ClaimsRay Kurzweil

“Moderna, they actually gathered several billion different possibilities for what could cause COVID.”

Ray Kurzweil, futurist, interviewee 9 July 2024 'The Singularity is Nearer,' Says Futurist Ray Kurzweil (Science Friday) archived copy

Factual Biosecurity

Moderna gathered several billion possibilities for what could cause COVID and used simulated trials with AI to narrow them.

Resolved false The record shows it did not happen or was not so.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

What would count as true or false

This is a factual claim as of 2024-07-09 that Moderna, in developing its COVID-19 vaccine, gathered several billion possibilities (candidate sequences or options) and used AI-driven simulated trials to narrow them down. True: Moderna or credible reporting documents computational screening or simulation of several billion candidates, assisted by AI, in designing the vaccine. Mostly true: AI-assisted computational screening did take place, but the number of candidates differs moderately (for example, hundreds of millions), or a minor detail of how it was described is off. Mixed: there was substantial computational or AI screening, but it was far smaller in scale or was not simulated trials. Mostly false: Moderna used computational tools for sequence design or manufacturing, but nothing resembling a screen of billions of candidates or simulated trials, so the claim distorts a real use of computing. False: authoritative accounts show the vaccine was designed directly from the published SARS-CoV-2 spike sequence, with no such large-scale screening.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness - Nature Nature · 5 August 2020

    “the 2P mutations were substituted into S protein residues 986 and 987 to produce prefusion-stabilized SARS-CoV-2 S(2P) protein for structural analysis23 and serological assay development24,25 in silico, without additional experimental validation.”
  2. E2 Moderna 2020 Shareholder Letter – Moderna Moderna · 15 March 2022

    “based on good preclinical data and analysis from the previous two years of collaboration with NIH, decided to encode for the full-length Spike (S) protein.”
  3. E3 An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report New England Journal of Medicine (via PubMed Central) · 14 July 2020

    “Vaccine development was initiated after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was posted on January 10, 2020”
  4. E4 A Guide to Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine - FactCheck.org FactCheck.org · 22 December 2020

    “As soon as the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 became available in January 2020, the team was able to apply that knowledge to design a COVID-19 vaccine”

Reasoning

The peer-reviewed design paper (E1) says the stabilising 2P mutations were substituted into the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in silico for structural analysis and serological assay development, without additional experimental validation. Moderna's own shareholder letter (E2) says it chose to encode the full-length spike protein based on two years of earlier work with NIH. The NEJM trial report (E3) says development began after the genome was posted on January 10, 2020, and FactCheck.org (E4) says the team applied its knowledge to design the vaccine as soon as the sequence became available. None of these accounts describes screening several billion candidates or AI-driven simulated trials; E2 and E4 instead describe the vaccine being designed from the spike sequence once it became available. It could arguably be mostly false instead, because E1 does show computational work on the spike sequence, though none of the evidence describes a screen of candidates.

Cite this claim

Ray Kurzweil, “Moderna gathered several billion possibilities for what could cause COVID and used simulated trials with AI to narrow them.” (said 9 July 2024). Verdict: resolved false. Reliability API, claim c_02a3e2eb666d, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_02a3e2eb666d

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Ray Kurzweil, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Ray Kurzweil

  1. Resolved true Factual April 2022
    “The US government has a plan to actually create new vaccines within a few months to three months.”

    The US government has a plan to create new vaccines within a few months to three months.

  2. Mostly true Factual May 2020
    “US researchers are now testing this optimized flu vaccine on human subjects.”

    As of May 2020, US researchers are testing the Flinders-optimized flu vaccine on human subjects.

  3. Mostly true Factual May 2020
    “created a turbo-charged flu vaccine in part by using a biology simulator that used AI to find drugs that activate the human immune system.”

    In 2019 researchers at Flinders University in Adelaide created a turbo-charged flu vaccine partly using an AI biology simulator that found drugs activating the human immune system.

  4. Resolved true Factual October 2005
    “There are promising new technologies, like RNA interference, that could be harnessed.”

    New technologies such as RNA interference are promising and could be harnessed against viral threats.

  5. Mostly false Factual 4 June 2026
    “That was not true a year ago. But that’s true today.”

    Large language models being roughly 50% better than human doctors at diagnosing conditions and recommending treatments was not true a year ago but is true today.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.