Feb 10, 2023·edited Feb 11, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I think the livestream Kevin & I did last night was a better and more comprehensive overview of the various elements under discussion. Certainly better than the stream discussed here. I continue to appreciate your thoughtful analyses, even if I don't agree with all of your conclusions.
A very interesting outline Brian! I wasn't sure if the Zoom call was public so I didn't watch it. I hope it was a rather engaging discussion more than a debate.
Nihilism is probably the best way of outlining what's happening, and the purity tests no doubt are increasing in prevalence.
As you mentioned on your Sunday post a week ago it seems as if Team Skeptic, or the freedom movement, or whatever this is has lost sight that the main thing to point out are the adverse reactions from the vaccines, figuring out what is happening, and seeing what can be done about it.
But that doesn't seem to be the case. Rather, many people who seem to speak up about their vaccine injury are shut down in comments with most people asking "why did you even take it? Didn't you know better?" Pardon me, but many people have forgotten that information was actually very limited during the early release of the vaccines. Even I was going to decide to get the vaccines, but it was only after people I worked with started complaining about not feeling well or even taking a day or two off where I just thought that seemed very off. I didn't have much else to go off of but anecdotes, and so it's strange that now the argument has been that we've known all of this information that the vaccines would do X, Y, or Z (something I've called hindsight masquerading as foresight previously).
Take a recent interview where Viva talked with Stephanie de Garay (Maddie's mother) about Maddie's vaccine injury, and see how hostile the comments are against her. It's not like Stephanie doesn't feel absolutely guilty about what happened to her daughter, but the fact that she continues to be attacked while trying to find help for her daughter is aggravating.
Ok, I just had a brainstorm. You might be wondering, how are these releases accomplished? How about contaminated vape juice? If it can be designed to survive the aerosolization process in an typical vape pen this would be perfect!
Has Brian ever covered the possibility that omicron was created as a sort of "transmissible vaccine"? The circumstances of its discovery seem a bit odd. Unnamed diplomats (with the immunity that comes along with being a diplomat) show up in Botswana right before the first case is discovered. It quickly travels to South Africa, where for some reason the corporate media then starts reporting as its country of origin. Then men with microscopes and degrees begin to examine it and report to us that it seems to have done some fancy mutating and doesn't appear to have decended directly from any other known strains. Is this theory pure nonsense, or is it at least within the realm of possibility?
Beautiful presentation Brian. I imagined the transitions and animation that were not present in the pdf. You visualized your thoughts so well. "Ideological purity" is a perfect description of that which muddies the water.
Epiphany.....have we considered quantum mechanics as the mode of virus transmission? I got a whiff of Schrodinger's Cat on slides 14-18.
Another good article. I'm surprised your substack doesn't get much traffic. I guess it's because you're correcting the errors on the anti-vax side rather than posting clickbait.
Seems to be that the shots are killing people that are elderly, not so much the young, just like the virus itself. I've even looked into the mortality rates from different causes by age. Young people are dying more often, but the increase is mostly in drug ODs.
Feb 9, 2023·edited Feb 9, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I try to reason things out with a bit of logic. At first a big problem appears to be that almost everything involves a degree of assumption so can't be fully logical. However, logic can at least be used to show that two sets of assumptions can't easily co-exist...
So for example it's impossible to have both zero covid and some degree of endemic covid coexisting, so which is more likely in the long term? But look at the way that some 'zero covid' countries vainly tried to hang onto their status, instead of treating it more of a case of delayed covid, and planning for the inevitable.
As to how to apply this to the above, I'm not so sure. What assumptions can't easily co-exist with the assumption of deliberately released biowarfare variants?
(I have to admit I do lean more away from the global conspiracy type stuff, seems more to me like not letting a crisis go to waste but using it to further agendas. Something not lost on a certain Dr Fauci when he managed to negotiate the highest salary of a federal offical, including the President AFAIK!)
A few thoughts on the (im)propriety of Gain-of-Function experimentation.
We must be precise with the definition. It is one thing to look for drug-resistant strains of a particular pathogen in the cellular environment with a particular therapeutic. To replicate within a laboratory context a general process that will occur "in the wild" may uncover more virulent and more dangerous strains of a pathogen, but it can hardly be said that the end product is a pathogen of particular virulence or with particular characteristics that affect its virulence.
This is qualitatively different from the "chimeric" viruses that are being created not only with the SARS-CoV-2 virus but also Influenza and RSV at a minimum. These are pathogens that would arguably NOT emerge outside of the laboratory context.
It is also qualitatively different from the influenza research in 2011 at both the University of Wisconsin and Erasmus University in The Netherlands, where virologists used serial passage through a number of ferrets to force an avian (H5N1) influenza strain to become infectious within ferrets (which tends to also suggest human infectivity as well).
Another concern regarding such research techniques is one of fundamental lab safety. Containment accidents are far more common even at leading BSL3 and BSL4 labs than the corporate media has wanted to acknowledge, and we know both from the 1977 flu pandemic as well as the post-9/11 anthrax attacks that pathogens can get out of the laboratory environment to cause disease and ultimately death. These are not hypothetical scenarios but historical realities.
Thus we are properly concerned when the likes of Jordon Walker casually talks about Pfizer "mutating" the SARS-CoV-2 virus--regardless of the actual research activities in question, Walker asserted that Pfizer was actively studying how to change either the structure or the function of various strains of SARS-CoV-2 virus. The problem is not what they might do deliberately but what might happen accidentally.
It's what we do not know about Pfizer's research activities that is cause for concern.
This is also the inherent corruption of the now global rubric of "threat reduction". The implicit presumption of carrying such research on in a BSL4 lab is that accidental releases of altered pathogens does not happen--only it does. We know from the historical record that it does.
A simple accident is all that is required for biological "threat reduction" to become biological "threat creation", regardless of whether the original intent was to weaponize a pathogen or no.
The concern we should all have over Gain-of-Function research (and really all advanced research into dangerous pathogens) is how much control do researchers have over the created pathogens?
Are they able to guarantee that dangerous pathogens won't slip into the environment somehow?
Is the research leading to genuinely more effective treatments and therapeutics against disease? It is worth noting that the US and Russia teamed up to map the monkeypox genome back in the early 2000s, and yet when there was a global outbreak of monkeypox cases, there was no monkeypox vaccine established and awaiting deployment (which begs the question of why the genome mapping project was funded in the first place).
What we have seen with the many revelations surrounding coronavirus research in China, in the US, and around the world is a complete lack of accountability on the part of researchers. They not only are not taking the time to justify their efforts to the world at large, but many get downright offended if you even suggest such accountability. That is what needs to change.
I think the livestream Kevin & I did last night was a better and more comprehensive overview of the various elements under discussion. Certainly better than the stream discussed here. I continue to appreciate your thoughtful analyses, even if I don't agree with all of your conclusions.
https://rumble.com/v28yc5q-giga-spiral-3-clones-and-exosomes-with-charles-rixey.html
A very interesting outline Brian! I wasn't sure if the Zoom call was public so I didn't watch it. I hope it was a rather engaging discussion more than a debate.
Nihilism is probably the best way of outlining what's happening, and the purity tests no doubt are increasing in prevalence.
As you mentioned on your Sunday post a week ago it seems as if Team Skeptic, or the freedom movement, or whatever this is has lost sight that the main thing to point out are the adverse reactions from the vaccines, figuring out what is happening, and seeing what can be done about it.
But that doesn't seem to be the case. Rather, many people who seem to speak up about their vaccine injury are shut down in comments with most people asking "why did you even take it? Didn't you know better?" Pardon me, but many people have forgotten that information was actually very limited during the early release of the vaccines. Even I was going to decide to get the vaccines, but it was only after people I worked with started complaining about not feeling well or even taking a day or two off where I just thought that seemed very off. I didn't have much else to go off of but anecdotes, and so it's strange that now the argument has been that we've known all of this information that the vaccines would do X, Y, or Z (something I've called hindsight masquerading as foresight previously).
Take a recent interview where Viva talked with Stephanie de Garay (Maddie's mother) about Maddie's vaccine injury, and see how hostile the comments are against her. It's not like Stephanie doesn't feel absolutely guilty about what happened to her daughter, but the fact that she continues to be attacked while trying to find help for her daughter is aggravating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlDSAhbIfoY
I could probably ramble on more, but I'll leave it at that for now. 🤷♂️
Yeah. I cannot even scroll down to the end of your comment, to which I can then specifically reply to it. So frustrating.
Anyhow, my original comment was:
Who is Damar Hamlin? (insert winking emoji: 😉)
*I know. The time gap ruins the humour. Good grief.
Ok, I just had a brainstorm. You might be wondering, how are these releases accomplished? How about contaminated vape juice? If it can be designed to survive the aerosolization process in an typical vape pen this would be perfect!
Has Brian ever covered the possibility that omicron was created as a sort of "transmissible vaccine"? The circumstances of its discovery seem a bit odd. Unnamed diplomats (with the immunity that comes along with being a diplomat) show up in Botswana right before the first case is discovered. It quickly travels to South Africa, where for some reason the corporate media then starts reporting as its country of origin. Then men with microscopes and degrees begin to examine it and report to us that it seems to have done some fancy mutating and doesn't appear to have decended directly from any other known strains. Is this theory pure nonsense, or is it at least within the realm of possibility?
Thanks for this, Brian. It is helpful.
Tbh, it feels like I'm always playing catch up with the divergent theories 'swarming' about.
Beautiful presentation Brian. I imagined the transitions and animation that were not present in the pdf. You visualized your thoughts so well. "Ideological purity" is a perfect description of that which muddies the water.
Epiphany.....have we considered quantum mechanics as the mode of virus transmission? I got a whiff of Schrodinger's Cat on slides 14-18.
Another good article. I'm surprised your substack doesn't get much traffic. I guess it's because you're correcting the errors on the anti-vax side rather than posting clickbait.
Have you seen Dr Rancourt's new article? https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=126
Seems to be that the shots are killing people that are elderly, not so much the young, just like the virus itself. I've even looked into the mortality rates from different causes by age. Young people are dying more often, but the increase is mostly in drug ODs.
This is CDC data, only goes up to 2021 though: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MDqO7jl0ohTsEPdDIzMmP7JnP1l6Xa318ZvBJXpTIr8/edit?usp=sharing
I try to reason things out with a bit of logic. At first a big problem appears to be that almost everything involves a degree of assumption so can't be fully logical. However, logic can at least be used to show that two sets of assumptions can't easily co-exist...
So for example it's impossible to have both zero covid and some degree of endemic covid coexisting, so which is more likely in the long term? But look at the way that some 'zero covid' countries vainly tried to hang onto their status, instead of treating it more of a case of delayed covid, and planning for the inevitable.
As to how to apply this to the above, I'm not so sure. What assumptions can't easily co-exist with the assumption of deliberately released biowarfare variants?
(I have to admit I do lean more away from the global conspiracy type stuff, seems more to me like not letting a crisis go to waste but using it to further agendas. Something not lost on a certain Dr Fauci when he managed to negotiate the highest salary of a federal offical, including the President AFAIK!)
A few thoughts on the (im)propriety of Gain-of-Function experimentation.
We must be precise with the definition. It is one thing to look for drug-resistant strains of a particular pathogen in the cellular environment with a particular therapeutic. To replicate within a laboratory context a general process that will occur "in the wild" may uncover more virulent and more dangerous strains of a pathogen, but it can hardly be said that the end product is a pathogen of particular virulence or with particular characteristics that affect its virulence.
This is qualitatively different from the "chimeric" viruses that are being created not only with the SARS-CoV-2 virus but also Influenza and RSV at a minimum. These are pathogens that would arguably NOT emerge outside of the laboratory context.
It is also qualitatively different from the influenza research in 2011 at both the University of Wisconsin and Erasmus University in The Netherlands, where virologists used serial passage through a number of ferrets to force an avian (H5N1) influenza strain to become infectious within ferrets (which tends to also suggest human infectivity as well).
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10831
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.06828-11
Another concern regarding such research techniques is one of fundamental lab safety. Containment accidents are far more common even at leading BSL3 and BSL4 labs than the corporate media has wanted to acknowledge, and we know both from the 1977 flu pandemic as well as the post-9/11 anthrax attacks that pathogens can get out of the laboratory environment to cause disease and ultimately death. These are not hypothetical scenarios but historical realities.
Thus we are properly concerned when the likes of Jordon Walker casually talks about Pfizer "mutating" the SARS-CoV-2 virus--regardless of the actual research activities in question, Walker asserted that Pfizer was actively studying how to change either the structure or the function of various strains of SARS-CoV-2 virus. The problem is not what they might do deliberately but what might happen accidentally.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/what-to-do-with-jordon-walker
It's what we do not know about Pfizer's research activities that is cause for concern.
This is also the inherent corruption of the now global rubric of "threat reduction". The implicit presumption of carrying such research on in a BSL4 lab is that accidental releases of altered pathogens does not happen--only it does. We know from the historical record that it does.
A simple accident is all that is required for biological "threat reduction" to become biological "threat creation", regardless of whether the original intent was to weaponize a pathogen or no.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/when-is-bioweapons-research-not-bioweapons
The concern we should all have over Gain-of-Function research (and really all advanced research into dangerous pathogens) is how much control do researchers have over the created pathogens?
Are they able to guarantee that dangerous pathogens won't slip into the environment somehow?
Is the research leading to genuinely more effective treatments and therapeutics against disease? It is worth noting that the US and Russia teamed up to map the monkeypox genome back in the early 2000s, and yet when there was a global outbreak of monkeypox cases, there was no monkeypox vaccine established and awaiting deployment (which begs the question of why the genome mapping project was funded in the first place).
What we have seen with the many revelations surrounding coronavirus research in China, in the US, and around the world is a complete lack of accountability on the part of researchers. They not only are not taking the time to justify their efforts to the world at large, but many get downright offended if you even suggest such accountability. That is what needs to change.