Apr 23, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

5 day pause? Sure, but it's much deeper than that. The key to understanding the entire vaccination campaign are the CHIRAL ISOMERS.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.oprd.1c00400 (N4-hydroxycytidine isomer)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261232v1.full (dimethyl-bicyclo[3.1.0] proline isomer)

Question: what is going to happen to the BINDING ISOMERIC ANTIBODIES which have been produced by the immune system in response to the cmRNA coding with Pseudouridine? What is the defining factor which will constitute a sufficient condition for these isomeric abs to be activated, that is, to become neurotoxic prion-like T-bacilli proteins?

Expand full comment
Apr 20, 2022·edited Apr 23, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

Jessica Rose also wrote about Paxlovid and her article is very interesting.


Expand full comment
Apr 19, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

Interesting! But how would you know these are not re-infections instead of flare-ups?

Now, I'm actually not the party-pooper who believes that, but we should ask ourselves if that is possible?

But the real reason I bring it up is because re-infections in general are rare. In any community where a virus rages, you don't see the ones who get it first be reinfected by the later ones. Immunity even though it matures for months is already quite strong right after clearing an illness. So even though in such a community the first one who cleared the virus, will be frequently re-exposed, they do not get re-infected. Killingly, et al. seems to confirm.

So why is it not here? I mean, we pause some virus replication, but most of it is cleared. Then we stop the medication and the remainder is free to replicate again. But at the same time, the body should be high on all the flavours of anti-bodies (IgA, IgM ad IgG) and may have started to produce already some CD8 T memory cells as well. Either way, we just cleared let's say 99% of the virus be it with help of the anti-viral. So why does the immune system have such trouble stopping this let's say 1%? What is different compared to a re-exposure?

It seems that the immune training is impaired as well by the anti-viral!?

Or is this simply an artifact that the ones who get this anti-viral are typically people with poor immune function?

Expand full comment

So as someone who used to do PCR testing (well, I did the RNA extracting) the quantification comes down to the instrument and other factors. The rt-PCR instrument needed to be calibrated with a tray containing various concentrations of fluorescence to create a normal curve relative to fluorescence I believe.

For every PCR tray a positive control is added that serves as a reference for all the other testing wells. As for fluorescence, most assays use fluorescent labeled fragments of DNA that are cleaved after a cycle of amplification. Each gene has a different fluorescent tag which is how they differentiate the genes from one another.

Anyways, the PCR test measures at what cycle the fluorescence passes a threshold value. Then the instrument essentially can work retroactively I believe based on an exponential curve, such that:

Fixed viral load = [initial viral load] x base (greater than 1 but less than 2)^Ct

The instrument knows the viral load- it's the threshold that's crossed. The Ct count can be retroactively calculated, and the base value is likely based on the calibration. Plug all of them in and it gives the initial viral load which would tell you whether you are "infectious" using similar measures as outlined in the University of Washington protocol. However, because the initial viral load is related to the Ct count I think they usually stick with the Ct count and it's probably much easier to report.

I've written about my experiences as a COVID tester before. It's floating around in my Substack somewhere but I do remember writing about the sensitivity of these tests. I will tell you that human error is all over the place when doing COVID testing so something to keep in mind when evaluating the results.

Expand full comment

Fantastic post! Thank you for directing your attention and competence to this. I believe that we are just getting started really looking at paxlovid.

If I recall correctly, paxlovid was tested on unvaccinated people. If vaccinated people are disproportionally getting viral resurgence, this could be due to the following:

- The 5 day PAUSE button that is called Paxlovid, leads to mostly satisfactory results in UNvaccinated people, whose immune system can mount vigorous response during those 5 days, leading to only 20% viral resurgence

- If vaccinated people, due to immune system damage/tolerance to the spike antigen, are unable to create durable immune response during the same 5 day pause, it could explain resurgence in them.

In addition, it may be that Omicron, despite appearing mild, takes more time to clear and a five day PAUSE is not enough. As you or maybe Modern Discontent alluded to, it may be that the protease inhibitor needs to be given for longer (but hopefully not forever as you mentioned)

In addition, it may be that paxlovid trial was rigged, and resurgences were somehow masked by trial protocol.

Expand full comment
deletedApr 18, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Comment deleted
Expand full comment