Oppositional Science

I would like to call attention to the writings of Brian Mowrey. I see Mowrey as a kind of “skeptics’ skeptic”. He is avowedly opposed to the mRNA shots, but is on a mission to correct the mistakes of others who are also opposed to these shots.

To get an idea of his stance, and the importance of having many different viewpoints on the subject of the Standard Covid Narrative(s), here is part of a comment he wrote on his own post on PCR fidelity:

[I]n a regular blog ecosystem, one way you generate content is to say “look at this writer’s post, I disagree with it but here is what it says.” And that in turns gets the other writers’ post out to people with a different perspective and with a framing that works for them. And everyone is doing that, whether in a “here’s an interesting thought” sense or a “what a moron” sense. If you are an interesting moron, you are in the best spot, but either way everyone benefits.

But because in oppositional science, everyone is pretending to have all the answers and always be right, you get none of that kind of dialogue and dissemination of ideas.

As you will see in that post, he’s presenting the ideas of JJ Couey (“replication-incompetent virus swarms” and “PCR useless”), and showing where he agrees and disagrees. This kind of thing is the way forward if we Narrative Opponents are to make any progress. Entirely dismissing another writer because you disagree with some of their ideas is a good way to miss something important that could change your mind. While I still find some of Mowrey’s ideas hard to accept (“ivermectin is useless”, “mRNA shots prevent serious illness”), I enjoy being challenged by these ideas, because it keeps me from being lazy and complacent.

Another example of the challenge Mowrey presents is his take on the arguments against masks. He believes that masks are a “perverted, antisocial insanity”. Hence, focusing on things like the Cochrane review to show that masks don’t work is “never relevant”. Instead, he says that only a political argument against masks is valid.

Here’s an even more challenging post, on the subject of vaccine efficacy against death. Here, Mowrey uses some new data to confirm his belief that the mRNA shots may prevent excess death, perhaps for a limited period. Yet Mowrey also believes that no amount of deaths from Covid would justify lockdowns or mass experimentation via the mRNA shots. This seems entirely reasonable to me. The great challenge for me comes when Mowrey says:

Denying that the virus kills is failing to argue that we should still have freedom, and avoid experimenting on humanity, anyway.

Denying that the experimental vaccines maybe reduce severe disease is failing to argue that we should still have freedom, and avoid experimenting on humanity, anyway.

I find this challenging, because I would like to think that it’s possible to believe that the shots did not reduce severe illness, and still argue that we should have freedom. In other words, I don’t see that these two things (denying the efficacy of the shots, desiring freedom) are mutually exclusive.

So in summary, I recommend Mowrey, even if you don’t agree with everything he says.