Feb 23, 2023·edited Feb 24, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I posted about IGY antibodies before, but an important thing to be aware of is that those IGY antibodies will only be useful if the chickens have been challenged with SARS-CoV-2:
He suggests that what is going on is that if the person doing the injection does not aspirate then they inject shit-loads into the vasculature and this can have varying effect:
1. pericardial or myocardial cells take up the LNP encapsulated mRNA and produce spike and the person's immune system kills those cells for their efforts,
2. Vasculature epithelial cells take up the LNP encapsulated mRNA and produce lots of spike which gets into the blood all over the place and leads to thrombotic thrombocytopenia or pulmonary embolisms or strokes etc.
3. When people do a blood draw they find up to 638 billion free-floating spike proteins
In those cases where aspiration was used the side-effects are likely to be less severe.
I still maintain that no one needs that shit but we need to figure out what is going on and hiding it under the carpet is not useful.
Returning to the mRNA gene-therapy generated Spike protein and the claims that it is LOCKED into the prefusion conformation.
Do we know for sure, 100% that this is absolutely true?
Since the mRNA is generated in a bacterial soup using plasmids it seems like there are opportunities for this to go wrong and I have read elsewhere that Pfizer and Moderna can only manage something like 60% intact and or correct mRNA in the shots.
However, the second issue is: What are all the error modes when our ribosomes are presented with mRNA that has pseudo-uridine in it? I have seen claims that they only recognize stop codons with pseudo-uridine about 60% of the time. However, could there be other error modes were they generate spike protein that can fully fuse to ACE2 bearing cells and thus form syncytia if they manage to migrate to the surface of the cell they were created in?
I doubt anyone actually knows what all the possible outcomes are and JikkyLeaks claims there can be up to 436B spikes circulating in the serum so there may well be many studded in the surfaces of cells where they were created.
Are there any papers that look at whether or not the mRNA gene-therapy treatments cause clotting (perhaps because of the sialic acid on the S protein) or syncytia?
If I've read Horne et al correctly (and damn this is a stretch for someone not immersed in this stuff!), what I'm seeing is a genuine comparison between those with no injections and those with two, i.e. concerns about miscategorization do not apply. Is this generally the case with studies of vax efficacy (and safety), or do some studies play around with 'unvaxxed' in a muddying-the-water kind of way, e.g. including 14 days post 1st shot in the category? Or is this oft-mentioned concern just misguided? I do recall that the definition of 'unvaxxed' in some (most) jurisdictions (i.e. govt-posted data) *did* include that initial period, and that sometimes the data presentation was fudged even more by lumping the un-injected in with one-shotters in a 'not fully vaxxed' group. Data malfeasance on the part of governments everywhere, it seems.
Unrelated (I think?): again from Horne et al: "Rates of non-covid-19 related death were consistently lower among fully vaccinated than unvaccinated people." How is this even possible? What magical properties does this stuff have so as to reduce all-cause non-Covid mortality? Within a few weeks of 2 shots, the vaxxed are something like 60% less likely to experience a non-Covid death than the unvaxxed. The effect wanes, as with all the other effects measured, but I don't understand why there would be an effect in the first place.
"The extent of waning of vaccine effectiveness against severe covid-19 is less clear: studies have found no evidence of waning,91017 modest waning,511 or substantial waning.12"
My issue with all of this is that: The disease the shots were designed to treat no longer exists.
No one in any of these tests has the symptom cluster that was diagnostic of Covid in 2020. We might as well argue whether or not the shots prevent severe outcomes from gunshot wounds. I don't pretend to be a virologist(I sometimes pretend to be a gynecologist or a breastologist but neither of those is relevant) but my understanding is that the Omicron spike is substantially different from the spike that the mRNA codes for. Before(you are late to the party for that Jonboy) we get excited looking at numbers and arguing probabilities, is it even mechanistically reasonable that this shot would produce immune reactions to the Omicron spike? Or do any effects we see need to be referred to another mechanism of action?
Regarding the chronic infection. I'm intrigued, I admit, but there is the pesky thing called evidence of course. I've only vaguely heard of chronic covid infections. I did hear frequently about reinfections, but those inherently are defined as periods in which you hence test negative.
(As we discussed I'm also highly skeptical about these, as I suggested many of them are not re-infections but only re-exposures, and that co-infections with other illnesses will explain even a significant portion of testing positive with symptoms. But I guess that re-exposure and re-infections, the difference defined as with or without symptoms, are a gliding scale.)
But what would be the mechanism in which COVID-19 would hide detection using even 43 rounds of PCR amplification? I mean, at 33-35 one stops typically detecting virus that can replicate, so testing negative suggests not even a fragment is left?
For herpes it is clear how and where the virus family hides, but a shimmering COVID-19 infection would in my view lead to chronic symptoms and also chronic destruction. I can image the body pausing its full on attack, allowing tissue to heal, but not really stopping its attack. I'd image such shimmering infection can drag itself on for weeks or perhaps even months, but not without symptoms? Unless of course we identify a spot where COVID-19 can shimmer outside the respiratory tract. E.g. like typhoid shows it is possible, but where then would that be?
Feb 14, 2023·edited Feb 14, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Maybe 'severe efficacy' would better be interpreted as 'significant reduction of high absolute risk' or 'highly protective of the most vulnerable'.
Otherwise 'Most individual people therefore cannot benefit from severe efficacy' seems a bit counter intuitive? Plus efficacy usually relates to RCT outcomes which in Pfizers case only covered symptomatic illness.
It's kinda like saying 'not jumping out of planes is severely efficacious in preventing death', whereas the risk of such is around 1:100000 for a trained skydiver:
I also wonder how this argument for extreme efficacy interacts with the research by people like Sasha Latypova on good manufacturing practices, or I forget her name, a Canadian pharmacologist who looked into the nitty-gritty of the likelihood that the vials could actually contain the mRNA that the official research articles claim they do. Latypova says that it's impossible to deliver what they claim, particularly at scale, and that no one checks, either. So not only does no one know what's actually in the vials, but when they've attempted, they (Pfizer/BioNTech) have actually been unable to characterize the content of their product (the fake Western Blots, the leaked EMA scandal) So how can there be "extreme efficacy" (unless it's just about the ideal of the technology that actually cannot be made a reality) if what is claimed is practically impossible.
"I would like to remind readers once again that Pfizer is not instrumental in the development or deployment of the Covid vaccines"
I see it more as a bribe than a handout. But I think it would be great if corporations were exempt from paying taxes on the bribes they receive. Same for individuals.
That would help people who are still blind to see what is really going on here. That's a lot of hopium, I admit.
Anyway, they earned that money, and will be suffering the same calamitous world as everyone else. Their money is there to remind them they won't escape the chaos. So the more money they have, the greater the punishment.
Second, free-thinkers can sometimes be confused with shills by people who live in fear and are under a strong influenze of propaganda. Also, free-thinking is not the same as reaching correct conclusions. And being wrong is not the same as being a shill.
You've been putting out a lot of thought-provoking posts that have strayed from the consensus on both sides which is always needed.
I think the biggest issue is that new information tends to override older information, and instead it's the weighing of each evidence that's important.
The biggest problem with the vaccines weren't efficacies but uncertainties in adverse reactions which became more apparent after more time. It was only later that we gained more evidence of the vaccines not being sterile even though that probably should have been the assumption from the start.
The same goes for PAXLOVID. We didn't have to argue that PAXLOVID didn't work. Instead, the argument was that there was a message other treatments did not work, and therefore you can only rely on PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir for at-home treatment. In this case it was the inability for doctors to prescribe things that was the issue.
Then take that into monoclonal antibodies which everyone assumed was the best thing that should have been used widely, then a little study comes showing very low dosage of monoclonals may induce ADE in very specific cell lines (inherently a very limited study) and all of a sudden people are suggesting that monoclonals were always evil.
I think a lot of this may be more reflective that many people are being exposed to information but aren't quite parsing or reconciling with it constructive manner. Just throw information at some people and it can become the new narrative.
I posted about IGY antibodies before, but an important thing to be aware of is that those IGY antibodies will only be useful if the chickens have been challenged with SARS-CoV-2:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7608017/
This woman reports that her S-protein antibody levels seem really high 15 months after her last booster:
https://twitter.com/anettefri/status/1627372509174661121
Greater than 25,000 kBAU/L. They stopped counting at 25,000, it seems.
Seems like something is going wrong there.
Still searching for explanations for the injuries that some experience from the unnecessary mRNA gene-therapy treatment for the common cold.
Came across this: https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/returning-to-free-floating-s-spikes
He suggests that what is going on is that if the person doing the injection does not aspirate then they inject shit-loads into the vasculature and this can have varying effect:
1. pericardial or myocardial cells take up the LNP encapsulated mRNA and produce spike and the person's immune system kills those cells for their efforts,
2. Vasculature epithelial cells take up the LNP encapsulated mRNA and produce lots of spike which gets into the blood all over the place and leads to thrombotic thrombocytopenia or pulmonary embolisms or strokes etc.
3. When people do a blood draw they find up to 638 billion free-floating spike proteins
In those cases where aspiration was used the side-effects are likely to be less severe.
I still maintain that no one needs that shit but we need to figure out what is going on and hiding it under the carpet is not useful.
Also came across this: https://t.co/l2mrQ8cEl9
SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein binds to bacterial lipopolysaccharide and boosts proinflammatory activity.
Returning to the mRNA gene-therapy generated Spike protein and the claims that it is LOCKED into the prefusion conformation.
Do we know for sure, 100% that this is absolutely true?
Since the mRNA is generated in a bacterial soup using plasmids it seems like there are opportunities for this to go wrong and I have read elsewhere that Pfizer and Moderna can only manage something like 60% intact and or correct mRNA in the shots.
However, the second issue is: What are all the error modes when our ribosomes are presented with mRNA that has pseudo-uridine in it? I have seen claims that they only recognize stop codons with pseudo-uridine about 60% of the time. However, could there be other error modes were they generate spike protein that can fully fuse to ACE2 bearing cells and thus form syncytia if they manage to migrate to the surface of the cell they were created in?
I doubt anyone actually knows what all the possible outcomes are and JikkyLeaks claims there can be up to 436B spikes circulating in the serum so there may well be many studded in the surfaces of cells where they were created.
More on Paxlovid double pill bonanza
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/trifluoroacetate-from-pfizer-nirmatrelvir
Are there any papers that look at whether or not the mRNA gene-therapy treatments cause clotting (perhaps because of the sialic acid on the S protein) or syncytia?
If I've read Horne et al correctly (and damn this is a stretch for someone not immersed in this stuff!), what I'm seeing is a genuine comparison between those with no injections and those with two, i.e. concerns about miscategorization do not apply. Is this generally the case with studies of vax efficacy (and safety), or do some studies play around with 'unvaxxed' in a muddying-the-water kind of way, e.g. including 14 days post 1st shot in the category? Or is this oft-mentioned concern just misguided? I do recall that the definition of 'unvaxxed' in some (most) jurisdictions (i.e. govt-posted data) *did* include that initial period, and that sometimes the data presentation was fudged even more by lumping the un-injected in with one-shotters in a 'not fully vaxxed' group. Data malfeasance on the part of governments everywhere, it seems.
Unrelated (I think?): again from Horne et al: "Rates of non-covid-19 related death were consistently lower among fully vaccinated than unvaccinated people." How is this even possible? What magical properties does this stuff have so as to reduce all-cause non-Covid mortality? Within a few weeks of 2 shots, the vaxxed are something like 60% less likely to experience a non-Covid death than the unvaxxed. The effect wanes, as with all the other effects measured, but I don't understand why there would be an effect in the first place.
What to make of this from one of your cites?
"The extent of waning of vaccine effectiveness against severe covid-19 is less clear: studies have found no evidence of waning,91017 modest waning,511 or substantial waning.12"
My issue with all of this is that: The disease the shots were designed to treat no longer exists.
No one in any of these tests has the symptom cluster that was diagnostic of Covid in 2020. We might as well argue whether or not the shots prevent severe outcomes from gunshot wounds. I don't pretend to be a virologist(I sometimes pretend to be a gynecologist or a breastologist but neither of those is relevant) but my understanding is that the Omicron spike is substantially different from the spike that the mRNA codes for. Before(you are late to the party for that Jonboy) we get excited looking at numbers and arguing probabilities, is it even mechanistically reasonable that this shot would produce immune reactions to the Omicron spike? Or do any effects we see need to be referred to another mechanism of action?
Can efficacy be proven without a control? I would have thought no.
Please don't waste time answering if you have already done so in this series, I have not read them all.
Regarding the chronic infection. I'm intrigued, I admit, but there is the pesky thing called evidence of course. I've only vaguely heard of chronic covid infections. I did hear frequently about reinfections, but those inherently are defined as periods in which you hence test negative.
(As we discussed I'm also highly skeptical about these, as I suggested many of them are not re-infections but only re-exposures, and that co-infections with other illnesses will explain even a significant portion of testing positive with symptoms. But I guess that re-exposure and re-infections, the difference defined as with or without symptoms, are a gliding scale.)
But what would be the mechanism in which COVID-19 would hide detection using even 43 rounds of PCR amplification? I mean, at 33-35 one stops typically detecting virus that can replicate, so testing negative suggests not even a fragment is left?
For herpes it is clear how and where the virus family hides, but a shimmering COVID-19 infection would in my view lead to chronic symptoms and also chronic destruction. I can image the body pausing its full on attack, allowing tissue to heal, but not really stopping its attack. I'd image such shimmering infection can drag itself on for weeks or perhaps even months, but not without symptoms? Unless of course we identify a spot where COVID-19 can shimmer outside the respiratory tract. E.g. like typhoid shows it is possible, but where then would that be?
Maybe 'severe efficacy' would better be interpreted as 'significant reduction of high absolute risk' or 'highly protective of the most vulnerable'.
Otherwise 'Most individual people therefore cannot benefit from severe efficacy' seems a bit counter intuitive? Plus efficacy usually relates to RCT outcomes which in Pfizers case only covered symptomatic illness.
It's kinda like saying 'not jumping out of planes is severely efficacious in preventing death', whereas the risk of such is around 1:100000 for a trained skydiver:
https://britishskydiving.org/how-safe/
To get it in perspective, the lifetime fatality risk from a road accident is around 1:100 in the US (IIRC) and 1:240 in the UK:
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html
So for a lot of us, the 'severely effective' vaxx may be handily beaten by driving less or at least more carefully :-)
I also wonder how this argument for extreme efficacy interacts with the research by people like Sasha Latypova on good manufacturing practices, or I forget her name, a Canadian pharmacologist who looked into the nitty-gritty of the likelihood that the vials could actually contain the mRNA that the official research articles claim they do. Latypova says that it's impossible to deliver what they claim, particularly at scale, and that no one checks, either. So not only does no one know what's actually in the vials, but when they've attempted, they (Pfizer/BioNTech) have actually been unable to characterize the content of their product (the fake Western Blots, the leaked EMA scandal) So how can there be "extreme efficacy" (unless it's just about the ideal of the technology that actually cannot be made a reality) if what is claimed is practically impossible.
"I would like to remind readers once again that Pfizer is not instrumental in the development or deployment of the Covid vaccines"
I see it more as a bribe than a handout. But I think it would be great if corporations were exempt from paying taxes on the bribes they receive. Same for individuals.
That would help people who are still blind to see what is really going on here. That's a lot of hopium, I admit.
Anyway, they earned that money, and will be suffering the same calamitous world as everyone else. Their money is there to remind them they won't escape the chaos. So the more money they have, the greater the punishment.
Second, free-thinkers can sometimes be confused with shills by people who live in fear and are under a strong influenze of propaganda. Also, free-thinking is not the same as reaching correct conclusions. And being wrong is not the same as being a shill.
You've been putting out a lot of thought-provoking posts that have strayed from the consensus on both sides which is always needed.
I think the biggest issue is that new information tends to override older information, and instead it's the weighing of each evidence that's important.
The biggest problem with the vaccines weren't efficacies but uncertainties in adverse reactions which became more apparent after more time. It was only later that we gained more evidence of the vaccines not being sterile even though that probably should have been the assumption from the start.
The same goes for PAXLOVID. We didn't have to argue that PAXLOVID didn't work. Instead, the argument was that there was a message other treatments did not work, and therefore you can only rely on PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir for at-home treatment. In this case it was the inability for doctors to prescribe things that was the issue.
Then take that into monoclonal antibodies which everyone assumed was the best thing that should have been used widely, then a little study comes showing very low dosage of monoclonals may induce ADE in very specific cell lines (inherently a very limited study) and all of a sudden people are suggesting that monoclonals were always evil.
I think a lot of this may be more reflective that many people are being exposed to information but aren't quite parsing or reconciling with it constructive manner. Just throw information at some people and it can become the new narrative.