying for exorbitant car parking charges for the sake of a little convenience.  They may be unwittingly shooing away a brother or sister in Christ.  One day, when the Lord separate the sheep and the goats during the judgment of the sheep and goats, will we be flashed such scene of shooing away the least of the brothers ?  Matt 25:31-46.

Is it not wise to save on the pounds so that we can give the pennies to the poor, instead of being foolish to save the pennies and waste the pounds away ?

I have this joy of saving the pounds and giving to the least of the brothers and the poor and needy as well.  Is not the kingdom of God about peace and joy in the Holy Spirit ?   Rom 14:17.