42 Comments
May 12, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

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.

Expand full comment

Good reasons to keep the question about trial fraud open, and not jump to conclusions. As I recall, the bad cat said as much.

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

No. Real world did not confirm the trial results. The efficacy was never anywhere near 95%.

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

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.

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

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.

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

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.

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

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.

Expand full comment

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...

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

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

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

More info is definitely needed.

Expand full comment
deletedMay 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Comment deleted
Expand full comment