60 Comments

You have not made it until you have made it onto this guy's list:

https://sars2.net/nopandemic.html

Expand full comment
Feb 3Liked by Brian Mowrey

I reread this stack after our back and forth about the PCR test (which makes me more confident accepting the number of infections).

So in making your case for severe efficacy, you talk about relative severe efficacy, and not absolute severe efficacy. What is the absolute severe efficacy in the raw numbers of the Pfizer trial?

Here's my take on the Pfizer trial numbers you cited:

Pfizer's trial probably has the most accurate numbers vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, which was 21,653 vaccinated, and 21,672 unvaccinated.

So in your first argument for severe efficacy citing Pfizer's trial, there were 2 vaccinated hospitalizations out of 21,653 people, and at most 83 unvaccinated hospitalizations out of 21,672 people (I say at most because the table you cited started counting 7 days post injection, but let's take that at face value).

So the risk of severe disease for the unvaccinated is .04%, and the risk of severe disease for the vaccinated is .009%.

So in absolute terms, the severe efficacy you refer to can't be more than the risk of severe disease, isn't that correct? So the severe efficacy is less than .04%, right? We're talking about a tiny, teensy, eency weency absolute severe efficacy, are we not?

When the absolute severe efficacy is so small, you can't say "the (transfection-vaccine) measures are effective but we shouldn't use them" when you're not taking into account adverse effects from the transfection.

Do you find an error in my thought process here?

There are many signs that the injury rate from this transfection is higher than the absolute severe efficacy of less than .04%:

Germany - The Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) studied suspected cases of adverse reactions that happened soon after the vaccine was injected. They found the side effect rate is one in every 500 vaccines given. A report and a sub stack article on this report:

https://coronakrise-europa.net/en/2022/02/21/safety-report-paul-ehrlich-institute-february-2022/

https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/german-ministry-of-health-one-in?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F45856071-ne-nakedemperorsubstackcom&utm_medium=reader2

German health insurance fund found that almost half a million people received medical treatment for side effects, out of 11 million people vaccinated, which is a 1 in 25 ratio, or 4%.

https://rairfoundation.com/germanys-largest-health-insurer-reveals-1-in-25-clients-underwent-medical-treatment-in-2021-for-covid-vaccine-side-effects/

-The V safe program, a CDC smartphone app monitoring millions of people who took the covid vaccine injection, shows the rate of side effects requiring medical attention is 7.7%.

https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/breaking-news-ican-obtains-cdc-v-safe-data/

https://jessica5b3.substack.com/p/v-safe-data-release

Assessment of Pfizer and Moderna's trial data show serious side effects 1 for every 800 injections with the data these companies have been willing to release so far. Teams of healthcare professionals and scientists have been closely assessing the trial data after a court ordered this data released for peer review. They have found that only a fraction of serious side effects were clearly accounted for because serious side effects were not accurately classified, people with serious side effects were removed from the trial, or side effects were hidden deeply in tables and data.

Pfizer and Moderna's trials show a greater risk of serious side effects injuries than people's risk of hospitalization and death from covid. Here is that paper, and two substack articles on this paper:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239#

https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/editor-of-the-british-medical-journal-6d1

Here is an open letter to Pfizer and Moderna CEOs from the British medical journal asking for the raw patient data so risks can be age stratified: “The results showed the Pfizer and Moderna both exhibited an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest (combined, 1 per 800 vaccinated), raising concerns that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time of emergency authorization."

https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1731/rr-0

Expand full comment

Brian, while I agree that mRNA vaccines prevented severe outcomes from the Alpha and Delta variants, the data are far less clear since omicron became the dominant variant more than 2 years ago. Both US CDC and UK ONS data skew their results by underestimating unvaccinated populations and counting all cases, hospitalizations and deaths of unknown vaccine status against the unvaccinated.

When Australian data was available, it showed far more vaccinated hospitalizations: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOTczMTkxZTYtNGIwMS00Y2I0LTkxMTItYzQ1OThjZmNhN2Y0IiwidCI6ImFjNDA2NDcyLWRhNjgtNGQ5ZC04NmU4LTkyMjM1ZDBhNjI3NiJ9

Is it a coincidence that all the best data supporting the efficacy of these injections against hospitalization stopped being published roughly 2 years ago?

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Brian Mowrey

Great article, I applaud the detail level of research that has gone into it.

However. I feel that like many others unfortunately you've fallen into a very common trap, and been tricked into accepting the narrow retrogade perspective of the vaccine fanatical public heath experts, allowing them to set the terms of debate accordingly.

I personally would rate the vaxx as only having a modest and very temporary efficacy. Why? Because real severe efficacy for Covid outcomes comes from having a young healthy immune system, and consider this; the durability of such an immune system is acceptable for around 50 /years/. And it requires no expensive experimental medical intervention with potentially disasterous side effects either.

How can this fraud have been perpetuated successfully on so many people, some of very considerable intelligence? But it's interesting that much of the vaccine critical side has fallen squarely for this trick into merely opposing the assertions of the vaccine fanatics, and so implicitly accepting their terms.

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Brian Mowrey

A* for doing your homework!

The thing I dispute is that there is an infection delaying effect. This is based purely on my observation of family and friends and people I know on Facebook who I know got infected ( with omicron or since) within 2-4 weeks of their booster. And I did pay attention to the timing with a certain amount of schadenfreude! Because I’m allergic to homework I can’t back up my argument with anything other than anecdotes!

Have you read Clare Craig’s excellent book Expired? In it she points out that each wave was roughly similar and that only about 15% ( think I’ve remembered that number correctly) of the population is susceptible in each wave. This then could explain what might be described as ‘delaying infection’ ability. She has a sequel due called something like ‘ A Covid Shot in the Dark’ about the vaccines which I’m very much looking forward to.

Expand full comment

Thanks for rehashing this Brian. 👍🏽

I will ask you this question instead of looking it up because I imagine you have the answer at the tip of your tongue: there was always a question for me of how the unvaccinated were counted. For example, people who received one dose of a two-dose series were counted as unvaccinated I think until 2 weeks after their second dose. Also as I recall, Israel was counting the unboosted as unvaccinated at some point during the first two covid years. Both are absurd, and do the vaccine efficacy studies/data count the unvaccinated these ways?

Expand full comment

"So, I believe the Covid vaccines work (reduce severe disease even in the case of having an infection), but should not be used or promoted to the lay public. "

This is pretty alarming position for someone who is as deeply researched in the science and scientific fraud that causes so many folks to err on the side of misplaced trust. You're astute when it comes to false claims and fudged evidence so it boggles the mind that you see these mRNA transfections as remotely possible of producing an effective immune response to an airborne virus that requires T-cell response as an opener. Beyond that human bodies are acutely responsive to foreign proteins and transfected novel proteins & LNP have a long history of uncontrolled distribution in the body and triggering autoimmune disease. Holy Hell mate the entire transfection platform is a pipe dream of genetic knowledge & powers that do not exist. Watch Jay Couey's review of Cullis in the Nobel Prize pre-event tour.. this crap failed as cancer drug delivery!

https://rumble.com/v3q5vbq-2023-10-17-pieter-cullis-2022-study-hall-16-oct-2023-brief-twitch1953665426.html

Expand full comment

Thanks; thought-provoking. I enjoyed reading your challenging content - hope this somehow makes up for you not enjoying writing this particular piece!!

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Brian Mowrey

Reporting matters

“about five unvaccinated individuals are hospitalized for every vaccinated individual of the same age.“

Who was being considered “unvaccinated”? Therein lies the rub: the data was cooked

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Brian Mowrey

I don’t doubt the efficacy in older adults. I do appreciate your input and well written post.

It is the negative efficacy in younger adults and the SAEs that people died from. I’ve had over $500k in medical bills with injury to my heart lung and eyes. I will not take another vaccine again.

Expand full comment