Mar 18, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

So, probably couldn't pass a quiz on the science here but definitely appreciate the 'laugh out loud' humor.

Expand full comment
Jan 30, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey

Well, reading the study and your discussion of it, it seems once again that the alchemy masquerading as medical "science" has once again shown itself for what it is not. The authors, having demonstrated that they have little control over extraneous random factors in their trial, all of which would tend to randomize results, then proceed to claim that clearly non-random results must be due to such factors and the study being underpowered. Sure, we might as well stick the eyes of science and statistical probability deep into the sand and declare confidently that significant data are quite as likely due to astrological syzygy.

The weakness of OD measurements (from experience of having performed tens of thousands of them, including designing, building and calibrating radiometric instruments for the purpose) is that they are almost always resolution-poor. They are aggregative measurements, from a specific sample area, which usually leads to either oversampling or undersampling errors. Impressions of medical instrumentation used for OD measurement (most of my work is with remote sensor instrumentation) are that they are typically poorly designed, engineered, and calibrated, with no flexibility to vary spatial nor temporal sampling. This tends to increase random errors, never decreasing them in my experience. That fact alone, which is clearly visible on the data chart, adds significance to the observed effect of syncytin reactivity.

Expand full comment
Dec 18, 2021Liked by Brian Mowrey

Seems to me you know what you're talking about. But you're too much in love with writing and English and too unrestrained to get your message across to us.

The discourse appears to be about three things:

The people who did the test and how the did it

The author himself

The results of the test.

And in the finish I don't know the unequivocal scientific message as pertains to the result.

Which is actually the only thing I'm concerned about.

So I seize upon this:

" as regards the biggest question of all, the study could never have possibly told us anything"

and use that as the take home message: the test is meaningless.


Expand full comment
Dec 17, 2021Liked by Brian Mowrey

I understand your point about the two graphs not having comparable Y axes. Can you make them comparable?

Expand full comment

Thank you for this important critique, also entertainingly written.

Expand full comment

"rather than on the mRNA package, or the epithelial cell generation and expression of SARS-CoV-2 s-protein that it induces"

Does this sentence say the mRNA vaccine generates epithelial cells?

Expand full comment