The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Covid-19]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

Before I begin for those who want to call health-care workers "heroes": Damn near every single "doctor" and hospital are included in the title of this article, and throughout I shall prove it.

Let's start with President Trump and his HHS jackass who put into place financial incentives for people to wind up in the hospital, particularly those over 65 who are on Medicare, with even more financial incentives if you were put on a ventilator.

USA Today, hardly a "right wing conspiracy rag", said this back in April of 2020:

We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE.

Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it's considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.

May I remind you that on the data from Wuhan we knew that 90+% of the time being put on a ventilator was futile for Covid-19 patients, and again, we knew that in March.

Doubt me?  Here's the study data which I reported out at the time -- March of 2020.


Why would you pay three times more if you did a thing that had a 90+% rate of killing someone unless you wanted them to die?

That which you pay more for you will get more of -- every time.

Now you can go ahead and claim that nobody "falsified" the data with regard to hospitals and death certificates, that is, claimed someone had Covid-19 and it killed them when they didn't.

That doesn't matter when you get down to brass tacks.

What does matter is that we knew how to stop people from being killed by Covid-19 all the way back to the summer months, conclusively so, in nearly every case.  Yes, in some cases therapy and early intervention will fail (so do vaccines some of the time) but in most cases these therapies succeed.

When did we know that early intervention worked in old people particularly?

In April of 2020.

Did we make that something to be widely used immediately, back in April of 2020?

NO.  In fact we did the opposite; the NIH specifically recommended against the use of Ivermectin.

If you don't go to the hospital then the hospital doesn't make their extra money, particularly if you're 65+ and on Medicare.  If the hospital doesn't get you in there or you don't get sicker they don't get the even larger, three times larger, bonus from putting you on a machine that is extremely likely to kill you.  Who is at the greatest risk from Covid-19?  Those over 65 and thus on Medicare; statistically-speaking this is a disease that harms damn few younger individuals.

As the evidence piled up in the summer did we change the recommendations?


All the way to December we did not and indeed as of today the NIH position is "neutral"!

Again folks: These are real clinical physicians who are using this therapy in extremely high-risk patients with a 90-100% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths.  Not once, not twice, repeatedly in every case.  In addition there is not one failed clinical trial on record.

Why did we not strongly recommend and use Ivermectin despite the overwhelming evidence that it worked all the way back to April of 2020?

The $30,000 in extra payments to the hospital wasn't enough -- oh no, there were in fact tens of billions of dollars at stake, and your mother, grandfather or other family member had to be slaughtered in order to make sure that money flowed and kept flowing. 

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.

The EUAs for vaccines (and Remdesivir) were illegal if there was an adequate, approved and available alternative.  HCQ, Ivermectin (and budesonide) are all available and approved drugs.  This meant that in order to obtain EUAs for Remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies and the vaccines on an EUA basis it was necessary to deliberately deny that the use of these existing therapeutic agents were adequate even though the data was that their use prevented somewhere between 75 and 90% of all hospital admissions when used early and even when not used until hospital admission prevented the majority of intubations and deaths.

In other words the data is that they work as well as a vaccine.

If that is not "adequate" would you mind telling me what would be?

Our governments at the federal and state levels, all 50 states including those like Tennessee and Florida which have claimed to be "leaders" in Covid-19, deliberately sat back and let your loved ones be denied known safe and likely effective treatments for Covid-19 and the data says that as a direct result of that intentional refusal a whole lot of them are dead.

Mostbut not all physicians and hospitals not only went along with this bull**** they explicitly supported it and the hospitals got to bill Medicare for every person over 65 at a greatly elevated rate by doing so.

This is why the vast majority of those who Covid-19 killed have died.

Our local hospital's record here is that nearly 65% of those admitted for Covid-19 left in a box.

Damn near all of those individuals should have survived but then the roughly $5 million our local hospital obtained in "extra and triple-extra payments", assuming most or all of the 163 dead were on Medicare, would not have been paid out to them.

There was no medical reason for any of the hysteria, closures, mandates or anything else -- including vaccines.

Why are you still quietly putting up with this bull****, including mask mandates, business and school closures and more?

Our government, physicians and hospitals knew how to keep Covid-19 from being a serious threat to your health in April of 2020 with cheap and widely-available drugs just as physicians use antibiotics for bacterial infections on a daily basis that would otherwise be deadly.  Instead of using known safe and available existing drugs they intentionally let the virus kill nearly a half-million people along with the government destroying the education of our children and countless businesses and jobs for the explicit purpose of funneling billions of dollars to the medical and pharmaceutical industry, along with furthering the political aspirations of various actors all through the United States.

These were not deaths that occurred despite our "best efforts"; they were mass-homicide.

If you are willing to let your government slaughter your mother while believing their intentionally-false claim that wearing a diaper on your face "works" and as a result you sat back for the last year and watched 500,000 of your countrymen and women die rather than rising up and holding every one of those ghouls accountable for the unnecessary death they deliberately allowed for both political and financial profit then you are the monster.

In my nearly six decades of drawing breath on this rock I've never seen our government, until Covid-19 showed up, take actions that I believed were worthy of a no-bull**** uprising with essentially every government official at all levels being physically dragged out of office by their hair and tossed into the street with nothing more than their underwear remaining to their name.  Never in my adult life would I have believed that our government, with its alleged "checks and balances", would deliberately kill half a million American citizens over 12 months time by allowing them to choke on their own spit through the intentional concealment and outright suppression of known safe medical therapies via threats, executive orders, outright lies and even license suspensions for the explicit purpose of enriching certain "chosen people and corporations" both politically and economically.

Over the last 12 months I've read well over a hundred scientific and medical research papers and myriad references which in my opinion document conclusively that this is in fact exactly what happened at a level of proof more than sufficient to sustain criminal convictions.

I've given this virus and our government's response to it at all levels more than one full year of my effort as an independent journalist.

That ends today, February 28th, 2021.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-02-12 07:47 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 2236 references
[Comments enabled]  

No, really?

About 1 in 3 Americans say they definitely or probably won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new poll that some experts say is discouraging news if the U.S. hopes to achieve herd immunity and vanquish the outbreak.

I wonder why they're skeptical?

Maybe it's because those so-called "experts" are lying right then and there.

We must use vaccines to have "hope" of achieving herd immunity?

We already have herd immunity.

What does this look like?


Sure looks like herd immunity to me and it wasn't due to vaccines -- the peak occurred before any person had the shots and today we are just reaching the first people who have (1) had both shots and (2) waited the requisite 14 days for antibodies to build protection.

Yet the case rate is down by approximately 75% and hospitalization is down by more than half, with hospitalization peaking almost exactly two weeks later as expected.  Deaths are reported late (not back-dated to "date of") and will shortly start falling as well.

Let's go down the litany of lies, because if you expect people to believe the vaccines are "safe and effective" when pronounced by these very same experts then they must account and pay for their previous lies and the harm those lies have done.

  • "15 days to slow the spread"; it is now nearly a year later and we have not released the alleged "mitigations" that were claimed would control the pandemic.  The original two weeks turned into six of a near-complete lockdown in most of the nation.

  • "Asymptomatic transmission"; there is no science behind this.  Never once in the history of an epidemic has asymptomatic transmission been of any material consequence.  Oh, it happens, but very rarely.  peer reviewed paper in NATURE failed to find one such documented case with Covid-19 across 10 million people.  Yet it is the entire premise of mass-actions including mask orders, lockdowns, mass-testing of those without any sign of disease, business and school closures.  There is zero hard science supporting that premise; it is entirely made up based on computer models.  In addition to there being no hard science behind it the premise is mathematically implausible due to viral replication being exponential.

  • "Its all droplets"; Yes, it most-certainly was "droplets" between apartments in Hong Kong and China separated by ten floors with people who did not know each other, but who shared sinks and toilets on the same vertical drain line without P-traps.  The near-certainty that fecal transmission is part of the problem has been known since March of 2020 and deliberately ignored.  Further, that aerosol transmission was implicated in a meat-packing plant where they were able to sequence and trace the index case in Germany has also been ignored on purpose for the simple reason that if either is in play then none of the "NPI" interventions can possibly work.  Oh, golly gee, over time the data has proved that they don't work.

  • "Masks work"; No they don't -- the data is clear.  But the previous lie is utterly essential to this one, so it was maintained.  Never mind that the entire premise of masks can't work for anything other than gross (and very visible) sized spittle.  We've known this for 40 years as hard science via random controlled trial and there are zero controlled trials that have found otherwise.  An attempt to do so during Covid-19 had its publication deliberately interfered with because it did not show that masks worked (the Danish trial) with multiple journals refusing to publish the study not due to claimed problems with the study but because they did not agree with the results; specifically, the confidence interval spread raised the possibility that masks might actually increase infections.  Again: There has never been a single random controlled trial that has shown statistical evidence that common cloth, paper or surgical masks interrupt transmission of viral disease and there are multiple such trials that show they're worthless or may actually be harmful.  Oh, don't just believe me on the last three points -- read here too.

  • "Masks are better than vaccines"; Stated in sworn testimony by Dr. Redfield, the CDC's Director in September, with a plea for the people to wear them for 4, 6, or 8 weeks and the promise that if we did the pandemic would be under control.  Virtually the entire nation was in fact under such a mandate at the time and compliance in most areas was 90%+.  Less than one month after that statement was made the winter spike began reaching more than triple the case and hospitalization rate in virtually every state and locale irrespective of mandates.  Obviously that statement was false.  You now want people to believe that, given this recent and proximate false statement that anything else from the same organization about safety and effectiveness is true?

  • "The vaccines underwent extensive testing and are known safe";  Oh really?  They were not tested in (1) pregnant women, (2) old, medically frail people and (3) those who previously had Covid-19; all three were excluded from the trials.  Also excluded from the trials were children under 18.  VARES says 453 people have died associated with one (or both) Covid-19 shots as of the end of January.  The same query for seasonal flu vaccines (all of the sub-types selectable) from August of last year to now returns 20 deaths associated with flu vaccines.  By the CDC's own data the Covid-19 vaccines are twenty times as likely to be associated with your death as the seasonal flu shot and that is with incomplete administration for Covid; this year's flu shot round has all been administered by now.  Adjusting for a roughly 30% prevalence of flu vaccination, which is a decent guess, it appears the Covid-19 vaccines are somewhere between one hundred and two hundred times as likely to kill you as is the flu shot.  The varicella (Chicken Pox) vaccine over its entire period of administration has recorded only 161 associated deaths over nearly 30 years of use with just ONE death in 2020.   Does this, on a comparative basis, sound "safe" to you?  Further, the CDC refuses to commit to these vaccines producing sterilizing immunity because they did not require it to grant the EUA at the FDA which is why they refuse to tell you that you can discard the masks and distancing after being vaccinated.  Vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity are dangerous to the population as a whole even if they provide personal benefit.  In short it is entirely possible we are jabbing people with something dangerous to others and we are deliberately giving those jabs without knowing if this is true.

  • "Vaccines have a long and successful safety record"; True in the general case and irrelevant to this specific case.  The commonly used vaccines all have decades-long safety records and were fully tested in a process that typically takes at least five years -- and often more than ten years.  The Chicken Pox (varicella) vaccine took nearly 20 years to be certified. Further, vaccines that use whole killed or attenuated virus are well-understood and produce the same immune response as an actual infection does, minus the nasty infection consequences because they are the same thing.  This path was not used to produce vaccines for Covid-19 because coronaviruses have repeatedly proved to be unable to be safely vaccinated against via this path and in animal trials have killed the animals that received the shots when later infected by the same agent, likely due to natural mutations that potentiate ADE.  We do not know if the approach taken with these shots is safe over the intermediate and longer term because we were in a big hurry to get them out there rather than fully test them and thus did neither the animal trials nor did we take the several years it takes to find out in small test populations in humans.

  • "There are no safe and effective treatments"; This is flat-out false.  Both HCQ and Ivermectin (in particular the latter) are known safe having been used for decades in humans.  Both are also effective although once again Ivermectin appears to be wildly superior.  Then there's budesonide, which a Texas doctor claimed to have near-100% results with and also wasn't looked at because once again -- it's cheap and now has a study out in peer review that showed it was 90% effective.  These have been intentionally not trialed over the previous year by public health authorities and the state of both being safe has been lied about repeatedly by physicians and health officials because the EUA process for vaccines or any other drug requires that there be no safe and effective alternative.  In other words hundreds of thousands of people in the US were intentionally denied safe and likely effective treatments so as to make possible the accelerated rollout of these vaccines and roughly 300,000 of the 400,000+ dead expired as a result of intentionally-withheld treatments with decades-long safety records that might have prevented said deaths.  You now want to tell people after killing close to half a million in the US that your "alternative" is safe and effective and expect to be believed?

  • "The death reports are honest and the vaccines will stop it"; Oh really?  The CDC illegally changed the means of recording death causes in March of 2020 after using the previous methodology for decades including across multiple epidemics and pandemics.  As a government agency the OMB, PRA and APA legal requirements all apply to the CDC; all require written justification and a comment period.  These very requirements are why many of Trump's E/Os and unilateral changes were struck down in court; it was not that he did not have the authority but that irrespective of an E/O no agency can sidestep those requirements in implementing the changes.  The same is true here yet the CDC deliberately tampered with death certificate reporting without going through that procedure and by doing so made disentangling their change impossible as you cannot compare the two methodologies.  Are all 400,000+ of these deaths actually from Covid19?  We know that claim is false since there are over 14,000 deaths by suicide, poisoning and accident claimed in their own data set to be "caused" by Covid!  How many more are not really caused by Covid19?  We do not know; the CDC deliberately destroyed the very basis of public health reporting by changing the rules just for this specific condition.  The Florida House of Representatives investigated this set of circumstances and found that a huge percentage of alleged "Covid" deaths were not factually classifiable as being caused by Covid-19.  While is is clear that there was more death in 2020 what is not clear nor separable as a direct consequence of these reporting changes is how much of it was actually from Covid-19 and how much of it was caused by government mandates in the form of suicides, drug overdoses, deferred medical care and similar.

How much more do you need?

Were I at specific risk might I find that the vaccines, despite the lack of testing, intermediate and long-term data and the fact that they are using an approach never before attempted in humans to evade a known risk with coronavirus vaccines that might kill me, to be worth it for myself in an individual capacity? 


But for people without specific morbidity factors there is no way you can justify the shot on a comparative risk basis.  VARES says 453 people are dead associated with these shots as of the end of January.  The CDC claims that roughly 13 million Americans have received at least one dose as of the end of January.  That's a death rate of 0.00003, or statistically identical to the risk of dying from Covid-19 if you do not have any of the listed specific co-morbidities.  Note that while VARES reporting does not prove that shot is the cause of the result neither does being called a Covid-19 death prove that Covid was the cause of the result either by the CDC's own admission in their own data.

May I note again for those of you who can't be bothered to read that Chicken Pox, which in children has a death risk approximately equal to Covid-19, that is, roughly 4/100,000 (Covid-19 is about 3/100,000), has a vaccine that took roughly 20 years to be certified.  Over the last roughly 30 years of use the varicella vaccine has recorded a total of 161 associated deaths in VARES with just ONE DEATH in all of 2020.  Yet in less than two months for a disease with the same risk profile in healthy individuals the Covid-19 vaccines have recorded a stunning 453 associated deaths which is NEARLY THREE THOUSAND TIMES GREATER RISK OF DEATH ASSOCIATED WITH THE COVID 19 VACCINES THAN THAT FOR THE VARICELLA SHOT OVER A COMPARABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

The pharmaceutical industry would never be able to get a vaccine for any other condition through "full approval" in non-morbid individuals if the risk of dying from the vaccine was equivalent to the risk of dying if you got the infection.  If the Chicken Pox vaccines killed 3,000 kids a year there would be an uproar and the CDC would have been sacked and the earth on which it stood salted with diesel fuel years ago.  Yet that is exactly what the data from the CDC's own databases show for these Covid vaccines if you do not have any of the specific known morbid factors.

It is abundantly clear that these shots are not approvable for other than at-risk population segments on the basis of the CDC's own data known and published alone and in addition are several thousand times as dangerous as the shot for Chicken Pox and roughly 100 times as dangerous as a flu shot.  What's worse is that unlike the Chicken Pox shot these shots are presumed to be an annual thing so the risk is not taken once it is taken once per year.

Again note that this death rate for the disease itself is without widespread use of Ivermectin or HCQ in the United States.  With it the death rate may be materially lower.  Additionally Israel apparently has uncovered a compound that has no serious side effect risk in their trials and is 100% effective. They are proceeding to Phase III trials with this compound, and since it's not a vaccine mutations will not evade it unlike vaccines which will likely be evaded by natural viral mutation.  But what is clear thus far is that for people without any such co-morbidity the vaccinations are approximately equally dangerous as infection, if you the take the shot the risk is certain but infection is not certain and as a result the shot is more dangerous than the risk of exposure to the disease in persons without one or more of those comorbid factors.

Skepticism is, in other words, quite-clearly warranted on nothing more than the CDC's own data, and that ignores all of the previous lies told by government and other public-health agencies back to last March.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-02-08 07:36 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 4212 references
[Comments enabled]  

Vaccines that mimic infections have proved over time to be one of the medical discoveries that have saved countless lives, second only to perhaps antibiotics and surgical anesthesia.  But antibiotics can and often are misused, and their misuse leads to promotion of "super strains" of bacteria that can be extremely difficult -- and, on current trajectories, it is projected impossible in the future -- to control.

The common -- and safe -- vaccines given to people all work on the same basic principle: You take a virus, either attenuate it by modifying it so it cannot replicate well in a human cell (often by passing it through other animal cells) or kill it outright and then give it to the person or animal to be protected.  The recipient's immune system believes it is being attacked by the original disease and mounts an immune response.

But -- there is no, or only a very weak disease.

What you're left with is the same outcome you'd have from natural infection if you were to survive it in terms of immunity.  The immune "memory", in B and T cells, along with antibodies, looks identical -- or very close to identical -- as if you got the actual disease and suffered through it.

Qualifying these vaccines is primarily a process of making sure that they do not revert to their virulent form in the body, a risk that can happen with an attenuated vaccine product.  These vaccines produce "sterilizing" immunity in the recipient -- that is, you cannot get the infection again as your immune system will interdict the bug before replication can take place to any material degree, and thus if exposed later you will never have a material viral titer.  Without a viral titer you cannot shed anything and thus you also can't give the infection to someone else.

It is this key fact that makes most routine vaccines safe in terms of not potentiating mutations that all viruses undergo.  A vaccinated person who has "sterilizing immunity" cannot become part of a chain of replication for a mutated strain that is more-virulent because they are incapable of transmitting the virus to someone else.  The exception among the common vaccines used today in the US is polio; the injected form does not produce sterilizing immunity and this is only safe to do in the US because polio has not circulated in the US since the late 1970s.  When it was circulating we used a combination of both the shot and the oral attenuated vaccine for this very reason; the oral vaccine occasionally can and does produce polio but it also produces sterilizing immunity.  In parts of the world where polio still circulates the oral form is still used for this exact reason.

Coronaviruses, which infect not just humans but also domesticated and food-source animals, generally cannot be vaccinated against in this fashion; neither can HIV and a few other forms of viruses.  The reasons are different for each family of viruses where it does not work but all boil down to the virus' characteristics and mutation patterns, along with how your B cells respond.  With coronaviruses the problem is that attenuated viral vaccine attempts have repeatedly reverted to the virulent form in the body, usually after a couple of hundred passes through cells on average.  In addition these attempts in animals have repeatedly produced ADE instead of protection; in other words, instead of protecting the recipient they make a future infection worse, usually killing the infected animal (in particular this occurred with a candidate for a vaccine against a coronavirus that primarily infects cats.)

That has led to the various "novel" attempts at vaccines developed this time around for Covid-19.  This is not the first time we've tried this sort of thing, although it is the first time in humans.

Unfortunately the history of vaccines in the animal world with non-sterilizing immunity has taught us lessons that we apparently have set aside in our haste for a Covid-19 answer.  To understand the problem you must understand the natural progression of viruses generally.

It is to the advantage of a virus to spread widely, of course.  It's not that a virus has a mind, but rather that the more-widely it spreads without killing the host the more replicants of it there are.  It therefore "wins" genetically.  A virus that violently attacks a host and disables or kills the host before it is passed to another victim loses; a clearly-diseased human will be shunned by others, and one that is dead cannot interact with anyone else.  Thus by pure mathematics viruses as they mutate tend to favor less-virulent but more easily-transmitted mutations; those are more-successful in getting passed on to others before their more-virulent cousin manages to infect the same person and, as the population gains antibodies so long as the immunity has cross-reaction capacity those particular mutations are the ones most-likely to get passed on and the more-virulent ones are selected against.

A vaccine that mimics natural infection does not tamper with this process because from the virus' point of view a person vaccinated is someone already infected.  There is no difference in regard to how the virus behaves when it encounters someone who was either previously sick or vaccinated with such a formulation.

This is not true for vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity or worse, do not mimic natural infections at all.

Specifically it is very possible for such a vaccine to actually make it more-likely that a deadlier form of the virus will survive and in fact thrive!  If the vaccine prevents you from getting seriously ill or dying but not from developing a viral titer and being able to pass the infection to others then it erases the natural disadvantage that mutations making a virus more deadly would otherwise have.

That raises the risk of stopping or even reversing the natural mutation processes by which easily-communicable viruses decrease in their capacity to kill people.

Take SARS.  SARS died out quite quickly because you were not able to effectively transmit it until you were quite ill to the point that anyone who saw you would have good cause to think you were sick and it killed a large percentage of those infected.  Thus it very frequently failed to find a new host; general human revulsion to people who are violently ill, once word got out that "it might be SARS" kept a person afflicted from effectively giving it to others, and as a result the virus killed itself off by failing to propagate in a very short period of time.

Now consider a vaccine that makes SARS a low-level cold nuisance or a "silent" infection but does not produce sterilizing immunity.  A widely-vaccinated population would spread SARS like wildfire through the world and anyone unable to be vaccinated, who had their immunity wear off or who was not vaccinated would get it and DIE.

Such a vaccine would take the few thousand deaths from SARS and turn it into tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of deaths, selecting with vicious efficiency for extermination the elderly who poorly responded to a vaccine or were unable to take it due to serious illness where the vaccine might kill them outright, those with cancer, people with autoimmune diseases who could not be vaccinated, those who couldn't afford vaccination and those who either decided not to take the shot or who's immunity wore off.

Is this a realistic risk from the Covid-19 vaccines?

YES, and if it happens there will be exactly nothing we can do about it.

Remember that the CDC and other "authorities" are telling you point-blank that they do not believe these vaccines produce sterilizing immunity.  That is, you cannot take off your mask, stop distancing and resume your normal life after being vaccinated.  Why not?  There is only one reasonable explanation: They do not believe the vaccines prevent you from being infected and producing a titer of virus sufficient to infect others -- the vaccines only decrease the rate of severe disease and death.

Such "vaccines" must NEVER be given on a widespread basis to the public when a particular virus is circulating in the population as doing so risks a catastrophic mutation cascade that will kill tens or even hundreds of millions of peopleWhile numerically the risk of this occurring is likely quite small the consequence if it does happen is catastrophic and thus that course of action should never be undertaken.  A vaccine that behaves this way is simply never safe in the general population; the only rational use is in very high-risk individuals who make up a too-small and non-concentrated portion of the population to form a disease chain vector for a more-virulent mutation.

Today Covid-19 is not a very virulent virus, despite all the screaming Karens.  If infects easily but only kills, statistically, those who are seriously morbid in the first place.  The primary factor is not age contrary to people's assertions -- the NYC Coroner data makes this crystal clear but the media and our so-called "experts" are knowingly lying even with nearly a year's worth of said data now under our belts.  Simply put if you are not severely-morbid the odds of Covid-19 killing you are about 3/100,000 irrespective of age if you get infected -- that is, 0.003%.  Or, if you prefer, 99.997% of the time you will survive.

The risk is not age-specific; you can literally count on your fingers the number of people over 75 who do not have one of the listed conditions that Covid-19 has killed in NYC.

This is a very mild disease in those who are not morbid -- in fact it is materially less dangerous than the flu which more-frequently kills young people with no particular morbidity.  That doesn't mean it can't kill someone without one or more known risk factors -- it most-certainly can and occasionally does, just as Chicken Pox did occasionally kill a child who got it.  But unless you have one of a particular list of morbid conditions you accept far more risk of death by using a passenger car, either as a driver or passenger, over a period of about six months.

Now if you do have one or more of those conditions you're at materially higher risk.

But even so -- perspective is important.  We have learned how to treat this disease and in many cases how to prevent it from transmitting from one person to another using prophylaxis, not vaccines.  If you are one of the people who is not going to get seriously hurt or killed from a public health perspective your infection is beneficial to the community as a whole.

The question of whether your vaccination is likewise beneficial is not known.  We cannot say that it is identically beneficial as an infection because these vaccines are not mimicking natural infections; they intentionally target only part of the viral structure because attenuated vaccines are known to be unsafe with coronaviruses in that they revert and wind up causing disease -- so to avoid that they intentionally didn't use the entire virus.  Instead they "engineered" an injection that causes your body to produce the spike (and only the spike) and then your immune system produces antibodies to that.

But -- this means we do not know if you can get infected and emit the virus toward others after being vaccinated.  We did not study it in the lab because challenge studies are generally not ethically permissible in humans, we did not do the animal trials and there has been insufficient data from infections and monitoring the population yet here we are jabbing people willy-nilly without knowing this critical fact.

These vaccines should have never been put into widespread use until and unless we knew if they produced sterilizing immunity as that should always be a gating requirement for widespread use of any vaccine.  By using them widely, if they do not produce sterilizing immunity, we take the very real risk of promulgating a much more-lethal strain of Covid-19 that would otherwise fail to find traction statistically and thus harm very few before it is outcompeted instead spreading it worldwide, and for those who have had their immunity wane, who cannot be vaccinated due to immune or medical compromise (e.g. anyone undergoing cancer treatment which damages the immune system) or otherwise that strain will result in a massive amount of mortality.

This is not conjecture folks -- it has happened in animal husbandry and has resulted in avian flu potentiation wildly beyond what used to be the case.  Avian flu strains used to kill a fair number of birds who contracted it but now, as a result of vaccines that do not present sterilizing immunity it is now nearly universally fatal among poultry.  If such is detected in a flock today the usual response is immediate culling of the entire population at that location because it is nearly-certain to be fatal to the infected birds anyway and if it gets out of that facility and into another one it will kill all the birds there too.

The nightmare scenario is one in which the virus mutates in this fashion and in the process evades the vaccines as well in which case you now have not a 3/100,000 risk of dying but a 1/100 or even 10/100 risk with no effective means to stop it at all.

The odds are relatively low that this will occur will but the path for it to happen has been deliberately opened up by distributing vaccines on a widespread basis, not just to those at the highest risk (e.g. nursing home patients) without first proving up that they do produce sterilizing immunity and refusing to approve those that do not.

This was and is stupid and if we lose the bet there will be literally nothing we can do about it other than suck it up and watch the worldwide population get nailed to whatever degree occurs.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2020-12-18 06:47 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 5446 references
[Comments enabled]  

I truly don't know how much more-clear I can make it than this.  I understand people don't read any more, and they certainly don't do their own research.  Damn near all I do is read when someone tells me something is true; I never take it at face value, especially when, if I'm wrong, I might be dead.  I don't care how many letters you have after your name; with 40 years of writing code for money under my belt I've known far too many PhDs who's degree had its best and highest use as birdcage liner.

Eight minutes is all I ask folks.  All the government's data, not mine. A Medical School's (full of doctors, of course) protocol, not mine.  Two dozen medical studies including ten random controlled trials, the gold standard of medicine with 100% positive results.

Do this and the entire Covid mess is literally over in one week.

No bull****.

Get your jackets, your posterboard, your big Sharpie Markers and picket the Hospital, picket the local doctor's office, picket their house, picket every damned politician you can find and light up their phones to the point that their voicemail is clogged and useless.  Make every one of their lives insufferable just as they've made yours while they ghoulishly watched your loved ones die, clutching their pearls and clucking at you.  The willful and intentional refusal to do basic elementary school math has killed over 150,000 Americans quite possibly including your grandmother.  Why the hell are you not only letting them get away with it but willing to stand in line and take a not-fully-tested shot when a $2 alternative that does the same thing and has been proved safe over more than 30 years of time is available, and it also has a remarkable record of preventing serious disease and death.   This has been known for months.

We can stop Covid-19 in ONE WEEK.

One.  Not five, six, eight or ten as promised by Dr. Redfield with his "masks" who, I remind you, lied.  Covid-19 did not stop even though he got what he wanted.

The science and the CDC's own data says this will work in ONE WEEK.

And the risk if it doesn't work as the science and math says it will?

STATISTICALLY NONE; the drug in question has had over 3.5 billion doses dispensed worldwide and, on the data, is safer than Tylenol and the number of pills you must take is two.

Not two per day.



View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2020-12-07 18:08 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 3296 references
[Comments enabled]  

Folks, it's pretty simple.

At the start of this thing back in March and April I pointed out that if you cut the vectors off for this (or any other) disease it stops being a problem.  I was hellbent on going after the people working in hospitals and nursing homes for this reason, since not only were they a major vector but they were giving the virus to vulnerable people that it was far more-likely to kill as well.

Nobody listened.

Well, months have gone by and now we have more data.  So let's use it.

FACT: The only STATISTICALLY material transmission vectors for Covid-19 are nosocomial (by definition every transmission into a nursing home is that) and household.

The CDC in fact says that a majority (given the current Rt estimates) of transmission happens in households.

In fact here's the MMWR paper on it:

For this analysis, 101 households (including 101 index patients and 191 household members) were enrolled and completed ≥7 days of follow-up. .... Among all household members, 102 had nasal swabs or saliva specimens in which SARS-CoV-2 was detected by RT-PCR during the first 7 days of follow-up, for a secondary infection rate of 53% (95% CI = 46%–60%) (Table 2). Secondary infection rates based only on nasal swab specimens yielded similar results (47%, 95% CI = 40%–54%). 

If you have it you will sustain community transmission statistically within your own household alone.  That is, one person gets it for each person who has it, which means no matter how many masks you force people to wear, no matter how many schools you close and no matter how many restaurants and bars you shutter THIS WILL NEVER STOP UNTIL HERD IMMUNITY IS REACHED.  If you slow it down for a bit as soon as you relax anything it comes roaring back because as soon as it gets into a house it finds enough people to keep virusing.

This marks every bit of sanction on businesses, schools and mask orders in public places worthless by simple mathematics.  You cannot maintain those public constraints forever but even if you could it does not matter as transmission in households is sufficient standing alone to keep the virus spreading in the community.

But... this also means that if you shut both of those vectors down so that transmission through them effectively ceases then nothing else matters the in other direction either (masks, shutdowns, capacity limits, etc) because all of those other vectors together are insufficient to maintain transmission (Rt) over 1.0 and as a result it's over.

We know how to do it.  Right now.  Today.  For pennies.


Here's the data:


Got it folks?  This is health care workers using standard PPE as control, and the trial group added Ivermectin and carrageenan (snorted, basically; it's a cheap food additive but is not probably actually active.  Won't hurt you though -- it's an extract from a species of red seaweed)

Zero infections occurred in the trial group.


That's ONE HUNDRED percent effective .vs. 11% who got infected using MASKS without the Ivermectin -- these are health care workers who have been trained to maintain protocol which nobody in the general public has been or will.

Adverse events in the trial group from taking the drug?  ZERO.

That's right -- not one adverse event.  Unlike the vaccines which are reported to be very uncomfortable -- and we hope there's nothing nasty that surfaces when we start using them on a mass basis.  Do remember that this drug in particular has had billions of doses dispensed and consumed -- not a few tens of thousands.

So how do you cut Covid off?


All health care workers are offered the protocol after personal medical advice.

All nursing home and other high-risk persons are offered this protocol under personal medical advice.  Ivermectin is extremely cheap, about a buck a pill if that, unbelievably safe and not a daily pill, in this use it's once a month.

If you test positive you are handed a pill for yourself and each member of your household with instructions to eat them immediately again, under personal medical advice rendered to you and your household members.  That both treats you and provides a high degree of protection for everyone else in the house from getting it from you.

The Egyptian study showed 80% effectiveness as prophylaxis for Ivermectin among household members of confirmed infected persons.

It also cut the early use mortality rate from 4% to ZERO.

The expected results of oral Ivermectin distribution to at-risk, health care, and everyone in the household of someone diagnosed including the patient?

80% prevention of contagion to other members of the household.

80% reduction of transmission to at-risk people.

Nearly 100% reduction in death for those who are given the drug early.  Yes, it won't work for everyone I'm sure.  But if it's 90% that's a hell of a lot better than we have now, and the Egyptian data says that 99% of those who you intervene early with never need a hospital.  In other words the entire hospital "overload" problem disappears immediately.

In addition the Rt, effective transmission rate, is dampened by approximately 0.5 which is enough to drop it under 1.0 everywhere in the United States.  There is no need for masks, for business or school closures or capacity limits of any sort because the primary vectors are eliminated and transmission cannot be maintained.

Do this and the entire "pandemic" is over in ONE WEEK.



The two primary vectors are cut off and that's the end of it.  Those who get it are, with a high degree of reliability, treated and recover at home.  Statistically nobody goes to the hospital and nobody dies.

Statistically zero people who are not today infected need to die from this point forward.


Further, if you're one of the people who wishes to claim this is "unproved" no it isn't.  As documented in Senate testimony it has been proved in multiple parts of multiple nations which adopted this regime and saw the infection and death rate immediately collapse against other parts of the same region or nation.  Never mind that there is effectively zero risk to adopting this strategy; if some county or state takes this step and it does not work you will know within a week and you've harmed nobody.  But if it does work you also will know within one week as the change will be immediately evident and continue.

Note that this is not simply the ranting of some Internet wunderkind; it is in fact the protocol recommended by EVMS, originally developed as potentially effective by a medical group in Broward FL six months ago and used in multiple other nations and portions of nations which is how all this data has been generated.

I remind you we've known that Ivermectin works since June, so everyone in the political, medical and so-called "science" communities who have sat on their ass and screamed about MAAAASSSSSSSKKKKSSSS for the last five months instead, sending people home with nothing until they're choking to death are in fact murderous bastards.

We've known how to cut this bug off at the knees by making it unable to infect another person, on average, for each person infected for nearly six months and every one of those *******s willfully and intentionally ignored this in favor of "vaccines" and WORTHLESS mask orders.

Cut the bull**** folks.

Willful ignorance is not an excuse.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)