The Sage Hana Questionnaire

A response to a 10+1 -part prompt from Sage Hana.

10-Questions for Mowrey, (and All the Substack Smarties)

1. Are viruses real?

2. Did a novel coronavirus emerge in late 2019 spawning a global pandemic?

3. You have deemed Original Antigenic Sin as fake or inaccurate. Who is/are the dominant proponents of this theory and where have they gone astray?

4. related to #3: Did they go astray due to good faith error, or sinister, or personal motives?

5. Were vaccines necessary for the novel coronavirus, dubbed, SARS-=Cov2? (Disregard if #1 and #2 deem this non-applicable)

6. Which are better: chimichangas or tacos?

7. Are we in the midst of a Depopulation Effort (Herd Cull), or is that Dark Conspiracy Theory?

8. Why do you suppose that the world’s leaders all pushed experimental gene editing injections and did so in draconian, fascist ways?

9. Who do you trust in the world of Biomedical Science as operating from pure scientific rigor?

10. Have you ever been pressured to skew results by either fellow researchers of funders?

I. Are viruses real?

“Virus” is a term invented in the era before microscopes to refer to an unseen “something” that could transmit a disease state from one organism to the other. The smallpox vaccine itself was thus correctly identified as a “virus” from the start. It was whatever “something” went from one kids’ arm-sore to another kid’s arm via scraped pus, and produced a new sore.

It doesn’t matter if you say, “well it was just something in the pus” — that was literally what was understood by the term.

This was before germ theory. “Viruses” were not invented by germ theory. Communicable, transmissible disease, as a phenomenon observable to the naked eye, was not invented by germ theory. Ask the northern Atlantic American Indians. “Virus” was just a term for invisible something that replicates visible effects.

On the other end of this is the modern understanding of what the “something” is. You can attack this modern understanding with all sorts of nihilistic arguments about process and purification, etc. — but none of those arguments aren’t equally applicable to bacterial and multicellular biology, including our own biology. “How do you prove a virus’s genes aren’t contamination” is the same as “How do you prove our own genes aren’t contamination.” Ironically, biology only finally agreed about which substance of a cell is the “genes” thanks to viruses (Waring blender experiment).

As a final point, our understanding of the biology of everything that is not a virus would render the nonexistence of viruses, if for some reason we had no naked-eye or instrument-assisted evidence of them, as rather mysterious. It would be “weird” if we were what we are in every way and yet there were no viruses that could infect us.

II. Did a novel coronavirus emerge in late 2019 spawning a global pandemic?

I agree that humans began to make antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 2019, consistent with sporadic exposure from China — there is evidence of exposure in California and Italy, but not England. This means I think SARS-CoV-2 began to infect humans in the same year (ie, I do not think there is any other convincing explanation for the antibodies; and the PCR-positivity of sewage and Measles samples supports viral spread).

Then people got sick. I think usually because of the virus. And some got very sick; I think usually because of a combination of the virus and bad treatment, especially ventilators. Iatrogenic exacerbation — wait and then vent — seems to recede in mid-2020 and silently revert, in the US and Canada, in mid-2021. I am open to theories that the virus — the thing lighting up PCRs and NGS with the same-ish genes over and over — was in this case not the invisible “something” actually causing symptoms. That there were shadowy, deep-state ops poisoning people by other means. But I am not convinced by them: Attaching a human-compatible spike receptor binding domain and furin cleavage site to a coronavirus backbone is a good way to create the results observed.

To stop here: Why do we make memory immune responses to “common cold” viruses in childhood? Well, one is just so they do not “bother us” in adulthood. But another is that these viruses are actually packed full of sophisticated immune suppression machinery that the news never tells us about. Any “coronavirus” is going to have this huge tool-kit to turn off the intracellular alarm system designed to keep viruses out. So the basic job of fending off novel viruses is akin to sports in terms of the age range that humans will be truly good at it. It’s like asking a 30, 40, 50+ year-old to hop into an NFL game. So they depend on memory immunity. Otherwise a lot of them will get roughed up by what is just a “common cold.” Whereas kids are just fine with SARS-CoV-2.

And that last point is especially why any non-virus theories for what we call “Covid-19” don’t pan out. Then why aren’t the kids affected?

I don’t agree with the term “pandemic” for SARS-CoV-2 and usually scare-quote it in my own writing. “Pandemic” is a loose, imprecise term which is rooted in trends that are observable to the naked eye and don’t in fact require a germ theory explanation (as opposed for example to miasma or spiritual explanations). What I mean is “pandemics” should act like novel flu crossovers (1918, 1958, 1968). Practically all the cases in a region strike in a couple weeks; everyone can see sick people everywhere even if not everyone gets sick; there is some observable person-to-person apparent transmission but it is a rule to which there are many exceptions.

We’ll never know if SARS-CoV-2 would have behaved like this if not for the lockdowns (perhaps, given the fast rise to high seropositivity in some places like Brazil). But the lockdowns happened and so whether because of them or not, a “pandemic” never did.

Any definition of “pandemic” that depends on what the medical profession sees or what statistics show, is artificial, and I reject it.

[Edit: I originally wrote remarks here about how the human experience as a whole did not actually change upon the release of the virus; and then deleted them without realizing. Hence the reference to “again” in the 10,000 foot view comment below. Or maybe I only imagined writing these very enlightened, philosophical remarks.]

III. You have deemed Original Antigenic Sin as fake or inaccurate. Who is/are the dominant proponents of this theory and where have they gone astray?

Proponents of OAS fall into the “correct, Francis school” camp and the “incorrect, revival” camp. All of them start by misrepresenting the results of the “seminal” variant vaccine trial and serum absorption papers of the Francis school between 1953 and 1956. In the first place they (including Francis and colleagues) say “Francis and colleagues found that first-encounter antibodies are higher in every group.” No they didn’t. Older adults, younger adults and children could already have or could be vaccinated to have higher antibodies to non-first strains *in their own results.*

source data here

In the second place they say “they found that antibodies to non-first strains are not specific; they all cross-react with first strains and so they are just some sort of repurposed first-strain antibody, not really new.” Again, not true. They vaccinated different age groups, found antibodies to the vaccine strains that couldn’t be absorbed by the “first” strains. So the whole theory was a fantasy from the start. The results never supported the claims made in the summary. See my “OAS Lit Review.”

And that is “where” all proponents of OAS go astray, from 1953 to present. Not even bothering to compare claims with results.

The reference to a “correct” and “revival” school refers to the fact that Francis never actually attached these false claims to any sort of detriment. Francis instead was proposing, in advance of any actual evidence, some supposed need to intercept with a future universal vaccine before kids experience flu, in order to eradicate the virus. But the “revival” school understandably interprets his claims in the detriment / flaw sense due to the name of the theory. This distinction, however, doesn’t matter as far as the validity of the claims.

IV. related to #3: Did they go astray due to good faith error, or sinister, or personal motives?

There are three phases. Francis and co. lied about their own results, as detailed above. Francis was old and sick in 1960 when he authored “On the Doctrine,”¹ and all the original work was on paper, so even if the lies were evident no one revisited the evidence.

An intermediary phase has new researchers who already make some of the misinterpretations of the “revival” school. They say “OAS was described by Francis in 1960 to describe X,” and they’ll usually get X wrong in some subtle way, because Francis was deliberately obscure about just what his theory was. Then they’ll test the results and almost always find exceptions to the rules. So doubt starts to build and by the 90s there’s pushback on the theory; but no one reviews the original results from 1953 to 56 to find they don’t even support the theory. It never properly blows up.

The post-2009, “revival” phase is harder to explain. I have theorized that the OAS was an attractive explanation for the failure to develop a universal flu vaccine. The attraction was that there was some “flaw” in the immune system to blame vaccine failure for, instead of saying the flaw is duh, vaccines can’t stave off a respiratory infection forever. If you say that you don’t get money to keep trying to improve the product.

V. Were vaccines necessary for the novel coronavirus, dubbed, SARS-Cov-2? (Disregard if #1 and #2 deem this non-applicable)

No. “Science” should have had confidence in the ability of the innate immune system to protect most people, the ability of crowd-sourced medical knowledge to perfect a therapeutic regime for those who wind up needing it (as well as for predicting who needs it; for example certain athletes seem to be at high risk for PASC), and basic human problem-solving to deal with whatever logistical stresses were supposedly going to “collapse” the harm-care “system.” Other than that, everyone should just go about life (exactly as was done in countries that did not play along with the script).

Note that I don’t personally have a horse in the therapeutics race. Whatever doctors think work, they should use.

So, it was clear in March 2020 that “science” is not represented by state or media-adjacent experts. These pretend that humans haven’t discovered the innate immune system even exists, in the same way they pretend that regular “common cold” viruses are not actually incredibly threatening on paper. So there’s this paradigm of the virus being invincible and humans being shieldless, and so we need some external shield — the vaccine. We already have a shield.

That is not to deny severe efficacy for the injections. But even if these injections were safe and had no tradeoffs I do not agree that they were “necessary.” “Necessary” for what? Again, at the 10,000 foot view life after the release wasn’t actually different than life before, outside of the political and media reaction.

VI. Which are better: chimichangas or tacos?

Sorry. Are chimichangas meant to somehow be… good? I have not had any good ones; perhaps this is a “room for growth” deficit on my part.

VII. Are we in the midst of a Depopulation Effort (Herd Cull), or is that Dark Conspiracy Theory?

It is possible that the political / media / expert response is “emergent,” stemming from personal bias layered with groupthink. It is also possible that this “emergent” response is dressing on a depopulation campaign.

Obviously the latter is a “conspiracy theory,” but conspiracies happen, so why wouldn’t one theorize about them? This is like saying that belief in birthday parties is a “celebration theory.”

My betting money would go on depop. But am I sure? No. I try to live with uncertainty on this one. Today Depop Conspiracy will seem likely; tomorrow it won’t; the day after it will. That is just the world we must get by in. Every era sucks in a different way; the reason is always either the tigers and tapeworms, or other people.

VIII. Why do you suppose that the world’s leaders all pushed experimental gene editing injections and did so in draconian, fascist ways?

My betting money would go on depop. The alternate theory is that we have populated the leadership class with humans who actually don’t realize failure is possible.

The Filtering Problem in Leadership

IX. Who do you trust in the world of Biomedical Science as operating from pure scientific rigor?

“Science” will never be pure or rigorous in the field of biology, where isolating any element is impossible. An ethos of “natural philosophy” should be applied instead — neither imagination nor evidence is considered superior to the other. But if it’s a question of trusting writers to report evidence accurately, then no one. Another place where you just have to accept living with uncertainty. As a side note, even if I believe a lot of biology, I don’t believe “science” is better at explaining fundamental questions of existence than religion. If it were, then we wouldn’t be so miserable having put our faith in it.

X. Have you ever been pressured to skew results by either fellow researchers or funders?

I assume this applies more to the other invited writers, since I don’t purport to have any credentials and would not serve well as a conduit for laundering false results. Accordingly, no, I have never been pressured nor offered any awesome CIA bribe money for any content on Unglossed.

Bonus: Is there one single thing about the whole Injection-19 Operation that we can “take to the bank” as 99%+ accurate? (knowing that science is never settled)

The so-called Covid vaccines are a reckless medical experiment and as such, by definition, should not have ever been legal to administer to anyone. At the same time, so are many so-called “traditional” vaccines; so this is a disaster that has been due to unfold at some point. It is either our rude awakening or a quantum leap in how deluded humanity will be about vaccines going forward.

1. I originally incorrectly referred to the 1960 paper as “disquisitions,” which was actually the word-choice for de St. Groth and Webster’s two-part publication in 1966.