31 Comments

Does this study prove that the Cleveland Clinic study has been widely misinterpreted? The method used here seems more rigorous with the daily testing. Are the widely shared claims of strong negative V-efficacy totally false?

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey

I can't get past the term "mild SARS". The S stands for Severe. What is a mild severe thing?

People sent to the hospital have SARS. Sniffle people have Covid 19.

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey

I am very interested in what you found about Polio. I have known two people who contracted Polio.

One was an uncle, now deceased, who contracted it on a farm in Queensland, Australia, in an area away from the coast (ie, a drier area of Qld.) All the people who may have any memory of practices on that farm are now deceased :-(

The other is a doctor who was born in Hong Kong and somehow blamed his parents for not vaccinating him despite the fact that he contracted it sometime in the late '50s of early '60s.

It does seem that there is reason to reject the official story.

Expand full comment

I like your points about the intervention only changing the timing of the infection. It would seem that the only support for doing so is a relic of 'crushing the curve' and not overwhelming hospitals. Perhaps an argument could be made in the other direction that as in adults health is always a declining quantity front loading the infections would be advantageous?

Of course unless these are the PCRs that are rigged to explode when you get a positive result none of this is meaningful. An 'asymptomatic infection' is only of interest to epidemiologists and their presstitutes.

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey

Regarding your other work - have you read The Moth in the Iron Lung by Forrest Maready? It’s about polio, but I read it a while ago and can’t remember much other than it being mostly about pesticides causing the symptoms. It’s an easy, entertaining read anyway!

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey

All of this effort to prevent a mild case of the sniffles?

Expand full comment

Without proof of an actual virus the whole lot falls to pieces. Its a scam which has been used to justify a sustained attack on people for profit and for depopulation or disabling of a potential 'army of opposition'. RT-PCR cannot find what is not there or provable that it could be. |injecting anything into people especially healthy people is to introduce foreign material into their body which their systems must remove as waste or render the material harmless or of lesser harm in some way within its ability to do so.

That sometimes injected or even ingested or absorbed material can cause violent reactions should be expected. Our ability to handle such violence in our bodies is a protective process necessary for life to exist. Waste disposal or containment describes it possibly better than 'immune system' which does not describe what actually is happening with an ability to deal with foreign material.

Expand full comment

So, both previously uninfected and infected groups that were vaccinated fared worse than the unvaccinated for PCR+ and either symptomatic or COViD-like illness. Not substantially, but it’s interesting that the only real substantial difference is between the asymptomatic vaxxed and unvaxxed group, most especially in the previously infected bucket. That’s interesting, no? I mean, I’m a simpleton but if you aren’t showing any symptoms, I could give less than a rat’s ass, perhaps just a few rodent hairs, but I do wonder why previously infected, unvaxxed people would test positive but show no symptoms much more frequently than their vaxxed counterparts. Seems like I could write a nice conclusion for a preconceived narrative from that alone!

Expand full comment

The originally chosen part string of genetic code which those who posted it deemed to be SARS-Cov-2 was a best guess choice from a good number of possibilities so any 'slight' variation cannot be called a new variant such as Delta or Omicron for a Virus that equally has not been positively identified having been collected from an individual exhibiting the specific symptoms and conditions necessary to call the illness a novel Corona form.

RT-PCR was never designed nor intended for use as a Clinical Diagnostic tool and despite Drosten's claims, and those of many others, is not able to identify a specific viral particle as it simply multiplies ALL material offered by doubling the sample with each cycle to make ALL material more 'visible'. Without the ability to identify in its process, ie no specificacy, a particular particle and without the cycle total used to 'claim' a result as positive, any RT-PCR output is useless as a diagnosis for ANY illness. If people cannot smell BS when it is right under their noses then stop promoting what they cannot detect. Do not piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.

Expand full comment