Just come back to this post via a series of comments elsewhere….
Can I ask what you think of this post about disappearing flu? The quote that gets me is this
‘ Think about this. Nearly seven hundred thousand tests and they are all negative, except one. And that single positive was confirmed to be a true positive. So, there was not one single FALSE positive test result. This just is not possible for any test, as it implies a specificity of 100%, zero chance of cross contamination and perfect laboratory conditions, which we know cannot possibly be true.’
I see what you mean. From the papers, it looks like there's a direct link between proximal Covid disease (as well as postmortem...2022 paper) and disruption of protein creation within organs. I guess he's extrapolating these findings to post Covid infection in general.
I guess the difference I can see being that your Turbo Aging theory sticks to vaccination mediated causes. For Chesnut, it's spike from both vaccination and covid disease resulting in system-wide accelerated aging via fouled up protein transcription. My fear is that what we are seeing in terms of the increases in morbidity/mortality is not limited to the vaccinated...although they may, depending on their lot and/or direct vein administration, more affected and in other ways as a result.
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 5, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
My problem with using the PCR technique as it is being used to test for covid.
For all other diseases, testing (in the US) in the past was used only if it is the only way to rule in or out a possible cause and the results would change treatment. If the results would not change treatment, no test was given. Example, flu. Every year of my childhood in the US I came down with the flu. However, I have only been tested for flu twice, both of which were as an adult in Japan. How did doctors know I had the flu without testing. They didn’t but it didn’t matter as the treatment for viral respiratory diseases was the same; drink plenty of fluids, get plenty of vitamins and rest, and take medicine for symptom relief only. But all of that come only after I had a fever and the doctors ruled out other possibilities. If there were indications that flu might not be the cause of my symptoms AND testing would change treatment, then other testing would be called for. But the doctor would start with the easiest, least costly and least time consuming to administer test. If that came back positive, more through investigation and further testing would then occur before I would I would be diagnosed.
I gave breast cancer as an example earlier but will give it again, with changes. Judging someone as having covid based solely upon a single positive result of the PCR is the same as diagnosing all who present with a lump in their breast, male and female, as having breast cancer and removing the breast without the required mammogram and biopsy. Madness.
Yet, that is precisely how the PCR is being used. No symptoms but have a positive PCR result? Straight to the covid isolation ward with you to be given treatments that have long been known to have serious adverse effects including death. Pop positive on a single PCR and not only are you isolated from your family and friends and not allowed to earn income, neither are those same family members and friends, if they are close contacts. If the treatment protocols for covid, known to be dangerous, fail or worse actually cause your condition to go south, you are deprived the company of your loved ones as you expire. Same is true if you went to the hospital for a totally unrelated condition. Broke your arm but have no symptoms of any illness whatsoever, you are still give a PCR and a single positive result lands you in the covid isolation ward just as above. In short, a single positive result of the PCR is at best extremely disruptive to the patient and all in their close circle and at worst, deadly.
If the PCR was used as a way to rule out covid for those presenting with symptoms known to be consistent with covid and a positive result was followed up with more rigorous testing and investigation, I would have zero issue with its use in fight covid. But that is not how it is being used. It’s use as THE single “test” to determine if someone goes into isolation and all those close to them into quarantine should be immediately halted.
The "PCR is not real" people usually are the same as "viruses are not real" people, ready to shoot a volley of bitchute videos in response to anything.
PCRs CAN have false positives, if the cycle threshold is set too high (over 30-35).
Almost every post you write causes me cognitive dissonance in the first paragraph. However, by the end of the post, I am always left scratching my head with regard to my previous perspective. This is intended as a compliment. I appreciate your work. 
As someone who did COVID testing it was generally the idea that the tests were very sensitive. Depending on how samples were aliquoted it would be easy to get contamination, usually a random gene would amplify in another sample, or sometimes you'll get a "ring" of amplification suggesting maybe one well may have spilled over into neighboring cells.
In any case, there did appear to be a general idea higher Ct values ran into some issues. Usually at higher ends you may get one gene that amplifies at a lower Ct value, and yet the others may be over the cutoff, so you have to sometimes test again until you get more than 1.
My general belief with the Ct values is that they were derived from a hypothetical "infectious" value of virions. I believe this came from early samples and data from China. But if you assume X virions is enough to become infectious, then the Ct count may be set up with that infectious number in mind.
I think one of the problems with the PCR discussion is that people have a broad idea of what PCR is, but many people may not have spent time actually looking at how it works. I don't think many people know what primers are, or the different genes that can sometimes be amplified.
Everyone sort of knows that PCR amplifies, and the discussion is around whether the amplification is for too long via Ct counts or if the use of PCR would just be wrong.
Thanks for your acknowledgement that we are a long way from being sure what and how something was released and expressing your certainty that 'novel natural' is unlikely. Pilot who lives across street from me tested positive about 20 times never once had a symptom. He was in quarantine over and over again earning his full salary. He did get two 'shots' to keep his job. JJ points out that there were lots of manufacturers of PCR tests; they were rushed and pressured for results. I think it reasonable to think many results were inaccurate for many reasons.
Jeez. Imo, it sure would be great to see you and jj debate and discuss your theories on his show.
Failing that, it would still be worth while to see you have a Zoom discussion with Nick (as he requested in the comments section).
The benefit of voice mediated discussion is that it adds nuance, detail, and expression otherwise missed (and/or misinterpreted) in the text mediated format.
I hope you consider engaging these additional forums. Your input is far too important to be confined to Substack alone.
Say I have tested positive and 60 days later I am exposed to the virus for some length of time, breathed in the virions for hours, and that same day get tested. I won't test positive? How does that work given high ct levels?
If I'm understanding correctly, Couey's point is that there isn't just one uniform PCR test that was used everywhere.
It's very possible that there is a version of the PCR test that is reliable in detecting SARS-Cov2 virus, and that this is the version that was in use in the Cleveland Clinic in December through April 2021, the period of the study by Shrestha et al.
But, the fact is that the nationwide PCR testing program was ramped up from nothing in a very short time; numerous companies got involved, many of which are now defunct; and there was no visible means to enforce any sort of consistency or quality control.
Couey's argument is that this means the results of any particular historical PCR test is open to doubt, even if there's nothing wrong with the method when applied correctly; and also that the lack of quality control and consistency was a wide open invitation to deliberate fraud.
Can PCR tell me if I've been exposed to oxygen? Will I be protected from future positives?
Just come back to this post via a series of comments elsewhere….
Can I ask what you think of this post about disappearing flu? The quote that gets me is this
‘ Think about this. Nearly seven hundred thousand tests and they are all negative, except one. And that single positive was confirmed to be a true positive. So, there was not one single FALSE positive test result. This just is not possible for any test, as it implies a specificity of 100%, zero chance of cross contamination and perfect laboratory conditions, which we know cannot possibly be true.’
It’s from this substack
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/peek-a-boo-flu
Thanks
I see what you mean. From the papers, it looks like there's a direct link between proximal Covid disease (as well as postmortem...2022 paper) and disruption of protein creation within organs. I guess he's extrapolating these findings to post Covid infection in general.
I guess the difference I can see being that your Turbo Aging theory sticks to vaccination mediated causes. For Chesnut, it's spike from both vaccination and covid disease resulting in system-wide accelerated aging via fouled up protein transcription. My fear is that what we are seeing in terms of the increases in morbidity/mortality is not limited to the vaccinated...although they may, depending on their lot and/or direct vein administration, more affected and in other ways as a result.
Brian, please say this can't be so...https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/urgentbreaking-updated-summation
My problem with using the PCR technique as it is being used to test for covid.
For all other diseases, testing (in the US) in the past was used only if it is the only way to rule in or out a possible cause and the results would change treatment. If the results would not change treatment, no test was given. Example, flu. Every year of my childhood in the US I came down with the flu. However, I have only been tested for flu twice, both of which were as an adult in Japan. How did doctors know I had the flu without testing. They didn’t but it didn’t matter as the treatment for viral respiratory diseases was the same; drink plenty of fluids, get plenty of vitamins and rest, and take medicine for symptom relief only. But all of that come only after I had a fever and the doctors ruled out other possibilities. If there were indications that flu might not be the cause of my symptoms AND testing would change treatment, then other testing would be called for. But the doctor would start with the easiest, least costly and least time consuming to administer test. If that came back positive, more through investigation and further testing would then occur before I would I would be diagnosed.
I gave breast cancer as an example earlier but will give it again, with changes. Judging someone as having covid based solely upon a single positive result of the PCR is the same as diagnosing all who present with a lump in their breast, male and female, as having breast cancer and removing the breast without the required mammogram and biopsy. Madness.
Yet, that is precisely how the PCR is being used. No symptoms but have a positive PCR result? Straight to the covid isolation ward with you to be given treatments that have long been known to have serious adverse effects including death. Pop positive on a single PCR and not only are you isolated from your family and friends and not allowed to earn income, neither are those same family members and friends, if they are close contacts. If the treatment protocols for covid, known to be dangerous, fail or worse actually cause your condition to go south, you are deprived the company of your loved ones as you expire. Same is true if you went to the hospital for a totally unrelated condition. Broke your arm but have no symptoms of any illness whatsoever, you are still give a PCR and a single positive result lands you in the covid isolation ward just as above. In short, a single positive result of the PCR is at best extremely disruptive to the patient and all in their close circle and at worst, deadly.
If the PCR was used as a way to rule out covid for those presenting with symptoms known to be consistent with covid and a positive result was followed up with more rigorous testing and investigation, I would have zero issue with its use in fight covid. But that is not how it is being used. It’s use as THE single “test” to determine if someone goes into isolation and all those close to them into quarantine should be immediately halted.
"This post will discuss my simple argument for why PCR tests are, on balance, accurate."
My concern is that it invalidates a lot of previous studies on epidemiology because it completely redefines the notion of cases.
Until the Covid-19 nonsense, a case was someone with symptoms. However, as far as I know, when you get a PCR test they do not ask you about symptoms.
It seems perfectly possible that people have live and dead viruses in the nasal Schwab that was taken without them actually having any symptoms.
That would seem to bias the number way up.
Now, I will go read your whole posting to see what you actually said :-)
I was not aware you had spoken at RTE (in some fashion) and didn't get to present your position. Interesting.
The "PCR is not real" people usually are the same as "viruses are not real" people, ready to shoot a volley of bitchute videos in response to anything.
PCRs CAN have false positives, if the cycle threshold is set too high (over 30-35).
Almost every post you write causes me cognitive dissonance in the first paragraph. However, by the end of the post, I am always left scratching my head with regard to my previous perspective. This is intended as a compliment. I appreciate your work. 
As someone who did COVID testing it was generally the idea that the tests were very sensitive. Depending on how samples were aliquoted it would be easy to get contamination, usually a random gene would amplify in another sample, or sometimes you'll get a "ring" of amplification suggesting maybe one well may have spilled over into neighboring cells.
In any case, there did appear to be a general idea higher Ct values ran into some issues. Usually at higher ends you may get one gene that amplifies at a lower Ct value, and yet the others may be over the cutoff, so you have to sometimes test again until you get more than 1.
My general belief with the Ct values is that they were derived from a hypothetical "infectious" value of virions. I believe this came from early samples and data from China. But if you assume X virions is enough to become infectious, then the Ct count may be set up with that infectious number in mind.
I think one of the problems with the PCR discussion is that people have a broad idea of what PCR is, but many people may not have spent time actually looking at how it works. I don't think many people know what primers are, or the different genes that can sometimes be amplified.
Everyone sort of knows that PCR amplifies, and the discussion is around whether the amplification is for too long via Ct counts or if the use of PCR would just be wrong.
Thanks for your acknowledgement that we are a long way from being sure what and how something was released and expressing your certainty that 'novel natural' is unlikely. Pilot who lives across street from me tested positive about 20 times never once had a symptom. He was in quarantine over and over again earning his full salary. He did get two 'shots' to keep his job. JJ points out that there were lots of manufacturers of PCR tests; they were rushed and pressured for results. I think it reasonable to think many results were inaccurate for many reasons.
Jeez. Imo, it sure would be great to see you and jj debate and discuss your theories on his show.
Failing that, it would still be worth while to see you have a Zoom discussion with Nick (as he requested in the comments section).
The benefit of voice mediated discussion is that it adds nuance, detail, and expression otherwise missed (and/or misinterpreted) in the text mediated format.
I hope you consider engaging these additional forums. Your input is far too important to be confined to Substack alone.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. For what it's worth.
Say I have tested positive and 60 days later I am exposed to the virus for some length of time, breathed in the virions for hours, and that same day get tested. I won't test positive? How does that work given high ct levels?
Hi Brian,
Just saw this interesting thread about the spread of covid in2020... I think you will like it
https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1621726974929694721
If I'm understanding correctly, Couey's point is that there isn't just one uniform PCR test that was used everywhere.
It's very possible that there is a version of the PCR test that is reliable in detecting SARS-Cov2 virus, and that this is the version that was in use in the Cleveland Clinic in December through April 2021, the period of the study by Shrestha et al.
But, the fact is that the nationwide PCR testing program was ramped up from nothing in a very short time; numerous companies got involved, many of which are now defunct; and there was no visible means to enforce any sort of consistency or quality control.
Couey's argument is that this means the results of any particular historical PCR test is open to doubt, even if there's nothing wrong with the method when applied correctly; and also that the lack of quality control and consistency was a wide open invitation to deliberate fraud.