The thing that keeps niggling at me and that I thought VERY odd before the bad cat, or Berenson even wrote about this worry window, is I was looking at the provincial health ministries' data for my own (BC) and other provinces (esp Ontario and Alberta), and I saw those weird charts showing cases showing up post 1 and 2 dose in a wave on the Alberta site. That data was taken down once the big Substacks started commenting on it - probably because of all of the attention then focused on it. But - what WAS that then if not evidence pointing to the worry window?
It is still findable on the Wayback Machine. Scroll right down to the last set of graphs on the page, in rainbow colours. I could only get this link to open on the Brave browser, by the way...
Right, that's a fun one. What's missing is that it's the same way it would look if the vaccines are (temporarily starting 11 days after the first dose and lasting 4 months) working.
In other words, how do we know the highest point after dose 1 isn't just the background rate. If you followed the same number of date-matched unvaccinated, what their infection rate would look like is a solid rectangle going across the whole graphs, infections happen randomly. So the question is would the rectangle be higher than that spike, or lower, or the same height?
If it is about the same height, then why is there that run-up from a low starting point? Well, that's easy, it's because infected people don't get tested for a few days after injection because at first they think it is just side effects from the shot.
This artifact was reproduced in both the Bar-On studies where the boosted were compared with the not boosted. From day 1-3 the boosted get fewer positive tests for no explainable reason, they shouldn't have any protection yet. Then it evens out in day 4-7 as they take the tests they delayed because of mistaking symptoms. Then afterward the risk drops again. So for those boosted a by-day infection plot would look exactly the same but they never had more total infections.
I think it's a valuable service to point out flaws in skeptic-world arguments, for sure. Your efforts in this direction are greatly appreciated.
Speaking only for myself, I'm so tired of looking at charts and graphs and trying to make sense of numbers that could very likely be incomplete or fake anyway, I figure there's no point beyond getting the gist of your argument. It's obvious now that the "vaccines" are very likely doing more harm than good, so I'm going to stop there and spend time on more productive pursuits, like fixing my leaky water heater.
This is not a criticism! I'm glad you're doing this so I don't have to.
Right, this topic was already "barn-door-WAY-after-the-horse" a year ago when I first considered doing a post about it. The only thing that made it a bit more of-the-times is that I have also been claiming that the boosted still are virus virgins, and that ran aground of a lot of people's priors about the worry window.
Brian is a bright guy and I wish I'd caught on to him earlier but is he actually under the impression that outright fraud did not occur in the Pfizer trials? He's not naive, is he? Just the Brook Jackson revelations alone prove some level of fraud. The way they manipulated data to exclude infections and adverse events by using their ridiculous definition of vaccinated was fraudulent. They were able to remove countless positive test results and AEs by not counting them if they occurred anywhere from the day of the first injection all the way through 2 weeks after the second one. This is fraud
Both those points are addressed in Pt 1. I endorse claims of fraud, but Worry Window purveyors aren't claiming fraud, they won't because there's no "imprint of credentialism" in simply saying "pff that was fake." So they allege sneaky tricks. But you can look right at the original paper and the myth of hiding first-injection positive tests isn't true. They are published. So Worry Window purveyors need to say "I think this trial result was outright fraud." They won't. Never.
I'm not actually referring to the rest of your post. Everything else you said may be true. I'm only referring to the notion that outright fraud wasn't committed in the trials. And yes, they can make a note that refers to positive tests after first injection but they did not take those tests into account when claiming 95% efficacy. That along with unmasking participants, ignoring AE claims and everything else they did (some of which I'm assuming we may never know about, but I admit that's speculation) definitely amounts to fraud. Not just data manipulation, but fraud.
Right, the context here is that the claims and insinuations of the worry window theory lead people to think that efficacy would have been reported as negative if those infections were included, or that they were miscategorized as unvaccinated infections. As I point out in Pt. 1 Pfizer didn't design the timing as optimally as possible, would have gotten their perfunctory rush-job approval in earlier if they counted all infections after the first dose or 12 days after first dose. So the delay in when to count people as "vaccinated" wasn't some big sneaky trick that pulled the wool on everyone's eyes. Efficacy would have made benchmark earlier without that.
Click on 'Data by Age Group' and then select the option with 'Covid-19 flagged' in the drop down menu on the left. I tried to make some sense of this data in a substack post, but would be the first to admit that my lay observations amount to little more than guesswork:
Like many, I've become rather cynical about government and industry-supported 'Covid' data, so it's always nice when (apparently) more neutral data is available to triangulate with. If this data has any value, clearly *something* quite dramatic happened in the Spring of 2021 in Ontario, whether or not I was aware of it through the anectodal grapevine. This isn't an argument against your 'worry window' anaylsis, Brian, which is much appreciated and stands on its own merits. It seems to me that the ACES data points to some kind of immune suppression happening after the first dose. But I'd love your take on this data. What exactly am I looking at?
So looking at https://covid19tracker.ca/provincevac.html?p=ON Ontario is at 35% 50-59 and 20% 40-49 with 1 dose on April 24, too bad it can't go earlier. That's just after the peak of the big Alpha wave. Anyway these are probably the group that goes to the hospital in the Alpha wave.
The Ontario Alpha wave was reported on here https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v3 and cases hit 86% for under 60s, so the older groups that got their transfections in earlier are sitting out the wave for the most part (however, that's with ~500 care home residents excluded).
They even report day 0-20 efficacy (unsurprisingly near zero, but not negative) in the supplemental. So to synthesize all these glimpses, my guess is that in the Ontario Alpha wave the infections were hugely lopsided to under 60 and so you don't see the normal surge in hospitalizations in the elderly. So injections before the wave decreased infections (temporary infection efficacy) and it doesn't look like injections during the wave increased infections.
Gotta admit my hackles rise when Fisman is mentioned. And I see CMAJ as industry propaganda. The other link you sent was for Dagan et al's Israel study. Did you mean to send something else? (this is a tangent, but I see that Jikky just posted a link to a critique of the method used by Dagan in that study: https://zenodo.org/record/5243901; haven't tackled it yet but my humanities brain is sore already).
Back to the issue at hand. I did wonder about Alpha as a smoking gun. A problem here is that the Alpha/Gamma wave started to take off in early February '21 (https://covariants.org/per-country; provincial data not given but would not be much different), but the hospital respiratory admissions I cited don't show any rise until mid-March (if you play around with the time bar you can see the date easier). Why would there be a six-week lag? Also, doesn't it seem strange that this wave would lead to such a massively disproportionate number of respiratory admissions for the 18-64 cohort compared to *any* other wave? The ACES data seems less likely to be corrupted by Covid narrative management. If it does in fact capture trends in actual respiratory admissions, then it would appear that the supposedly fearsome Delta wave was a nothingburger compared to the real villain, Alpha/Gamma, assuming that 'overall respiratory admission rates including but not limited to Covid' is proxy for 'Covid variant virulence'. Even if that's not exactly right the sheer scale of the Spring Wave in Ontario still seems to defy an easy 'the variant did it' explanation.
I have to re-read the Fisman/Tuite piece (groan). I dimly recall thinking that it was just more of the fearmongering Fisman that we dissidents in Ontario had come to know so well, and that there was some elaborate statistical maneuvering that, I have to admit, I did not have the expertise to assess.
Lol, you're right. It was cited alongside a Canada study and I went straight to the supplemental and didn't read anything else. So no one in Canada seems able to avoid misclassifying the just-injected as "unvaccinated." Maybe Alpha hospitalizations really were from injections, if it's that necessary to censor the first 14 days. Beyond that theory, I am hesitant to propose that Alpha is the reason the spring wave suddenly got better at putting middle aged adults in the hospital, but, I don't see what else would fit besides one of those two things.
And I didn't realize my find was the subject of the famous Reeder analysis. I would agree that rolling cohorts are no good for evaluating severe efficacy and death but they shouldn't be a problem for infections. Having said that, I've never made it very far into his paper. Hence not recognizing the study.
There statistical maneuvering in trying to show that Delta was more severe with very few actual Delta infections to go around, and that was picked up by the CDC shortly afterward. This was when Delta was still being discussed as milder. So it's funny that Fisman/Tuite called that one correctly.
Jan 19, 2023·edited Jan 19, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Hi Brian,
Am following this series with great interest. Admit I have been quite smitten with the worry window so this is challenging my priors - which is good. Couple of points:
1. To what extent were vaccinated no longer obliged (and inclined) to test after vaccination. I can only speak from my experience in Germany but here the vaccinated were mostly exempted from testing once jabbed.
2. To what extent were those vaccinated early on even concious of the fact that they could be infected? I recall Dr. John Campbell referencing Zoe and inferring that vaccinated if infected were more likely to be asymptomatic or have different symptoms to unvaccinated. In other words would a recently vaccinated even recognise and infection and/or seek a test.
Both of these points suggest the Case curves may not capture the true incidence within the vaccinated population.
3. There are some interesting curves of testing data for England available here:
There was a massive reduction (3.3M -> 0.9M) in the number of PCR tests administered in England from 1st Jan '21 to 1st Mar '21 (this could confirm my first point). Chicken-egg, which came first reduced cases or reduced testing?
==EDIT==
my bad, I was lookig at 21/22. positvity sank steadily from 1st Jan to 1st May in 2021 and testing remained relatively consistent.
==EDIT==
(Very noteworthy is how positivty basically tracked no. of tests in that 2 month period?)
4. Anecdotes: I only know people who got infected shortly after boosters in winter 21/22. Then again case rates were high (anyway?) in my region at the time. Although see points 1 & 2.
If there are asymptomatic early breakthrough "infections" as in would-be-positive-if-tested, they still have no apparent visible effect on the UK 20/21 wave (so there's no asymptomatic super-spreader effect or anything). The wave recedes in an unremarkable fashion. Of course when talking about how waves recede you have to keep in mind that cities are not small countries, small countries are not continent spanning countries, so given "waves" are not always just one wave. So there's a bit of a tail in the UK Alpha wave but overall it seems like the vax helped tamp things faster if anything. The delta on kids' S+ is 10% but that's because the lockdown was long after the holiday spike that time.
Right, no apparent suppression of testing during the vax roll-out besides the holiday dip. In fact testing becomes more intense on a per-infection basis throughout the entire period after HCWs become eligible, since that is also when the peak reverses. So you are applying more scrutiny overall every day during that time, so relative changes in vax vs unvaxxed testing rates (even if they happened) wouldn't necessarily mean the vaxxed were tested less than they had been before.
But I am sure there is a grace period where testing is lower, because symptoms will be confused for vax side effects. But then it bounces up when people realize they are actually sick. This is the pattern found in both the Israel booster campaigns by Bar-On et al. 3 days lower risk which evens back out in days 4-7.
Transmission rate is a function of a great many societal factors that are difficult to account. For data sets that show a clear coincidental increase in case rates my hypothesis would be that some collection of factors led to an increase in transmission rate, whether it's people being less careful, not testing, or reduced /delayed symptoms. This would produce an overall rate increase that might not even be that noticable anecdotally, but looks suspicious on a graph.
As for the worry window hypothesis I agree there's no evidence, I have looked carefully before and never saw a higher rate than the unvaxxed population, exactly as well documented in the trial. They may have committed a lot of other fraud but that part seems legit.
I've been wondering how the testing rates might affect data. Because (once again, a random sample of friends and acquaintances) some have told me "I'm feeling like I have a cold or flu but I'm not bothering to test". They don't test for different reasons: not wanting to miss work days, or they're convinced they've been jabbed and hence done all they can anyway so what's the point... etc. So all we have are the data from those who did test or somehow get diagnosed as positive, and those who didn't test are lost to the picture.
Again though, I didn't notice anyone getting sick within a month after the jabs until winter 21/22. And more now after the 4th (bivalent) booster. We unjabbed did tend to get clobbered early on in Delta.
There's also the type of test. Early on there was only PCR, right? Once the home antibody test became available, I'm sure a lot less reporting to authorities was done. For these reasons among others, including test accuracy or lack thereof, I've always discounted "case" numbers.
When I had Delta, a PCR test taken at Rite Aid three days before symptoms was negative. A home rapid antigen test taken one day after symptoms got real was also negative. Another PCR I decided to take at a local drugstore the day after that was positive. No one made me take it. I might just have decided why bother, two tests say negative. So how many people have spurious negative tests but don't pursue the matter any further when they actually do have covid? My experience suggests I have to have a runny nose to test positive.
And how many get false positives?
So I too look at case numbers as having error bars of unknown magnitude.
Jan 22, 2023·edited Jan 22, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I had an acute Lyme infection in 2017. In the course of that I learned a lot about Elisa testing (antibodies) and western blot. I knew what I had — I was covered with bull's-eye rashes — yet my first few tests were negative. It takes a while to generate enough antibodies to throw a positive test. Western blot was purported to be more reliable but depending on IgG versus IgM, could take even longer to show a positive result. Eventually I had positives across the board, but it took a while.
Incidentally, only 30% of people with Lyme present with a rash. I was incredibly lucky.
Tangentially, this is why the CDC has its head up its butt in terms of Lyme testing protocol. They insist on using Elisa as a screening test; it must be positive before you're allowed to get a western blot. Luckily my local hospital system, at least then, was not a slave to CDC guidelines and I managed to insist on both kinds of tests — more than once — and also insist on heftier antibiotic treatment for a longer time. I seem to have licked it, knock on wood. I know many people with chronic Lyme, which can be debilitating, despite the fact that the CDC considers chronic Lyme to be simple hypochondria. Yet they're throwing money by the bucketful at Long Covid. Am I bitter? Damn straight.
I'm sorry for anyone who gets stuck with Lyme long term. I had a case in 1997 and had a big fat bullseye on my right thigh right where the little bastard had his head planted. Picked him up walking in high grass on Assateague Island. People around then were starting to get all panicked about Lyme and calling in to doctors for every rash so initially my doctor told me when I phoned in about it to just put cortisone cream on it. A day later I insisted she look at. Haha she took one look and nearly swallowed her tongue. I can't use many antibiotics so a course of doxycycline knocked it out. Thank God.
Because a brother in law got bitten, had no rash, tested negative a few times and forgot about it for a year. He had severe muscle and joint aches then, and the doctors of the NJ air national guard gave him another test. This time he was hard positive and it earned him a few courses of IV antibiotics. He felt better but I'm not sure he ever eliminated the bug completely.
I have friends with Lyme and they're convinced it was a US military lab leak. Three years ago I thought they were crackers. Now I'm not so sure. And maybe that's why CDC feels like it can/better pooh-pooh the long Lyme claims.
Possibly. Personally, I think the CDC won't acknowledge chronic Lyme because of pressure from insurance companies. All of the treatments for chronic Lyme are very expensive and currently people have to pay out-of-pocket.
I never heard of the worry window. I always did think it was strange that they didn't count people as vaccinated until after 2 weeks. Looking at the UK waves, respiratory infections are seasonal. I think that's why they released the vaccine in November and December, because respiratory infections were likely to go down in the coming months.
I think they released it in December to personally harass and distress me, Brian Mowrey, with having to read about the worry window for the next two years.
Continuing my rant... if you have got your worry window exposition out of your system Brian.. I wish you could refocus your copius neurons on questions of immunology. What questions? Maybe you saw this piece; https://www.eugyppius.com/p/the-history-of-failed-hiv-vaccine
Title: The history of failed HIV vaccine trials confirms that overvaccination causes class-switching towards non-inflammatory IgG4 antibodies, reducing the effectiveness of the immune response
My sense is that there is something we are missing when it comes to the conditions that invoke IgG4. The Eugyppius post shows that we should have known, in some sense, that injecting epitopes isolated away from the viral whole was somehow a bad idea... and these (HIV gp120-related) proteins weren't even self-replicating.
Since the substack post is paywalled, the paper of interest is here;
These folks dance around the question, and basically admit we don't know why our immune systems treat "allergy" antigens differently (eventually invoking IgG4) vs. viral antigens.
"The uncharacteristic induction of high levels of IgG4 in the alum based VAX003 regimen may be related to the repeated administration of seven large doses of vaccine antigens in the absence of sufficiently potent adjuvant signals that may have driven excessive B cell receptor triggering. Allergy studies have similarly observed that continuous exposure to high doses of antigen can result in suppressed inflammatory responses through elevated levels of antigen-specific IgG4 (28). However, little is known about the mechanism by which vaccines tune Ab subclass selection."
"we should have known, in some sense, that injecting epitopes isolated away from the viral whole was somehow a bad idea"
Hey, I'm just a elderly civilian with a high school education, but even I wondered how supposedly smart people could think it was a good idea to base a vaccine on a single, highly mutagenic viral part. That's not just putting all your eggs in one basket—there's only one egg and it's already got a crack in it.
The mRNA injections, no matter what vector flavor, have been a complete failure against their initially stated goal of some kind of herd immunity. I will admit it's hard to deconvolute the effects of the shots away from the crime of withholding early treatments. All that we can say for sure is that, were the US, or any other Western nation, to aggressively pursue application of an optimized early treatment cocktail for both sick people and (prophylactically) for close contacts, instead of immune addling shots, the waves of infection would have ended. We know this based on a tiny little experiment (n=230 million) called Uttar Pradesh, which did exactly what I described, against a low vax. background. The data is there, juxtaposed for us in this post from last August by my friend of 13 years, Dr. Chris Martenson;
I would disagree because we should always be striving for good science, especially if it's critical of science supposedly coming from "our side" or whatever the heck this hodgepodge group of people is.
At the same time that some people are trying to parse the information, many others are just throwing out whatever they see and stirring up an emotional frenzy. As I've stated before, I've come across comments in other people's Substacks akin to "I don't know what this means, but I know I'm supposed to be scared," which is rather horrifying to be honest.
So we should be encouraging more people who want to try to take a closer look at studies, or question things that have become consensus, because we have argued against hegemonic thought for the vaccine zealots.
And honestly, I find it strange when the rebuttal to any comments from "Team Skeptic" is met with comments about one's vaccination status, or that someone is protecting Big Pharma by raising questions (not saying you are doing this Jim, but many people have).
These are non-sequitur arguments that are no different than groupthink in other avenues, and I find it strange when people who consider themselves to not fall into group think deploying similar groupthink tactics. Again, not saying you are doing that Jim, but plenty of people appear to be doing so.
Jan 19, 2023·edited Jan 19, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I have a question for Modern, Brian, and anyone else who wants to chime in. Maybe we are just totally misaligned on our view of what happened over the last three years.
My view of the big picture is this: Almost nobody needed to die... not from Covid-19, not from experimental shots (of which the possible range of short term death effects we are arguing). The Covid operation involved multifaceted suppression of all effective early treatments. At one point Harvey Risch, MD, PhD of Yale, stated in an interview that across doctors and medical groups whose data he was privy to, there had been only 24 deaths cumulatively across 150K treated patients.
Brian Tyson MD, one of the early treatment doc's in CA, has the stat's from he and George Fareed MD's practice pinned prominently on his twitter feed, and the truth is they lost ZERO patients when the treatment started prior to seven days infected; 20,000 treated, 4 deaths overall. Note how well that comports with the larger dataset Harvey Risch early treatment IFR.
So, please weigh in here.. Do you folks reading this believe that this is the truth? That almost nobody needed to die had the knowledge and access to early treatments not been suppressed, or not? My contention and view goes further - had we managed the virus in this way, it would be over now as we would have managed most everyone safely through a course of natural infection, giving them the best "vaccine" of all.. natural infection.
So since you are making a good-faith attempt here let me outline my position just to provide some context (if you can bear with me and are unaware).
I lost my job at the end of 2021 because I wasn't vaccinated. I thought it was at first immoral how the vaccines were rolled out, but over time after hearing everyone's side effects I completely opted out of it and grew more suspicious and had to leave a job where I was told I was one of the best employees with a comment from higher up that they needed me to leave so that they can hire someone else.
I don't like bringing this up because it's a sob story and unoriginal given how many people lost their jobs as well.
I started this Substack because I thought there was a of information out there but not much parsing of it, so I wanted to try to educate and break things down for people (I thought of being a professor in another life, but with no graduate degree that's not going to happen).
Apologies for the background, but I bring this up because I personally don't take kindly when I see comments going around that someone who criticizes "Team Skeptic" as having taken the vaccines or are on pro-Fauci, lockdown, or whatever side, because I sure as hell made a ton more money at my old job, and I would sure as hell make far more money if I posted fear porn rather than things I think would be informative.
Now, to your point I think "no death" is fruitless on both the side of the vaccine zealots and the skeptics. Irrespective of how we cut it I think many people would have succumbed to the virus.
Of course, that means how many people would have not had to needlessly die, and to that early treatment likely would have reduced a lot of the deaths. At the point someone enters a hospital they're already on borrowed time, so early treatment will be the best. Again, not everyone will be saved, but likely a good portion will not have had to been left twiddling their thumbs before it became too late.
There's far too many variables to consider that even if Dr. Tyson and Dr. Fareed were able be as successful that may not mean that others would be due to accessibility of the treatments or just the makeup of the patients. I don't know much about their protocols or the demographics of their patients so I won't say much about that.
But as everyone has mentioned early treatment is the best treatment. It does no good to try to get ahead of a runaway train when you can just deal with it before it starts tracking along.
Natural infection is a precarious topic because there I think we were also working on strange information. I think we should not have been told that natural infection would be sterilizing- no respiratory infection leads to sterilizing immunity, so it seemed strange SARS-COV2 was given that out. But even with that said Omicron sort of washed all of that away since it seemed so distant from Wuhan and prior variants that everyone got it.
From my perspective COVID would have always become endemic. I did think we could eliminate it at first but to be honest at the point that it went global there was no turning back to sterility since virus will always have a reservoir somewhere.
So overall, I don't believe everyone would be saved, and in fact I would bring caution to the "not even one death" idea because I think such an argument can lead to sanctioning of ideology (maybe there's another way to put it), but I do think that if people tried SOMETHING and did more than just get told to stay home, do nothing, and wait until it's too late that more lives would have been saved.
I personally don't view HCQ or IVM, or really any early treatments as being panaceas but I always argued that if doctors were allowed to try anything rather than nothing then that's worth more than "trying nothing and being all out of ideas," as I put it a while back.
To the vaccines, there is clearly something going on. I wouldn't have lost my job if I thought there wasn't something concerning. But the issue, like with everything, is that we are dealing with a lot of noise and not much signal, and so now we're trying to parse the information and see what is really going on.
I'm sort of the belief that all of this may just end up being a consequence of spike in the blood, to put it loosely, but again we're dealing with a lot of noise and not many mechanisms to clear it up.
I can ramble more on the vaccines but I've already ranted for too long, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Thank you for the heartfelt post Modern. I am very much like you (not PhD, 40 years in high tech) but for that, Thank God, I didn't lose my high paying job. I feel for you.
That being said I hold a very strong opinion at this point regarding the efficacy of early treatment. I never say NOBODY would have died. Everybody dies eventually. Let's just say that with early treatment, Covid would have been equivalent to flu in terms of taking out the elderly and infirm, less so with kids.
Early treatment is where my greatest research depth is... so I will argue this until the cows come home. In the first weeks of internet discussion on the virus and happenings in China, some may know that Clif High was talking about Chaga (mushroom, a tree conch) tea as an effective treatment modality based on feedback he was getting from a Chinese naturopath in Wuhan. Thus began my journey. When the Lancet published the Surgisphere paper using completely falsified data to kneecap Hydroxychloroquine with a claim of 10% death rate in hospitalized patients, I knew right then that we were facing a military grade operation. The paper was retracted but the damage it did by halting many of the trials was immeasurable.
Don't miss the point that we ALWAYS talk about early treatment cocktails... never one drug or supplement in isolation. The stacking effect of these medications and supplements, attacking different aspects of the viral life cycle, are the key. Think about the current generation of drugs that keep HIV suppressed... always two or three-in-one. These are cocktails, and they are almost 100% effective for HIV positive people. It's the same high level concept with Covid-19 early treatment.
Early treatment reduces spike in the blood from natural infection. Nobody ever said natural immunity was always and forever sterilizing.. only that it's the best we can do. If you get sick again as an invax'ed, just apply early treatment once again. Simple. Keep Vitamin D sufficiency high (see my substack for some unique background) and have full cocktails at the ready.
Be well... I wish everyone could grasp just how effective early treatments have been proven to be.
I don't quite see what you guys are disagreeing about, except maybe Jim's comment that there could've been zero deaths have there been effective early treatment.
Intellectual honesty is important, whether on your own "side" or the other's. Criticizing someone's argument doesn't necessarily mean that you're playing for the other team. I wish we could get away from the whole tribalism thing, actually.
I placed numerous references in the previous post to instances of waves of death in nursing and care homes by PCR-positive Covid in the weeks following mass vax campaigns in said nursing and care homes, and I am saying that there is a real worry window effect. You folks are welcome to come up with your own interpretations... I just don't care about this enough to argue about it anymore. It's not salient to the big picture now.
Ethical Skeptic, using his own US medical death code data mining strategy, sees for instance a 27 sigma rise in Heart/Circulatory/uncertain deaths. Meanwhile we still have authorities telling us to take more shots and people believing in them.... get a grip!
We can better assess and articulate the flaws of the transfections when we don't believe in imaginary, childish myths propagated by anonymous online cats who can't do basic math like worry window and oas.
Speaking of OAS, I just came across this article that seems to explain "how" OAS is occurring. I haven't taken a look at it yet but it's a pretty recent article:
I thought this was going to be the Rachel Brazil feature. Looks like an attempt to finally validate with control mice (PR8>FM1 vs FM1 only) and some different levels of epitope divergence. Of course it's still all just injection, at least from the figures I don't see any actual infection challenges. So the boring problem of "can't use vaccines like app updates." I'll try to give it a read tomorrow
That's my general thought. It's interesting that they tagged them and were able to get a molecular read, but the end interpretation is really no different than what's being argued.
I had to look it up and I assume you're referring to this:
Right, that's the one. A lot of narrative clean-up and retconning by failed OAS "though-leaders" of the 2010s who never did properly use the term to begin with. "Oh forget it, what we really meant to call it was 'imprinting.' In fact we always called it that. Never mind it was 'OAS' in the WaPo story 3 months ago."
I thought the term Original Antigenic Sin was coined in, like, the 1950s. Whatever, it's a stupid term that projects moral value judgment were none belongs. Please note this is completely beside the fact of whether the effect exists or not.
The thing that keeps niggling at me and that I thought VERY odd before the bad cat, or Berenson even wrote about this worry window, is I was looking at the provincial health ministries' data for my own (BC) and other provinces (esp Ontario and Alberta), and I saw those weird charts showing cases showing up post 1 and 2 dose in a wave on the Alberta site. That data was taken down once the big Substacks started commenting on it - probably because of all of the attention then focused on it. But - what WAS that then if not evidence pointing to the worry window?
It is still findable on the Wayback Machine. Scroll right down to the last set of graphs on the page, in rainbow colours. I could only get this link to open on the Brave browser, by the way...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220101000507/https:/www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes
Right, that's a fun one. What's missing is that it's the same way it would look if the vaccines are (temporarily starting 11 days after the first dose and lasting 4 months) working.
In other words, how do we know the highest point after dose 1 isn't just the background rate. If you followed the same number of date-matched unvaccinated, what their infection rate would look like is a solid rectangle going across the whole graphs, infections happen randomly. So the question is would the rectangle be higher than that spike, or lower, or the same height?
If it is about the same height, then why is there that run-up from a low starting point? Well, that's easy, it's because infected people don't get tested for a few days after injection because at first they think it is just side effects from the shot.
This artifact was reproduced in both the Bar-On studies where the boosted were compared with the not boosted. From day 1-3 the boosted get fewer positive tests for no explainable reason, they shouldn't have any protection yet. Then it evens out in day 4-7 as they take the tests they delayed because of mistaking symptoms. Then afterward the risk drops again. So for those boosted a by-day infection plot would look exactly the same but they never had more total infections.
I think it's a valuable service to point out flaws in skeptic-world arguments, for sure. Your efforts in this direction are greatly appreciated.
Speaking only for myself, I'm so tired of looking at charts and graphs and trying to make sense of numbers that could very likely be incomplete or fake anyway, I figure there's no point beyond getting the gist of your argument. It's obvious now that the "vaccines" are very likely doing more harm than good, so I'm going to stop there and spend time on more productive pursuits, like fixing my leaky water heater.
This is not a criticism! I'm glad you're doing this so I don't have to.
Right, this topic was already "barn-door-WAY-after-the-horse" a year ago when I first considered doing a post about it. The only thing that made it a bit more of-the-times is that I have also been claiming that the boosted still are virus virgins, and that ran aground of a lot of people's priors about the worry window.
Brian is a bright guy and I wish I'd caught on to him earlier but is he actually under the impression that outright fraud did not occur in the Pfizer trials? He's not naive, is he? Just the Brook Jackson revelations alone prove some level of fraud. The way they manipulated data to exclude infections and adverse events by using their ridiculous definition of vaccinated was fraudulent. They were able to remove countless positive test results and AEs by not counting them if they occurred anywhere from the day of the first injection all the way through 2 weeks after the second one. This is fraud
Both those points are addressed in Pt 1. I endorse claims of fraud, but Worry Window purveyors aren't claiming fraud, they won't because there's no "imprint of credentialism" in simply saying "pff that was fake." So they allege sneaky tricks. But you can look right at the original paper and the myth of hiding first-injection positive tests isn't true. They are published. So Worry Window purveyors need to say "I think this trial result was outright fraud." They won't. Never.
I'm not actually referring to the rest of your post. Everything else you said may be true. I'm only referring to the notion that outright fraud wasn't committed in the trials. And yes, they can make a note that refers to positive tests after first injection but they did not take those tests into account when claiming 95% efficacy. That along with unmasking participants, ignoring AE claims and everything else they did (some of which I'm assuming we may never know about, but I admit that's speculation) definitely amounts to fraud. Not just data manipulation, but fraud.
Thanks for replying. Keep up the good work
Right, the context here is that the claims and insinuations of the worry window theory lead people to think that efficacy would have been reported as negative if those infections were included, or that they were miscategorized as unvaccinated infections. As I point out in Pt. 1 Pfizer didn't design the timing as optimally as possible, would have gotten their perfunctory rush-job approval in earlier if they counted all infections after the first dose or 12 days after first dose. So the delay in when to count people as "vaccinated" wasn't some big sneaky trick that pulled the wool on everyone's eyes. Efficacy would have made benchmark earlier without that.
What if we looked at another kind of 'wave'? Here in Ontario I've been puzzled by this graph for almost two years now:
https://www.kflaphi.ca/aces-pandemic-tracker/
Click on 'Data by Age Group' and then select the option with 'Covid-19 flagged' in the drop down menu on the left. I tried to make some sense of this data in a substack post, but would be the first to admit that my lay observations amount to little more than guesswork:
https://thoughtsonacrisis.substack.com/p/the-covid-vaccination-rollout-in
Like many, I've become rather cynical about government and industry-supported 'Covid' data, so it's always nice when (apparently) more neutral data is available to triangulate with. If this data has any value, clearly *something* quite dramatic happened in the Spring of 2021 in Ontario, whether or not I was aware of it through the anectodal grapevine. This isn't an argument against your 'worry window' anaylsis, Brian, which is much appreciated and stands on its own merits. It seems to me that the ACES data points to some kind of immune suppression happening after the first dose. But I'd love your take on this data. What exactly am I looking at?
So looking at https://covid19tracker.ca/provincevac.html?p=ON Ontario is at 35% 50-59 and 20% 40-49 with 1 dose on April 24, too bad it can't go earlier. That's just after the peak of the big Alpha wave. Anyway these are probably the group that goes to the hospital in the Alpha wave.
The Ontario Alpha wave was reported on here https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v3 and cases hit 86% for under 60s, so the older groups that got their transfections in earlier are sitting out the wave for the most part (however, that's with ~500 care home residents excluded).
*edit v2: OK here's a look at all of Canada with, miracle of miracles, results from the day of dose 1. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2101765
They even report day 0-20 efficacy (unsurprisingly near zero, but not negative) in the supplemental. So to synthesize all these glimpses, my guess is that in the Ontario Alpha wave the infections were hugely lopsided to under 60 and so you don't see the normal surge in hospitalizations in the elderly. So injections before the wave decreased infections (temporary infection efficacy) and it doesn't look like injections during the wave increased infections.
Thanks for sharing your take, Brian.
Gotta admit my hackles rise when Fisman is mentioned. And I see CMAJ as industry propaganda. The other link you sent was for Dagan et al's Israel study. Did you mean to send something else? (this is a tangent, but I see that Jikky just posted a link to a critique of the method used by Dagan in that study: https://zenodo.org/record/5243901; haven't tackled it yet but my humanities brain is sore already).
Back to the issue at hand. I did wonder about Alpha as a smoking gun. A problem here is that the Alpha/Gamma wave started to take off in early February '21 (https://covariants.org/per-country; provincial data not given but would not be much different), but the hospital respiratory admissions I cited don't show any rise until mid-March (if you play around with the time bar you can see the date easier). Why would there be a six-week lag? Also, doesn't it seem strange that this wave would lead to such a massively disproportionate number of respiratory admissions for the 18-64 cohort compared to *any* other wave? The ACES data seems less likely to be corrupted by Covid narrative management. If it does in fact capture trends in actual respiratory admissions, then it would appear that the supposedly fearsome Delta wave was a nothingburger compared to the real villain, Alpha/Gamma, assuming that 'overall respiratory admission rates including but not limited to Covid' is proxy for 'Covid variant virulence'. Even if that's not exactly right the sheer scale of the Spring Wave in Ontario still seems to defy an easy 'the variant did it' explanation.
I have to re-read the Fisman/Tuite piece (groan). I dimly recall thinking that it was just more of the fearmongering Fisman that we dissidents in Ontario had come to know so well, and that there was some elaborate statistical maneuvering that, I have to admit, I did not have the expertise to assess.
Lol, you're right. It was cited alongside a Canada study and I went straight to the supplemental and didn't read anything else. So no one in Canada seems able to avoid misclassifying the just-injected as "unvaccinated." Maybe Alpha hospitalizations really were from injections, if it's that necessary to censor the first 14 days. Beyond that theory, I am hesitant to propose that Alpha is the reason the spring wave suddenly got better at putting middle aged adults in the hospital, but, I don't see what else would fit besides one of those two things.
And I didn't realize my find was the subject of the famous Reeder analysis. I would agree that rolling cohorts are no good for evaluating severe efficacy and death but they shouldn't be a problem for infections. Having said that, I've never made it very far into his paper. Hence not recognizing the study.
There statistical maneuvering in trying to show that Delta was more severe with very few actual Delta infections to go around, and that was picked up by the CDC shortly afterward. This was when Delta was still being discussed as milder. So it's funny that Fisman/Tuite called that one correctly.
Hi Brian,
Am following this series with great interest. Admit I have been quite smitten with the worry window so this is challenging my priors - which is good. Couple of points:
1. To what extent were vaccinated no longer obliged (and inclined) to test after vaccination. I can only speak from my experience in Germany but here the vaccinated were mostly exempted from testing once jabbed.
2. To what extent were those vaccinated early on even concious of the fact that they could be infected? I recall Dr. John Campbell referencing Zoe and inferring that vaccinated if infected were more likely to be asymptomatic or have different symptoms to unvaccinated. In other words would a recently vaccinated even recognise and infection and/or seek a test.
Both of these points suggest the Case curves may not capture the true incidence within the vaccinated population.
3. There are some interesting curves of testing data for England available here:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing?areaType=nation&areaName=England
There was a massive reduction (3.3M -> 0.9M) in the number of PCR tests administered in England from 1st Jan '21 to 1st Mar '21 (this could confirm my first point). Chicken-egg, which came first reduced cases or reduced testing?
==EDIT==
my bad, I was lookig at 21/22. positvity sank steadily from 1st Jan to 1st May in 2021 and testing remained relatively consistent.
==EDIT==
(Very noteworthy is how positivty basically tracked no. of tests in that 2 month period?)
4. Anecdotes: I only know people who got infected shortly after boosters in winter 21/22. Then again case rates were high (anyway?) in my region at the time. Although see points 1 & 2.
If there are asymptomatic early breakthrough "infections" as in would-be-positive-if-tested, they still have no apparent visible effect on the UK 20/21 wave (so there's no asymptomatic super-spreader effect or anything). The wave recedes in an unremarkable fashion. Of course when talking about how waves recede you have to keep in mind that cities are not small countries, small countries are not continent spanning countries, so given "waves" are not always just one wave. So there's a bit of a tail in the UK Alpha wave but overall it seems like the vax helped tamp things faster if anything. The delta on kids' S+ is 10% but that's because the lockdown was long after the holiday spike that time.
Right, no apparent suppression of testing during the vax roll-out besides the holiday dip. In fact testing becomes more intense on a per-infection basis throughout the entire period after HCWs become eligible, since that is also when the peak reverses. So you are applying more scrutiny overall every day during that time, so relative changes in vax vs unvaxxed testing rates (even if they happened) wouldn't necessarily mean the vaxxed were tested less than they had been before.
But I am sure there is a grace period where testing is lower, because symptoms will be confused for vax side effects. But then it bounces up when people realize they are actually sick. This is the pattern found in both the Israel booster campaigns by Bar-On et al. 3 days lower risk which evens back out in days 4-7.
Transmission rate is a function of a great many societal factors that are difficult to account. For data sets that show a clear coincidental increase in case rates my hypothesis would be that some collection of factors led to an increase in transmission rate, whether it's people being less careful, not testing, or reduced /delayed symptoms. This would produce an overall rate increase that might not even be that noticable anecdotally, but looks suspicious on a graph.
As for the worry window hypothesis I agree there's no evidence, I have looked carefully before and never saw a higher rate than the unvaxxed population, exactly as well documented in the trial. They may have committed a lot of other fraud but that part seems legit.
I've been wondering how the testing rates might affect data. Because (once again, a random sample of friends and acquaintances) some have told me "I'm feeling like I have a cold or flu but I'm not bothering to test". They don't test for different reasons: not wanting to miss work days, or they're convinced they've been jabbed and hence done all they can anyway so what's the point... etc. So all we have are the data from those who did test or somehow get diagnosed as positive, and those who didn't test are lost to the picture.
Again though, I didn't notice anyone getting sick within a month after the jabs until winter 21/22. And more now after the 4th (bivalent) booster. We unjabbed did tend to get clobbered early on in Delta.
There's also the type of test. Early on there was only PCR, right? Once the home antibody test became available, I'm sure a lot less reporting to authorities was done. For these reasons among others, including test accuracy or lack thereof, I've always discounted "case" numbers.
When I had Delta, a PCR test taken at Rite Aid three days before symptoms was negative. A home rapid antigen test taken one day after symptoms got real was also negative. Another PCR I decided to take at a local drugstore the day after that was positive. No one made me take it. I might just have decided why bother, two tests say negative. So how many people have spurious negative tests but don't pursue the matter any further when they actually do have covid? My experience suggests I have to have a runny nose to test positive.
And how many get false positives?
So I too look at case numbers as having error bars of unknown magnitude.
I had an acute Lyme infection in 2017. In the course of that I learned a lot about Elisa testing (antibodies) and western blot. I knew what I had — I was covered with bull's-eye rashes — yet my first few tests were negative. It takes a while to generate enough antibodies to throw a positive test. Western blot was purported to be more reliable but depending on IgG versus IgM, could take even longer to show a positive result. Eventually I had positives across the board, but it took a while.
Incidentally, only 30% of people with Lyme present with a rash. I was incredibly lucky.
Tangentially, this is why the CDC has its head up its butt in terms of Lyme testing protocol. They insist on using Elisa as a screening test; it must be positive before you're allowed to get a western blot. Luckily my local hospital system, at least then, was not a slave to CDC guidelines and I managed to insist on both kinds of tests — more than once — and also insist on heftier antibiotic treatment for a longer time. I seem to have licked it, knock on wood. I know many people with chronic Lyme, which can be debilitating, despite the fact that the CDC considers chronic Lyme to be simple hypochondria. Yet they're throwing money by the bucketful at Long Covid. Am I bitter? Damn straight.
I'm sorry for anyone who gets stuck with Lyme long term. I had a case in 1997 and had a big fat bullseye on my right thigh right where the little bastard had his head planted. Picked him up walking in high grass on Assateague Island. People around then were starting to get all panicked about Lyme and calling in to doctors for every rash so initially my doctor told me when I phoned in about it to just put cortisone cream on it. A day later I insisted she look at. Haha she took one look and nearly swallowed her tongue. I can't use many antibiotics so a course of doxycycline knocked it out. Thank God.
Because a brother in law got bitten, had no rash, tested negative a few times and forgot about it for a year. He had severe muscle and joint aches then, and the doctors of the NJ air national guard gave him another test. This time he was hard positive and it earned him a few courses of IV antibiotics. He felt better but I'm not sure he ever eliminated the bug completely.
I have friends with Lyme and they're convinced it was a US military lab leak. Three years ago I thought they were crackers. Now I'm not so sure. And maybe that's why CDC feels like it can/better pooh-pooh the long Lyme claims.
Possibly. Personally, I think the CDC won't acknowledge chronic Lyme because of pressure from insurance companies. All of the treatments for chronic Lyme are very expensive and currently people have to pay out-of-pocket.
I never heard of the worry window. I always did think it was strange that they didn't count people as vaccinated until after 2 weeks. Looking at the UK waves, respiratory infections are seasonal. I think that's why they released the vaccine in November and December, because respiratory infections were likely to go down in the coming months.
I think they released it in December to personally harass and distress me, Brian Mowrey, with having to read about the worry window for the next two years.
The same trick has been used before with the use of injectable concoctions. . . how would we have ever survived without having an injection 🤡
Continuing my rant... if you have got your worry window exposition out of your system Brian.. I wish you could refocus your copius neurons on questions of immunology. What questions? Maybe you saw this piece; https://www.eugyppius.com/p/the-history-of-failed-hiv-vaccine
Title: The history of failed HIV vaccine trials confirms that overvaccination causes class-switching towards non-inflammatory IgG4 antibodies, reducing the effectiveness of the immune response
My sense is that there is something we are missing when it comes to the conditions that invoke IgG4. The Eugyppius post shows that we should have known, in some sense, that injecting epitopes isolated away from the viral whole was somehow a bad idea... and these (HIV gp120-related) proteins weren't even self-replicating.
Since the substack post is paywalled, the paper of interest is here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260950633_Polyfunctional_Fc-Effector_Profiles_Mediated_by_IgG_Subclass_Selection_Distinguish_RV144_and_VAX003_Vaccines
These folks dance around the question, and basically admit we don't know why our immune systems treat "allergy" antigens differently (eventually invoking IgG4) vs. viral antigens.
"The uncharacteristic induction of high levels of IgG4 in the alum based VAX003 regimen may be related to the repeated administration of seven large doses of vaccine antigens in the absence of sufficiently potent adjuvant signals that may have driven excessive B cell receptor triggering. Allergy studies have similarly observed that continuous exposure to high doses of antigen can result in suppressed inflammatory responses through elevated levels of antigen-specific IgG4 (28). However, little is known about the mechanism by which vaccines tune Ab subclass selection."
Little is known indeed.
"we should have known, in some sense, that injecting epitopes isolated away from the viral whole was somehow a bad idea"
Hey, I'm just a elderly civilian with a high school education, but even I wondered how supposedly smart people could think it was a good idea to base a vaccine on a single, highly mutagenic viral part. That's not just putting all your eggs in one basket—there's only one egg and it's already got a crack in it.
Now you're mixing metaphors. The eggs are the stakes. The basket is the strategy. The bacon is the friends you make along the way.
Bacon makes everything better ;)
The mRNA injections, no matter what vector flavor, have been a complete failure against their initially stated goal of some kind of herd immunity. I will admit it's hard to deconvolute the effects of the shots away from the crime of withholding early treatments. All that we can say for sure is that, were the US, or any other Western nation, to aggressively pursue application of an optimized early treatment cocktail for both sick people and (prophylactically) for close contacts, instead of immune addling shots, the waves of infection would have ended. We know this based on a tiny little experiment (n=230 million) called Uttar Pradesh, which did exactly what I described, against a low vax. background. The data is there, juxtaposed for us in this post from last August by my friend of 13 years, Dr. Chris Martenson;
https://peakprosperity.com/wow-cdc-completely-reverses-course-its-over/
I have zero interest in mRNA apologetics. Let's instead focus on the crime at hand.
I would disagree because we should always be striving for good science, especially if it's critical of science supposedly coming from "our side" or whatever the heck this hodgepodge group of people is.
At the same time that some people are trying to parse the information, many others are just throwing out whatever they see and stirring up an emotional frenzy. As I've stated before, I've come across comments in other people's Substacks akin to "I don't know what this means, but I know I'm supposed to be scared," which is rather horrifying to be honest.
So we should be encouraging more people who want to try to take a closer look at studies, or question things that have become consensus, because we have argued against hegemonic thought for the vaccine zealots.
And honestly, I find it strange when the rebuttal to any comments from "Team Skeptic" is met with comments about one's vaccination status, or that someone is protecting Big Pharma by raising questions (not saying you are doing this Jim, but many people have).
These are non-sequitur arguments that are no different than groupthink in other avenues, and I find it strange when people who consider themselves to not fall into group think deploying similar groupthink tactics. Again, not saying you are doing that Jim, but plenty of people appear to be doing so.
I have a question for Modern, Brian, and anyone else who wants to chime in. Maybe we are just totally misaligned on our view of what happened over the last three years.
My view of the big picture is this: Almost nobody needed to die... not from Covid-19, not from experimental shots (of which the possible range of short term death effects we are arguing). The Covid operation involved multifaceted suppression of all effective early treatments. At one point Harvey Risch, MD, PhD of Yale, stated in an interview that across doctors and medical groups whose data he was privy to, there had been only 24 deaths cumulatively across 150K treated patients.
Brian Tyson MD, one of the early treatment doc's in CA, has the stat's from he and George Fareed MD's practice pinned prominently on his twitter feed, and the truth is they lost ZERO patients when the treatment started prior to seven days infected; 20,000 treated, 4 deaths overall. Note how well that comports with the larger dataset Harvey Risch early treatment IFR.
https://twitter.com/btysonmd/status/1607599121594208256
So, please weigh in here.. Do you folks reading this believe that this is the truth? That almost nobody needed to die had the knowledge and access to early treatments not been suppressed, or not? My contention and view goes further - had we managed the virus in this way, it would be over now as we would have managed most everyone safely through a course of natural infection, giving them the best "vaccine" of all.. natural infection.
So since you are making a good-faith attempt here let me outline my position just to provide some context (if you can bear with me and are unaware).
I lost my job at the end of 2021 because I wasn't vaccinated. I thought it was at first immoral how the vaccines were rolled out, but over time after hearing everyone's side effects I completely opted out of it and grew more suspicious and had to leave a job where I was told I was one of the best employees with a comment from higher up that they needed me to leave so that they can hire someone else.
I don't like bringing this up because it's a sob story and unoriginal given how many people lost their jobs as well.
I started this Substack because I thought there was a of information out there but not much parsing of it, so I wanted to try to educate and break things down for people (I thought of being a professor in another life, but with no graduate degree that's not going to happen).
Apologies for the background, but I bring this up because I personally don't take kindly when I see comments going around that someone who criticizes "Team Skeptic" as having taken the vaccines or are on pro-Fauci, lockdown, or whatever side, because I sure as hell made a ton more money at my old job, and I would sure as hell make far more money if I posted fear porn rather than things I think would be informative.
Now, to your point I think "no death" is fruitless on both the side of the vaccine zealots and the skeptics. Irrespective of how we cut it I think many people would have succumbed to the virus.
Of course, that means how many people would have not had to needlessly die, and to that early treatment likely would have reduced a lot of the deaths. At the point someone enters a hospital they're already on borrowed time, so early treatment will be the best. Again, not everyone will be saved, but likely a good portion will not have had to been left twiddling their thumbs before it became too late.
There's far too many variables to consider that even if Dr. Tyson and Dr. Fareed were able be as successful that may not mean that others would be due to accessibility of the treatments or just the makeup of the patients. I don't know much about their protocols or the demographics of their patients so I won't say much about that.
But as everyone has mentioned early treatment is the best treatment. It does no good to try to get ahead of a runaway train when you can just deal with it before it starts tracking along.
Natural infection is a precarious topic because there I think we were also working on strange information. I think we should not have been told that natural infection would be sterilizing- no respiratory infection leads to sterilizing immunity, so it seemed strange SARS-COV2 was given that out. But even with that said Omicron sort of washed all of that away since it seemed so distant from Wuhan and prior variants that everyone got it.
From my perspective COVID would have always become endemic. I did think we could eliminate it at first but to be honest at the point that it went global there was no turning back to sterility since virus will always have a reservoir somewhere.
So overall, I don't believe everyone would be saved, and in fact I would bring caution to the "not even one death" idea because I think such an argument can lead to sanctioning of ideology (maybe there's another way to put it), but I do think that if people tried SOMETHING and did more than just get told to stay home, do nothing, and wait until it's too late that more lives would have been saved.
I personally don't view HCQ or IVM, or really any early treatments as being panaceas but I always argued that if doctors were allowed to try anything rather than nothing then that's worth more than "trying nothing and being all out of ideas," as I put it a while back.
To the vaccines, there is clearly something going on. I wouldn't have lost my job if I thought there wasn't something concerning. But the issue, like with everything, is that we are dealing with a lot of noise and not much signal, and so now we're trying to parse the information and see what is really going on.
I'm sort of the belief that all of this may just end up being a consequence of spike in the blood, to put it loosely, but again we're dealing with a lot of noise and not many mechanisms to clear it up.
I can ramble more on the vaccines but I've already ranted for too long, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Thank you for the heartfelt post Modern. I am very much like you (not PhD, 40 years in high tech) but for that, Thank God, I didn't lose my high paying job. I feel for you.
That being said I hold a very strong opinion at this point regarding the efficacy of early treatment. I never say NOBODY would have died. Everybody dies eventually. Let's just say that with early treatment, Covid would have been equivalent to flu in terms of taking out the elderly and infirm, less so with kids.
Early treatment is where my greatest research depth is... so I will argue this until the cows come home. In the first weeks of internet discussion on the virus and happenings in China, some may know that Clif High was talking about Chaga (mushroom, a tree conch) tea as an effective treatment modality based on feedback he was getting from a Chinese naturopath in Wuhan. Thus began my journey. When the Lancet published the Surgisphere paper using completely falsified data to kneecap Hydroxychloroquine with a claim of 10% death rate in hospitalized patients, I knew right then that we were facing a military grade operation. The paper was retracted but the damage it did by halting many of the trials was immeasurable.
Don't miss the point that we ALWAYS talk about early treatment cocktails... never one drug or supplement in isolation. The stacking effect of these medications and supplements, attacking different aspects of the viral life cycle, are the key. Think about the current generation of drugs that keep HIV suppressed... always two or three-in-one. These are cocktails, and they are almost 100% effective for HIV positive people. It's the same high level concept with Covid-19 early treatment.
Early treatment reduces spike in the blood from natural infection. Nobody ever said natural immunity was always and forever sterilizing.. only that it's the best we can do. If you get sick again as an invax'ed, just apply early treatment once again. Simple. Keep Vitamin D sufficiency high (see my substack for some unique background) and have full cocktails at the ready.
Be well... I wish everyone could grasp just how effective early treatments have been proven to be.
I don't quite see what you guys are disagreeing about, except maybe Jim's comment that there could've been zero deaths have there been effective early treatment.
Intellectual honesty is important, whether on your own "side" or the other's. Criticizing someone's argument doesn't necessarily mean that you're playing for the other team. I wish we could get away from the whole tribalism thing, actually.
I placed numerous references in the previous post to instances of waves of death in nursing and care homes by PCR-positive Covid in the weeks following mass vax campaigns in said nursing and care homes, and I am saying that there is a real worry window effect. You folks are welcome to come up with your own interpretations... I just don't care about this enough to argue about it anymore. It's not salient to the big picture now.
Ethical Skeptic, using his own US medical death code data mining strategy, sees for instance a 27 sigma rise in Heart/Circulatory/uncertain deaths. Meanwhile we still have authorities telling us to take more shots and people believing in them.... get a grip!
https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1615829325923721221
We can better assess and articulate the flaws of the transfections when we don't believe in imaginary, childish myths propagated by anonymous online cats who can't do basic math like worry window and oas.
Speaking of OAS, I just came across this article that seems to explain "how" OAS is occurring. I haven't taken a look at it yet but it's a pretty recent article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05715-3
I thought this was going to be the Rachel Brazil feature. Looks like an attempt to finally validate with control mice (PR8>FM1 vs FM1 only) and some different levels of epitope divergence. Of course it's still all just injection, at least from the figures I don't see any actual infection challenges. So the boring problem of "can't use vaccines like app updates." I'll try to give it a read tomorrow
That's my general thought. It's interesting that they tagged them and were able to get a molecular read, but the end interpretation is really no different than what's being argued.
I had to look it up and I assume you're referring to this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00086-1
Funny now all this talk of OAS is occurring on both sides but the overall "what to do about it" is different on both sides.
Right, that's the one. A lot of narrative clean-up and retconning by failed OAS "though-leaders" of the 2010s who never did properly use the term to begin with. "Oh forget it, what we really meant to call it was 'imprinting.' In fact we always called it that. Never mind it was 'OAS' in the WaPo story 3 months ago."
I thought the term Original Antigenic Sin was coined in, like, the 1950s. Whatever, it's a stupid term that projects moral value judgment were none belongs. Please note this is completely beside the fact of whether the effect exists or not.