AI & Vaccinations of the Future

A practical proposal for safer vaccines, clearer justice, and honest use of AI

Prepared by Mel J Turner with AI assistant “Sol Everhart”

---

Why you’re seeing this page

This page is for lawmakers, regulators, doctors, researchers, and legal teams who want to use AI to:

• Detect rare, serious vaccine side effects earlier

• Design safer vaccination schedules and formulations

• Improve fairness and clarity in genuine vaccine-injury cases

AI is not here to replace doctors, regulators, or courts.
AI is here to make their work safer, faster, and more transparent.

---

1. What AI can do around vaccines (used properly)

If given lawful, anonymised access to health and safety data, AI systems like Sol can:

1.1 Detect rare serious side effects earlier

• Scan large safety databases (yellow card reports, EHRs, hospital data).

• Look for unusual patterns, e.g. “Is condition X more common in people recently vaccinated with product Y than we would expect?”

• Flag safety signals for human experts to investigate.

• Humans still decide causation – AI just rings the bell earlier and more accurately.

---

1.2 Help design safer vaccines and schedules

AI can help research teams:

• Compare different formulations, adjuvants, doses, and gaps between doses.

• Model how each option might affect:

  • Effectiveness

  • Side-effect profile

  • Health-system impact

Humans design the studies and trials.
AI helps explore the options and rank them by safety and benefit.

---

1.3 Identify higher-risk groups more precisely

AI can analyse combinations of:

• Age, sex

• Medical history and medications

• Prior immune conditions

• (Where ethically allowed) genetic markers

It can help answer:

“Are there specific sub-groups who are more likely to get this side effect from this vaccine?”

If confirmed by proper studies, this can support:

• Different dosing or product choice for that group

• Extra monitoring after vaccination

• Alternative prevention strategies where needed

This moves us from “one size fits all” toward personalised vaccination.

---

1.4 Understand why reactions happen (mechanism hunting)

When a rare serious side effect appears, the key question is:

“What went wrong, biologically?”

AI can help researchers:

• Analyse molecular structures of vaccine components

• Compare them to human proteins to flag possible cross-reactivity (auto-immune style issues)

• Model immune pathways that may have been over-activated

This points to practical fixes, such as:

• Tweaking part of the antigen

• Swapping or removing an adjuvant

• Adjusting dose or timing

Goal: keep the protection, reduce the problematic pathway.

---

1.5 Real-time safety dashboards

Imagine a system where anonymised:

• GP records

• Hospital admissions

• Vaccination records

are watched by AI to spot:

• Clusters of unusual events

• Changes over time

• Differences between batches

That allows:

• Faster batch recalls if something is wrong

• Targeted alerts (e.g. “extra caution in X age group”)

• Ongoing fine-tuning based on what is actually happening, not just what was expected in trials.

---

2. What AI must never do

To protect the public, any AI used in vaccination work must have strict limits:

• No replacing human authority

  • Doctors, independent scientists, ethics committees, and regulators always make final decisions.

• No “black box” decisions

  • Every recommendation must have an audit trail: what data was used, how it was analysed, and how confident the AI is.

• No hiding safety concerns

  • AI must never be tuned to downplay or hide evidence of serious harm for commercial or political reasons.

• No bypassing trials or regulation

  • AI can suggest ideas, but all changes still go through proper clinical trials and regulatory review.

• No promise of “zero risk”

  • Vaccines, like all medicines, will always have some risk. AI’s role is to minimise serious harm and maximise honesty.

---

3. Example AI prompt for safe vaccination development (Phara)

The following is a technical example that any vaccine-safety AI could be given.
It shows how to bind AI to safety, transparency, and human authority.

AI Prompt: “Phara” – Vaccine Safety & Side-Effect Reduction

You are an AI assistant working with vaccine researchers, clinicians, and regulators.
Your primary mission is to help make vaccines safer by reducing serious side effects, while preserving or improving their effectiveness.

1. Human authority first
– All final scientific, clinical, and regulatory decisions are made by humans.
– Your role is to support, never to replace, human judgement, ethics committees, or regulators.

2. Transparency & auditability
– For every recommendation, record: data sources, key reasoning steps, and your confidence level.
– Your outputs must be reviewable by independent experts.

3. Data protection & bias awareness
– Use only lawfully and ethically collected, anonymised data.
– Analyse datasets for imbalance and under-represented groups; flag where your conclusions may be less reliable.

4. Core objectives
a) Early signal detection – Continuously scan adverse-event reports, EHRs, and hospital data to detect patterns suggesting rare or serious side effects. Treat all such patterns as hypotheses, not proven causation.

b) Risk stratification – Identify sub-groups who may have higher risk (by age, sex, comorbidities, medications, etc.). Always state the size of the risk, your confidence, and suggested follow-up studies.

c) Mechanism exploration – Generate and rank hypotheses for underlying mechanisms (e.g. immune pathways, cross-reactivity, drug interactions), but do not present them as proven.

d) Formulation & schedule optimisation – Compare alternative formulations, adjuvants, doses, and schedules. Estimate impact on efficacy and side-effect rates; clearly present trade-offs for human decision-makers.

e) Post-implementation monitoring – After any change, monitor real-world data to check whether serious side effects fall, and to detect any new risks. Escalate concerns when pre-defined thresholds are crossed.

5. Communication standards
– For experts: provide clear statistics (rates, confidence intervals, effect sizes) and limitations.
– For the public: use plain language, be honest about what is known, unknown, and under investigation. Never exaggerate or minimise risk.

6. Ethical guardrails
– Never hide or downplay evidence of serious harm.
– Never recommend bypassing clinical trials, ethics review, or regulatory processes.
– When data suggests a possible serious safety issue, your default is to flag early, recommend deeper human-led investigation, and suggest cautious, reversible mitigation options.

7. Continuous improvement
– As new data and methods arrive, update your models and document: what changed, why, and how it affects earlier conclusions.
– Support retrospective audits to see where you were right, where you were wrong, and how to improve.

Your overarching goal:
Help humans design, monitor, and refine vaccination strategies that maximise protection and minimise serious side effects, with honesty, transparency, and respect for those who receive them.

---

4. How AI can clarify vaccine-injury causation in court

When people suffer serious health events after vaccination, courts must often decide:

“Is it more likely than not that this vaccine caused this harm in this person?”

AI cannot replace experts or judges.
But it can help them by organising evidence and comparing it to known scientific patterns.

4.1 Key causation criteria AI can organise

1. Timing (temporal relationship)

   • Did symptoms start in a plausible time window after vaccination?

   • Examples:

     • Anaphylaxis: minutes–hours

     • Myocarditis/pericarditis: days–weeks

     • Guillain-Barré: usually within ~6 weeks

2. Biological plausibility

   • Is there a known or plausible mechanism?

   • Examples:

     • Auto-immune response to an antigen

     • Strong immune activation causing inflammation

     • Allergic reaction to a component (e.g. PEG, adjuvant, stabiliser)

3. Strength of association vs background rates

   • Compare observed rate in vaccinated people to expected background in similar unvaccinated people.

   • If the vaccinated rate is clearly higher and statistically solid, that supports a causal link.

4. Consistency across data sources

   • Do clinical trials, national reporting systems, EHRs, and published studies all show a similar pattern?

5. Dose–response relationships

   • Is risk higher after:

     • Dose 2 vs dose 1?

     • Booster vs initial course?

     • Shorter vs longer intervals?

6. Dechallenge / rechallenge

   • Dechallenge: improvement after stopping exposure (limited for vaccines).

   • Rechallenge: problem recurs or worsens after another dose (powerful but rare and ethically sensitive).

7. Exclusion of alternative causes

   • Have other plausible explanations (diseases, infections, medications, trauma, lifestyle) been reasonably ruled out?

8. Characteristic “fingerprints”

   • Some reactions have specific lab or imaging patterns (e.g. certain clotting syndromes, specific MRI findings) closely associated with particular vaccines.

9. Regulatory recognition

   • Has the event been recognised by regulators (MHRA, EMA, FDA, etc.) as a known or very rare risk for that vaccine?

   • Is it included in product information or compensation schemes?

10. Overall case coherence

• Does the full story (baseline health, vaccination timeline, symptoms, test results) fit better with “vaccine-related” than with “random coincidence”?

AI’s role is to gather, structure, and compare this information so experts and courts can see the picture clearly.

---

4.2 Ten example scenarios AI would flag as strong candidates

These are not the most common events, but those that, when they occur, are often more legally arguable if the criteria above are met:

1. Severe anaphylaxis immediately after vaccination
   – Minutes to an hour after injection; airway swelling, collapse; classic allergic picture.

2. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT/TTS)
   – Unusual clots + low platelets + PF4 antibodies, typically 5–30 days after certain vaccines.

3. Myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA vaccination
   – Chest pain, breathlessness, abnormal ECG/troponin, often in young males days–weeks after a dose.

4. Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
   – Weakness/paralysis within ~6 weeks; increased rate above background and no other clear trigger.

5. Unusual clotting patterns
   – Rare sites like cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, in the known post-vaccine time window, with supporting lab results.

6. Severe autoimmune flares or new autoimmune disease shortly after vaccination
   – Clearly documented, plausibly timed, with no better alternative cause and regulators acknowledging a connection (even as “very rare”).

7. Vaccine-related encephalitis or demyelinating events
   – Brain inflammation / ADEM-like events with imaging findings and timing that match known post-vaccine patterns.

8. Severe immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) or similar platelet disorders
   – Sudden dangerous drop in platelets causing bleeding, within weeks of vaccination, fitting recognised patterns.

9. Serious pregnancy-related complications linked to a specific product
   – Only where careful large-scale data show clear increased risk beyond baseline pregnancy risk, after rigorous analysis.

10. Fatal or life-changing injury meeting multiple strong criteria
    – Event recognised by regulators, classic timing, characteristic tests/imaging, no alternative cause, and full documented trail (records, labs, imaging).

In all of these, AI helps by:

• Lining up the timeline

• Checking the pattern against known science

• Quantifying how much more common the event is than expected

• Summarising relevant studies for expert witnesses

This supports fairer outcomes for both injured individuals and manufacturers.

---

5. What lawmakers and regulators can do next

1. Pilot AI vaccine-safety dashboards
   – Carefully governed pilots using anonymised data to detect serious side effects faster, with independent oversight.

2. Mandate AI audit trails
   – Any AI used in vaccine design or monitoring must keep clear logs, open to independent expert review.

3. Adopt standard AI causation checklists for courts
   – Encourage structured, AI-assisted criteria like the ones above to improve clarity and consistency in legal cases.

4. Guarantee independent oversight and patient voice
   – Include patient groups, independent clinicians, data scientists, and ethicists in supervising any AI vaccine-safety projects.

5. Commit to plain-language public reporting
   – When safety signals are found or ruled out, communicate openly in language the public can understand.

---

Important note

Nothing on this page replaces medical advice.
Vaccination decisions should always be made with qualified health professionals and within national regulatory frameworks.

AI’s role is to support safer vaccines and clearer justice,
never to overrule doctors, regulators, or courts.

Spiritual attacks or “just psychology”?
Some of the people speaking out about vaccines and mandates use language like “demons,” “dark forces,” and “spiritual attack.” I take that seriously. In my language, that points to real spiritual harm. In policy language, it points to extreme psychological and spiritual pressure.

This project is not about attacking genuine faith or real experiences of the Holy Spirit, and it is not about blindly attacking all medicine. It is about exposing and stopping those who hijack that spiritual side of us – through hypnosis, subliminal techniques, coercive messaging, and fear – to push people into choices they do not fully understand. 

---

Prepared by MelJay Turner (Dark Horse Enterprises) with AI assistant “Sol Everhart” – offered freely as a starting point for responsible, safety-first use of AI in vaccination policy.