One more note from the article referenced "having the owner of the SMO running the trial also be the chief investigator in that trial is an astonishing conflict of interest and lacks the checks and balances one would normally seek."
I have always laughed and made fun of conspiracy theorists but in this case with all the nonsense surrounding it I am becoming a believer. If it looks like fraud, smells like fraud, numbers don't add up, lying by officials, conflicts of interest, wholesale abandonment of pandemic response protocols, short circuiting of FDA approval processes, etc, etc, etc, then just maybe there is something there.
I can’t evaluate that claim as far as industry standard practice. It’s a bit frivolous/redundant as far as delineating a likely honest or fraudulent Pfizer trial. It’s a Pfizer trial. Fraud likely. And then the FDA covers for the fraud (ignoring Brook Jackson’s whistle-blowing at Ventavia). And then the CDC puts conflicted actors (vaccine inventors like Plotkin) on the recommendation board all the time as a matter of course.
As far as delineating whether it is anything like legally wise to allege fraud by Polack, I wouldn’t say so. He could just be really competent, so why shouldn’t he be in both spots. And a lead author doesn’t have to be on the ground to suppress AEs (de Garay in the kids trial, Dressen in AstraZeneca, it’s already an obvious crime scene across the board https://unglossed.substack.com/p/and-a-waste-of-time). So I don’t find the “conflict” here too compelling.
I would note that Kirsch has already removed some of the language from his own discussion of Polack (original “Bottom line: In theory, it’s possible. In practice, I’m a bit skeptical.” is now “Bottom line: It’s quite possible they pulled it off.”) So I take that as reflecting feedback from his own experts, who are not merely “implying” their credentials.
I just thought of something else: there is another young woman in our state who also started looking at the data about mid-2020. She created Facebook accounts which got shut down regularly but she became a notable person in late 2020/early 2021 for her famous graph with no data and the question that went with it. She was finding many anomalies in our state's data reporting which is why I would be open to believing the Argentina data is possibly fraudulent, but I'd like to know for sure.
It seems to me that on "our side" most people seem to be binary thinkers such that if someone is giving me what I want to hear (whether I understand the science/data or not) then this person is my friend. "Banta" in your comments says that members evolve from sanity checks to groupthink. I think Banta is being generous; I don't think there was ever sanity checks. I think many people were anxious and frightened at the beginning of the scamdemic and as time went on they found various Twitters or Facebook or now Substack writers who could "explain" what was happening. I also think this was a good way for those who purport to be on "our side" to use their new platform to push other things. I consider The Cat to be a bit of a polemicist - most of his writing is on stirring up the herd. There is another writer I maintain reservations about who uses the scamdemic platform to post about another highly questionable subject.
I'm a fool me once person. We had/have in my state someone who showed up, first on Facebook and then when he got closed down enough times he established a MeWe account. He used his intellect and science background to explain what was happening in our state and explained the statistics and graphs, etc. All of this was good; however, it morphed into him joining forces with the election fraud racket and that became the focus of his writings. As I looked into his background (what there was), he became a "sketchy" character in my book. I tread very, very lightly when commenting on his MeWe account so as not to show my hand (he had a lot of admins), but they must have sensed a pattern (LOL!) and I was banned for using an emoji (a show of support for another commenter).
Anyway, I beg your pardon for this lengthy comment. I just wish that all of us who are rightly skeptical of these past two years would hold on to that skepticism about everything. Stop looking for the "good" guy or someone who is going to stand up to TPTB. I maintain that attitude about everyone I read and I'm always boggled when someone's "good" guy is criticized and his supporters jump all over the one daring to criticize. A true believer is not the mindset you want to be in. You will be taken in again.
I'm glad more people are sharing similar sentiments as you gpj. I think there was a lot leading up to it, but for me the Dr. Ardis thing really shook things up and really made me question how many people are hoping to get to the bottom of things, and how many people would rather millions of people suffer or worse just to be proven right. It raises a lot of questions seeing people say "we're all doomed! Well, maybe not, I'm not sure, but maybe!"
I think we need far more people to not be wedded to the idea of being right, but to the idea of whether their hypotheses or thoughts hold up to scrutiny.
And I'll be frank and state I'd much rather hear people flesh out their thoughts over several paragraphs rather than resort to one sentence quips. Why use this platform as Twitter trying to get in one-liners?
And as far as that goes, it’s easier for me to be civil when just pointing out a simple error. Less so if I address the style. The “polemicist” element really does strike me as grating, always an emotionally manipulative, us/them framing, this is not the way my wee little brain cells like to be introduced to an examination of facts and figures.
It’s hard to understand why the latter point isn’t intuitive - the reason the TV news is full of liars (“experts”) is because no one was critical of what they were saying to begin with. So to sell the disaffected with some narrative that the liars (“them”) are the sole active agents in what has happened to society as a means of keeping the “us” from being critical of what *you* (“the true expert”) are saying is, well, elegant I guess (*edit: wait, very Howard Beale on the talk show stage, I should have said...)
I think I've mentioned here very recently that one of the (many) things that will prick my intuition is if there are many, many subscribers and/or commenters. That says to me that the writer is speaking to the "brain stem", to the "us vs them" part of all of us. That is not the part that uses discernment, intuition, etc. It certainly does not mean that writer is not posting good information because you'd have to to rope in more eyeballs. You need to have some true information and then once you have enough eyeballs you can ignore "mistakes".
The fuel for all of this is that we can all see, if honestly assessing the numbers, is that the vax does not work. It's already at the 4th dose in a little over a year for crying out loud. Many areas with extremely high vax rates are getting pummeled with cases, hospitalizations, deaths while at the same time many low vax areas have few problems. Exceptions do exist though. It was the Pfizer CEO that said the vax is 100% effective. It was Fauci, Wallenski and others that said "the vaccine stops the virus". It was Pfizer, Fauci, FDA and others that also touted 95% effective mantra. All this has proven to be untrue. So it begs the question was the trial so poorly designed that it produced false readings or was the data being manipulated. Or was it perhaps a little (or a lot) of both, which is my belief. Remember, there is a reason why drug trials especially vaccines take a long time to produce a clean reading in random controlled testing.
Long story short, when apparent anomalies pop up in the data dump from the FDA/Pfizer then there really is a good reason to be suspicious.
Right - but at the same time, a lot of substack authors might take their cues from what’s already been published as some kind of authoritative permission to use the big “f” word in posts concerning the lead author / site director, I wouldn’t recommend it based on what’s out so far.
Most real world use confirmed the trial results anyway. Infection efficacy... for all of 105 days. And a whole lot of “protocol deviations” ie AEs.
I no longer have the patience to dig into numbers and I don't know much about statistics either, except that they're so often used to mislead. But some other things struck me about boriquagato's post.
I also noticed that simply saying it was unlikely that so many recruits could be rounded up in such a short time was not evidence of much of anything. However, if it's true that each one required 250 pages of intake documentation, that makes that argument a little more believable. It might also be relevant if Argentina is indeed a hotbed of corruption.
The conflict of interest detail was definitely of interest.
The 'fact' that site 4444 is undocumented is definitely of interest. Maybe more detail on that will emerge eventually. Ditto the claim that all of the 4444 subjects were gathered in the last week that was eligible for recruitment.
As I read the post, I was reminded of all the claims of election fraud in 2020 which had so many people convinced something nefarious was going on, yet seemed outlandish—ballots dumped in waterways, stuff like that. (There could indeed've been hanky-panky or manipulation, but not what they were describing. IMHO.)
I appreciate your work trying to keep the skeptical contingent honest.
Right - however, the flip side is that Pfizer / the trial essentially set up (incredibly complex) rules for generating and submitting data and had no control over the actual physical data generation and entry, the whole thing was rushed, and so it would be surprising if some stuff wasn’t out of place. So the fact that Pfizer concocted the appearance of tidiness to begin with suggests loads of buried messes.
I get the logic for why that plus the author affiliation makes “Argentina Miracle” an apparent story but, I will be digging slowly until confident it’s not a mine under this dirt.
It seems rather strange that we take Twitter comments at face value to such a degree. I would expect that we view these ideas, see where it leads and if there is any evidence to the claim. Instead, it seems like we just take it at face value and build on top of an already flimsy assertion.
Also, fret not for your inability to understand statistics Brian, for I am absolutely in the same boat as you!
As someone who appears to be the biggest detractor of the OAS idea I wondered if you saw Alex Berenson's post a few days back that is using that argument. Also, have you watched this video of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche?
He mentioned OAS, but his assessment is the closest one to the actual idea of OAS that I have seen. Whether it is true, I am unsure. I am only halfway through the video and may write about it soon. Something about being a "final call" before millions of deaths just doesn't sit right with me...
I tried to get into character when Berenson mentioned it, but he’s using it so cautiously and ambivalently that I was just “Eh.” I’ll be posting a one-stop OAS Is Not Real post when I have wifi back.
Funny, considering I believe he was one of the main architects for its prominence on Substack. He's the reason I wrote my posts on OAS rebutting the matter in November.
I'd like to see your take on Dr. Vanden Bossche's assessment. I don't buy it entirely, but I appreciate that his argument about OAS is at least consistent to what the original idea is.
Oh, I didn't quite make sense of it yet! It did seem a little convoluted to me. Unlike Peters Bigtree seems to have at least tried reading some of the literature, but at the same time he seems convoluted in his own relaying of information. There's a lot of things he says where he ends up using terms interchangeably and I kind of got lost. I have an hour left but have not returned to the video yet if it puts into perspective where I am.
Yeah, honestly the whole idea that somehow antibodies only higher up but then suffer from ADE in lower respiratory tract did not make sense.
OK, it's very different watching him with Bigtree, who keeps him pinned down to concrete meanings. So, he can't stop trying to describe "pressure" as "lack of elimination." This isn't right. Pressure / selection / bottleneck is always wherever "elimination" ends - it is whatever mutant within the genome escapes the elimination. If no elimination then no pressure / selection / bottleneck. The only escape from pressure is unlimited reproduction (0 elimination). But I haven't even gotten to the OAS-related part yet...
I made it to your substack via comments on that “basic math error” on el gato malo’s page which was horrifying to me, a person with rudimentary statistical acumen. Many commenters clearly explained the error but no retraction occurred. I am not one to generally throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it’s hard to trust someone’s statistical analysis when they’re making errors that would be unacceptable in high school. And if I have to double check everything you’re writing, then I’m just wasting my time when I can be performing the analysis myself with whatever source material exists.
Like in every “community” there’s cliques, and it’s became very apparent who the in-group is in this topic. I am constantly checking myself that I’m not letting my non-conformist streak getting the better of me, but certain emerging narratives are reinforcing my lifelong aversion to groups. At some point, the members “evolve” from performing sanity checks to groupthink. I suppose it’s human nature… once we form trusting relationships, we become a bit lax in our reviews. It’s all sort of fascinating to watch this play out, as I suspect it’s the same dynamic that has occurred in the “mainstream”… the biggest conspiracy is the conspiracy of our own minds.
I appreciate your concerns Banta. I'm rather heartened to see other people being critical of possible groupthink. We should do our best to be critical of each other- it's the best way to allow for thorough ideas to flourish! But instead we have relegated ourselves to blind acceptance of narratives rather than doing a bit of the legwork ourselves and see if what is being presented is actually true.
It is difficult to do your own work, but sometimes it actually winds up being more fruitful and allows you to gain more insight than if you were to look at things at face value.
And of indifference. I mean if actual credibility has no currency in the anti-narrative, it means that most of the people who questioned the narrative + care about credibility just cycle back into going with the narrative, probably with an improved awareness of how invincible it is...
I think this plays off of the trope that the enemies of my enemies are my friends, or that those who are just as critical of the mainstream narrative may have my best interest in mind. It's what I see when people say "well, if we just did the opposite of the WHO or CDC we would have been fine!" And it's like, well it's not really that simple.
I saw it last night - maybe it was your comment in Igor Chudov’s post? It’s a very good presentation though I think there’s a bit of misunderstanding at the end about possible relation to the alphabet variants. There are a lot of concerns relating to the opt’ing voiced by https://anandamide.substack.com/p/differences-in-vaccine-and-sars-cov
May 11, 2022·edited May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
just wanted to bring it to your attention. i have noticed igor speaks highly of you. i don't understand much of this stuff but things are happening. thank you!
That's an interesting article Brian. The actual structure of the vaccine-produced spike has been assumed more than has it actually been assessed. That comment at the end about RNA copies was actually interesting, because it at least argues a possible frontloading effect of these vaccines compared to the gradual increase seen with a natural infection.
That's a lot of stuff to consider in that article.
i believe you know of WMC ... but just in case, he was banned from twitter a couple of months ago for mentioning amyloidosis if my memory serves me right.
My reply (the link) is not so much scientific in detail as approach. Essentially, “what does seeing spike does X mean if we haven’t looked for X happening anywhere else?” To know that spike is “new” you need to know what old is.
The title of this post partly recycles the same cynical pun as my Ventavia writeup, haha.
So, yeah, the cannons are staggering. And even in this community the awareness of the biggest one is dimmed by the constant performative “be vewwy vewwy quiet I’m hunting a worry window” routine. Namely, the trial design was totally detached from the context of eradicating a novel respiratory virus. No attempt to measure asymptomatic transmission. So when the clinical overview dropped in December I embarrassingly posted my “discovery” all these facts that were in the published trial all along, lol. But that’s how pervasive the impression that the trial design wasn’t obviously damming is, I never even thought to just read the thing.
One more note from the article referenced "having the owner of the SMO running the trial also be the chief investigator in that trial is an astonishing conflict of interest and lacks the checks and balances one would normally seek."
I have always laughed and made fun of conspiracy theorists but in this case with all the nonsense surrounding it I am becoming a believer. If it looks like fraud, smells like fraud, numbers don't add up, lying by officials, conflicts of interest, wholesale abandonment of pandemic response protocols, short circuiting of FDA approval processes, etc, etc, etc, then just maybe there is something there.
I can’t evaluate that claim as far as industry standard practice. It’s a bit frivolous/redundant as far as delineating a likely honest or fraudulent Pfizer trial. It’s a Pfizer trial. Fraud likely. And then the FDA covers for the fraud (ignoring Brook Jackson’s whistle-blowing at Ventavia). And then the CDC puts conflicted actors (vaccine inventors like Plotkin) on the recommendation board all the time as a matter of course.
As far as delineating whether it is anything like legally wise to allege fraud by Polack, I wouldn’t say so. He could just be really competent, so why shouldn’t he be in both spots. And a lead author doesn’t have to be on the ground to suppress AEs (de Garay in the kids trial, Dressen in AstraZeneca, it’s already an obvious crime scene across the board https://unglossed.substack.com/p/and-a-waste-of-time). So I don’t find the “conflict” here too compelling.
I would note that Kirsch has already removed some of the language from his own discussion of Polack (original “Bottom line: In theory, it’s possible. In practice, I’m a bit skeptical.” is now “Bottom line: It’s quite possible they pulled it off.”) So I take that as reflecting feedback from his own experts, who are not merely “implying” their credentials.
Good reasons to keep the question about trial fraud open, and not jump to conclusions. As I recall, the bad cat said as much.
Yes, but while claiming first-hand expertise on the subject, and then misinterpreting a graph, ie, appearing to commit...
Right.
No. Real world did not confirm the trial results. The efficacy was never anywhere near 95%.
I just thought of something else: there is another young woman in our state who also started looking at the data about mid-2020. She created Facebook accounts which got shut down regularly but she became a notable person in late 2020/early 2021 for her famous graph with no data and the question that went with it. She was finding many anomalies in our state's data reporting which is why I would be open to believing the Argentina data is possibly fraudulent, but I'd like to know for sure.
It seems to me that on "our side" most people seem to be binary thinkers such that if someone is giving me what I want to hear (whether I understand the science/data or not) then this person is my friend. "Banta" in your comments says that members evolve from sanity checks to groupthink. I think Banta is being generous; I don't think there was ever sanity checks. I think many people were anxious and frightened at the beginning of the scamdemic and as time went on they found various Twitters or Facebook or now Substack writers who could "explain" what was happening. I also think this was a good way for those who purport to be on "our side" to use their new platform to push other things. I consider The Cat to be a bit of a polemicist - most of his writing is on stirring up the herd. There is another writer I maintain reservations about who uses the scamdemic platform to post about another highly questionable subject.
I'm a fool me once person. We had/have in my state someone who showed up, first on Facebook and then when he got closed down enough times he established a MeWe account. He used his intellect and science background to explain what was happening in our state and explained the statistics and graphs, etc. All of this was good; however, it morphed into him joining forces with the election fraud racket and that became the focus of his writings. As I looked into his background (what there was), he became a "sketchy" character in my book. I tread very, very lightly when commenting on his MeWe account so as not to show my hand (he had a lot of admins), but they must have sensed a pattern (LOL!) and I was banned for using an emoji (a show of support for another commenter).
Anyway, I beg your pardon for this lengthy comment. I just wish that all of us who are rightly skeptical of these past two years would hold on to that skepticism about everything. Stop looking for the "good" guy or someone who is going to stand up to TPTB. I maintain that attitude about everyone I read and I'm always boggled when someone's "good" guy is criticized and his supporters jump all over the one daring to criticize. A true believer is not the mindset you want to be in. You will be taken in again.
I'm glad more people are sharing similar sentiments as you gpj. I think there was a lot leading up to it, but for me the Dr. Ardis thing really shook things up and really made me question how many people are hoping to get to the bottom of things, and how many people would rather millions of people suffer or worse just to be proven right. It raises a lot of questions seeing people say "we're all doomed! Well, maybe not, I'm not sure, but maybe!"
I think we need far more people to not be wedded to the idea of being right, but to the idea of whether their hypotheses or thoughts hold up to scrutiny.
And I'll be frank and state I'd much rather hear people flesh out their thoughts over several paragraphs rather than resort to one sentence quips. Why use this platform as Twitter trying to get in one-liners?
Thank you, MD, and I agree with your comment. 🙂 It's also nice that Mr. Mowrey calls 'em as he sees 'em!
And as far as that goes, it’s easier for me to be civil when just pointing out a simple error. Less so if I address the style. The “polemicist” element really does strike me as grating, always an emotionally manipulative, us/them framing, this is not the way my wee little brain cells like to be introduced to an examination of facts and figures.
It’s hard to understand why the latter point isn’t intuitive - the reason the TV news is full of liars (“experts”) is because no one was critical of what they were saying to begin with. So to sell the disaffected with some narrative that the liars (“them”) are the sole active agents in what has happened to society as a means of keeping the “us” from being critical of what *you* (“the true expert”) are saying is, well, elegant I guess (*edit: wait, very Howard Beale on the talk show stage, I should have said...)
Fully agree.
I think I've mentioned here very recently that one of the (many) things that will prick my intuition is if there are many, many subscribers and/or commenters. That says to me that the writer is speaking to the "brain stem", to the "us vs them" part of all of us. That is not the part that uses discernment, intuition, etc. It certainly does not mean that writer is not posting good information because you'd have to to rope in more eyeballs. You need to have some true information and then once you have enough eyeballs you can ignore "mistakes".
The fuel for all of this is that we can all see, if honestly assessing the numbers, is that the vax does not work. It's already at the 4th dose in a little over a year for crying out loud. Many areas with extremely high vax rates are getting pummeled with cases, hospitalizations, deaths while at the same time many low vax areas have few problems. Exceptions do exist though. It was the Pfizer CEO that said the vax is 100% effective. It was Fauci, Wallenski and others that said "the vaccine stops the virus". It was Pfizer, Fauci, FDA and others that also touted 95% effective mantra. All this has proven to be untrue. So it begs the question was the trial so poorly designed that it produced false readings or was the data being manipulated. Or was it perhaps a little (or a lot) of both, which is my belief. Remember, there is a reason why drug trials especially vaccines take a long time to produce a clean reading in random controlled testing.
Long story short, when apparent anomalies pop up in the data dump from the FDA/Pfizer then there really is a good reason to be suspicious.
Right - but at the same time, a lot of substack authors might take their cues from what’s already been published as some kind of authoritative permission to use the big “f” word in posts concerning the lead author / site director, I wouldn’t recommend it based on what’s out so far.
Most real world use confirmed the trial results anyway. Infection efficacy... for all of 105 days. And a whole lot of “protocol deviations” ie AEs.
I no longer have the patience to dig into numbers and I don't know much about statistics either, except that they're so often used to mislead. But some other things struck me about boriquagato's post.
I also noticed that simply saying it was unlikely that so many recruits could be rounded up in such a short time was not evidence of much of anything. However, if it's true that each one required 250 pages of intake documentation, that makes that argument a little more believable. It might also be relevant if Argentina is indeed a hotbed of corruption.
The conflict of interest detail was definitely of interest.
The 'fact' that site 4444 is undocumented is definitely of interest. Maybe more detail on that will emerge eventually. Ditto the claim that all of the 4444 subjects were gathered in the last week that was eligible for recruitment.
As I read the post, I was reminded of all the claims of election fraud in 2020 which had so many people convinced something nefarious was going on, yet seemed outlandish—ballots dumped in waterways, stuff like that. (There could indeed've been hanky-panky or manipulation, but not what they were describing. IMHO.)
I appreciate your work trying to keep the skeptical contingent honest.
Right - however, the flip side is that Pfizer / the trial essentially set up (incredibly complex) rules for generating and submitting data and had no control over the actual physical data generation and entry, the whole thing was rushed, and so it would be surprising if some stuff wasn’t out of place. So the fact that Pfizer concocted the appearance of tidiness to begin with suggests loads of buried messes.
I get the logic for why that plus the author affiliation makes “Argentina Miracle” an apparent story but, I will be digging slowly until confident it’s not a mine under this dirt.
It seems rather strange that we take Twitter comments at face value to such a degree. I would expect that we view these ideas, see where it leads and if there is any evidence to the claim. Instead, it seems like we just take it at face value and build on top of an already flimsy assertion.
Also, fret not for your inability to understand statistics Brian, for I am absolutely in the same boat as you!
As someone who appears to be the biggest detractor of the OAS idea I wondered if you saw Alex Berenson's post a few days back that is using that argument. Also, have you watched this video of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche?
https://rumble.com/v13mwqv-episode-266-geert-vanden-bossche-my-final-call.html
He mentioned OAS, but his assessment is the closest one to the actual idea of OAS that I have seen. Whether it is true, I am unsure. I am only halfway through the video and may write about it soon. Something about being a "final call" before millions of deaths just doesn't sit right with me...
I tried to get into character when Berenson mentioned it, but he’s using it so cautiously and ambivalently that I was just “Eh.” I’ll be posting a one-stop OAS Is Not Real post when I have wifi back.
Ditto for being able to watch any video.
Funny, considering I believe he was one of the main architects for its prominence on Substack. He's the reason I wrote my posts on OAS rebutting the matter in November.
I'd like to see your take on Dr. Vanden Bossche's assessment. I don't buy it entirely, but I appreciate that his argument about OAS is at least consistent to what the original idea is.
Hm, I’ll have to see
No pressure! Just something I thought may be rather interesting. It'd be good to see OAS being applied to one antigen for a change!
nAbs = "infectiousness pressure" -> "nAb escape" -> non-nAb reduction of lower respiratory syncytia / severe disease -> "infectiousness pressure" <-why?? This is... painful...
Oh, I didn't quite make sense of it yet! It did seem a little convoluted to me. Unlike Peters Bigtree seems to have at least tried reading some of the literature, but at the same time he seems convoluted in his own relaying of information. There's a lot of things he says where he ends up using terms interchangeably and I kind of got lost. I have an hour left but have not returned to the video yet if it puts into perspective where I am.
Yeah, honestly the whole idea that somehow antibodies only higher up but then suffer from ADE in lower respiratory tract did not make sense.
OK, it's very different watching him with Bigtree, who keeps him pinned down to concrete meanings. So, he can't stop trying to describe "pressure" as "lack of elimination." This isn't right. Pressure / selection / bottleneck is always wherever "elimination" ends - it is whatever mutant within the genome escapes the elimination. If no elimination then no pressure / selection / bottleneck. The only escape from pressure is unlimited reproduction (0 elimination). But I haven't even gotten to the OAS-related part yet...
I made it to your substack via comments on that “basic math error” on el gato malo’s page which was horrifying to me, a person with rudimentary statistical acumen. Many commenters clearly explained the error but no retraction occurred. I am not one to generally throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it’s hard to trust someone’s statistical analysis when they’re making errors that would be unacceptable in high school. And if I have to double check everything you’re writing, then I’m just wasting my time when I can be performing the analysis myself with whatever source material exists.
Like in every “community” there’s cliques, and it’s became very apparent who the in-group is in this topic. I am constantly checking myself that I’m not letting my non-conformist streak getting the better of me, but certain emerging narratives are reinforcing my lifelong aversion to groups. At some point, the members “evolve” from performing sanity checks to groupthink. I suppose it’s human nature… once we form trusting relationships, we become a bit lax in our reviews. It’s all sort of fascinating to watch this play out, as I suspect it’s the same dynamic that has occurred in the “mainstream”… the biggest conspiracy is the conspiracy of our own minds.
I appreciate your concerns Banta. I'm rather heartened to see other people being critical of possible groupthink. We should do our best to be critical of each other- it's the best way to allow for thorough ideas to flourish! But instead we have relegated ourselves to blind acceptance of narratives rather than doing a bit of the legwork ourselves and see if what is being presented is actually true.
It is difficult to do your own work, but sometimes it actually winds up being more fruitful and allows you to gain more insight than if you were to look at things at face value.
And of indifference. I mean if actual credibility has no currency in the anti-narrative, it means that most of the people who questioned the narrative + care about credibility just cycle back into going with the narrative, probably with an improved awareness of how invincible it is...
I think this plays off of the trope that the enemies of my enemies are my friends, or that those who are just as critical of the mainstream narrative may have my best interest in mind. It's what I see when people say "well, if we just did the opposite of the WHO or CDC we would have been fine!" And it's like, well it's not really that simple.
yeah well, if it was only this one ...
if FDA wanted to release that info in 75 years, you can be certain there are plenty of who knows what in there.
are they going to just release it to us, because some judge said so ?? am not holding my breath ...
on more important things, i wonder if you have run into this substack ...
https://ehden.substack.com/p/coptigate-the-worst-design-flaw-in-human-history-that-is-impacting-your-health?s=r
I saw it last night - maybe it was your comment in Igor Chudov’s post? It’s a very good presentation though I think there’s a bit of misunderstanding at the end about possible relation to the alphabet variants. There are a lot of concerns relating to the opt’ing voiced by https://anandamide.substack.com/p/differences-in-vaccine-and-sars-cov
just wanted to bring it to your attention. i have noticed igor speaks highly of you. i don't understand much of this stuff but things are happening. thank you!
That's an interesting article Brian. The actual structure of the vaccine-produced spike has been assumed more than has it actually been assessed. That comment at the end about RNA copies was actually interesting, because it at least argues a possible frontloading effect of these vaccines compared to the gradual increase seen with a natural infection.
That's a lot of stuff to consider in that article.
Not sure which comment. Yeah that article throws the kitchen sink as far as the RNA molecule
i believe you know of WMC ... but just in case, he was banned from twitter a couple of months ago for mentioning amyloidosis if my memory serves me right.
https://wmcresearch.substack.com/
I have offered a rough take on his theory here - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-moderna-n-antibodies-paper/comment/6349279?s=w
thanks, I had a quick look, but this scientific stuff is above my head.
My reply (the link) is not so much scientific in detail as approach. Essentially, “what does seeing spike does X mean if we haven’t looked for X happening anywhere else?” To know that spike is “new” you need to know what old is.
noted. thank you.
More info is definitely needed.
The title of this post partly recycles the same cynical pun as my Ventavia writeup, haha.
So, yeah, the cannons are staggering. And even in this community the awareness of the biggest one is dimmed by the constant performative “be vewwy vewwy quiet I’m hunting a worry window” routine. Namely, the trial design was totally detached from the context of eradicating a novel respiratory virus. No attempt to measure asymptomatic transmission. So when the clinical overview dropped in December I embarrassingly posted my “discovery” all these facts that were in the published trial all along, lol. But that’s how pervasive the impression that the trial design wasn’t obviously damming is, I never even thought to just read the thing.