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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

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.

2021-01-25 08:02 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 62 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh, now Birx claims she didn't actually produce all those slides she put forward.

What's next?  Will she claim she didn't ask for mask mandates?

Oh c'mon folks.  This is transparent hogwash.  So is the nonsense about needing 80%+ coverage of vaccines (and that infection is "worthless") before herd suppression occurs that her and Fauci have been running.  There is zero science behind that claim.

Zero.

Never mind that we already have suppression right here in Tennessee; it's also evident in North and South Dakota along with myriad other states.  It is happening irrespective of whether a state or locale took mitigating steps or not, or how seriously they took them.  Specifically, South Dakota mandated nothing yet it had the same shape curve as everyone else -- including those who forcibly shut businesses, issued mask orders and closed schools.

How is it that with about 12% of the population allegedly infected there (if you believe the "positive test" numbers, which we know are garbage as they produce false positives somewhere between 66-75% of the time) these states have seen a cliff-style drop in infections, hospitalizations and deaths?  How is it that Tennessee is right behind them by a few weeks?  What's the common factor?  Latitude.  As you'd expect colder weather started there a bit earlier, people went inside and stopped getting Vitamin D from the sun a bit earlier, and they got hammered earlier.

We knew how to stop that in the spring and summer and told.... nobody.

I've been doing exactly that since spring with both outdoor exposure to the sun and now, in the cooler months, supplements.  I've been exposed to Covid-19 multiple times -- I've literally lost count from people who clearly had it, loss of taste and smell being the predominant way they knew it wasn't something else -- and I didn't get it.  I wore a mask around zero of them, and they wore one zero percent of the time around me.  I know I didn't get it.  I have antibody tests and I'm negative.

We knew very early on that somewhere between a third to a half or more of all people had some amount of pre-existing immunity despite not having antibodies, so their immunity had to be from some other virus.  We don't know which one but it's a fair bet it's one of the common circulating coronaviruses that cause colds and flus.

Maybe prophylaxis is why I didn't get it, maybe I'm one of the 50% that has a level of pre-existing immunity, or maybe I'm the luckiest SOB alive and managed to dodge every single viral particle in the air around me for nine months running.

Covid-19 has now joined those endemic viruses and will never, ever be gone.  Deal with it folks -- whether you like it or not, that's reality.  Drop a deuce (or a W88) on China if you'd like but do not forget that it was the NIH that was funding the research over there.  Guess who that means?  Fauci and his wife.  What does his wife do?  She's the chief of Bioethics at the NIH.  You'd think bioethics might have come into play when we're talking about doing gain-of-function research eh?

In addition we've now seen two clean "rescues" of people who were literally dying by a judge who ordered Ivermectin to be continued when a hospital tried to refuse.  Both cases in New York.  Why does a hospital have the right to refuse a patient's demand to use a legal medication?  If I can check myself out of the hospital "against medical advice" (I can) why can they refuse to give me something that I believe will work that is able to be legally prescribed and consumed in the United States?  When did we allow these *******s to arrogate to themselves the power to kill you by withholding that which you insist on and which is a lawful substance?  Exactly who's ass is it laying there in the bed anyway?

How many times do these so-called "experts" get to lie, and be proved liars, before you tell them all to go to Hell and mean it?

If you can't keep people alive with your "expert" advice then you obviously suck and there is no reason for anyone to listen to you.  What they have been mandating is clearly wrong since it is not working.  We've known for decades that masks do not work as source control and closing schools is catastrophically bad, among others.  Yet we let these people do it anyway.

Why?

If you think I'm going to believe their "vaccine" is safe based on nothing more than their claims, or that someone who has already had Covid and recovered should take the jab -- a wildly fanciful load of crap that has exactly zero scientific basis -- after I've already caught them lying and not caring about whether you and your loved ones live or die you're out of your ****ing mind. 

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-01-17 17:50 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 758 references
[Comments enabled]  

Note this:

The administration will also stop holding back millions of doses reserved for the second round of shots of Pfizer and Moderna’s two-dose vaccines, the official said, adding they released doses that had been held in reserve on Sunday.

....

President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team announced Friday that his administration planned to release all doses held in reserve.

Folks, there is no science whatsoever on what happens if you get one shot and then don't get the other on the correct schedule, or at all.  Indeed the folks from Pfizer and Moderna immediately threw shade on that with good reason; they have no idea what will happen because it was never investigated.  Indeed, if one shot was enough they never would have tested or required two.

There is no reason to believe you will get any protection of substance unless you complete the sequence on schedule, which was just intentionally destroyed by both Trump and Biden.

Why would you do this?

That sort of action sounds insane and isunless you know the vaccine is worthless other than as a psyop because natural immunity in the population will suppress transmission before the antibodies produced by the vaccine can build and provide that very same suppression.

There is no other sane explanation for this action.

Again, timelines folks.

You need two stabs and the antibody titer is not present and stable until approximately four weeks after the second one.  This means that you are not protected from infection for six to eight weeks after the first stab.

Do you need protection in North Dakota now, say much less in eight weeks?

 

No -- it's over.

By the time you build antibodies in Tennessee -- roughly the middle of February for the first people, and end of February for the "second group", will you need protection of those antibodies?

 

No, it will be over.  It is in fact, on the data, over now; the peak is four weeks past and as expected hospitalization is headed down.

Look at Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin; other states north of Tennessee.  They are all well past the winter peak except New York and New Jersey (along with a couple of other places that went full-on stupid), which locked down everything and spread out time rather than the cases.

The vaccines are, at this point for virtually the entire land-mass of the United States, nothing more than a psychological crutch.  By the time nearly everyone gets the second dose and antibodies build the peak will be past and the danger over.

In other words all of it was a waste of both time and money.

The only plausible and sane explanation for what both administrations are doing is that the vaccines carry only risk at this point and the CDC knows it which is why they are willing to endorse and in fact promote the risk of destroying your ability to get the second dose of these vaccines on schedule.

That is why they, and both the Trump and Biden administrations, are doing that which is otherwise scientifically and medically indefensible -- releasing doses that those who got the first stab must have on time or they are likely to get no protection whatsoever.

THERE IS NO OTHER LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

I've been tracking Covid-19 since spring here in my own county, along with others in Tennessee and in multiple states in aggregate.

Tennessee has reached suppression.  It is too early for the vaccines to have built antibodies; they are just starting second shots, and it requires 3-4 weeks after that before you have a protective level -- assuming all goes well, of course.  Therefore the earliest that the vaccine could start to suppress transmission is approximately the end of February.

Yet we reached a peak in "cases", on a 7-day moving average basis, one month ago.  This county tracked almost exactly the state's curve in that regard.  The 7 day average is down by 50% since that point and collapsing rapidly.  Within the next month it should be under 1/5th to 1/10th of the peak.

Hospitalization has peaked too, but of course more-recently.  The peak was roughly 10 days ago.  Again, this is normal.  While the "cases" rate is full of false positives you cannot false positive bodies in beds, so that's accurate.

In other words for Tennessee it is over; we reached the natural suppression point as a result of infections, not vaccinations, and our state is, like the rest, refusing to use Ivermectin as both prophylaxis and treatment despite the overwhelming evidence that it works.  The width of the spike is approximately equal to that in North and South Dakota, but a bit behind, exactly as expected (they lose natural Vitamin D production and warmth ahead of us.)  North Dakota is dropping all their constraints.  We should do so immediately; they have served no purpose, the data is what it is.  All we're doing is being stupid; none of those measures ever did help because they couldn't.

But look at what's happened here in the last 4 weeks, starting approximately when they began stabbing people.

 

Let me explain this graph a bit.  The blue is the daily reported "positive tests" and the red is the 7 day moving average of that, both on the left-hand scale in number of cases.  The black line is the total percentage of people who leave the hospital in a box since the beginning who are admitted for that disease (right-hand scale.)  For any new disease the fatality percentage will decrease as you learn more about it and how to treat it, assuming you are not monsters who either intentionally kill patients by continuing to use "treatments" that prove themselves harmful rather than helping or intentionally mis-classifying death from some other cause.

In short that black line should not happen, ever; it is prima-facia evidence of either manslaughter by negligence or intentional misclassification of death.

Now allegedly only a very few people have been reported dead or having had severe reactions to the vaccine in VARES, the CDC's "vaccine registry."  Nevertheless the serious adverse event risk appears to be, even if you believe the VARES data, about 10x that of the flu vaccine.

And I use the word "allegedly" because I'd like some explanation that does not involve fraud, that is, calling a bunch of dead people in this county who actually expired from the vaccine being attributed to Covid.

Why do I say that?

Because I cannot come up with a realistic and organic explanation why our local hospital has seen a sudden and unexplainable 67% increase in the fatality rate among those admitted with "Covid" that does not involve either misclassification or willful misconduct (that is, manslaughter), and the motive to do either or both is transparent if you are hell-bent to get people to take the shot even though you know damn well it has a wildly-elevated risk of killing or seriously injuring them compared with seasonal flu and other vaccinations.  If, after all the advocacy by every public official in the land and the relatively small number of shots given in this county thus far, 20 turned around and fell over dead within the next couple of weeks after getting stabbed you'd get lynched.

Do fatality rates go up and down?  Certainly.  But that's not a small change and it correlates with when they started stabbing people.

I know, I know, I should trust the government and they would never lie about something like this -- right?

Just like they told us that we only needed to stay indoors and close things down for fifteen days to slow the spread and that there was "no evidence" repurposed drugs -- specifically Ivermectin -- worked at all when from the data it was clear that in both cases they were lying?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-01-15 10:28 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 1322 references
[Comments enabled]  

From here:

NIH has upgraded their recommen­da­tion and now considers Ivermectin an option for use in COVID-19.

Which we knew likely worked starting in March.

Which we knew on the strength of scientific evidence THIS SUMMER.

Which, unlike masks, is an effective prophylaxis -- we knew that by the middle to late summer and into the fall.

WHICH WE KNEW BY EARLY FALL WAS AS EFFECTIVE IN PROPHYLAXIS AS A VACCINE YET WAS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, WAS APPROXIMATELY AS EXPENSIVE AS ASPIRIN AND HAD 30+ YEARS OF TESTING AND DATA BEHIND IT FOR SAFETY.

 

In addition unlike a vaccine which requires six to eight weeks for antibodies to build this is effective immediately and thus if given to all persons in a household when one got sick would cut off transmission and end the outbreak in one week, as I previously pointed out.

Which we did not use, intentionally, to "protect" the EUA process on said vaccines, because it is illegal to issue an EUA if there is a safe and effective alternative.

Which, in conclusion, is directly responsible for more than half of the total death count and about 3/4 of it in my county.

And by the way, since there is no profit in this drug it is the direct responsibility of public health agencies such as the NIH, Vander****s, Johns KillyourKins and others to fund and conduct studies on potential therapies of this sort since nobody has a financial incentive to do so.  They intentionally did not, choosing to push vaccines and masks instead and for this they should be disbanded and the "scientists" at same, including Fauci, criminally prosecuted.

I've been reporting on this since it started.

I appeared three times in sequence to point out the bull**** of "mask orders" in our county before our County Commission and have sent multiple letters to both commissioners and our Mayor.  All have been ignored, three quarters and counting of the deaths in this county occurred after those appearances and now the NIH confirms I was and am right.

Indictments.

NOW.

And shove your (and their) worthless masks up THEIR asses.

smiley

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-01-12 08:31 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 291 references
[Comments enabled]  

Which is the handed out like candy?  Birth control pills.

May I just cite a few statistics from the scientific literature?

In a separate study published in The Lancet, researchers determined that the excess risk for nonfatal VTEs linked to this new generation of OCPs to be 16/100,000 woman years. 

16/100,000 significant adverse event risk for this one specific condition, venous thrombosis.

But.... we're just getting started!  Use of the pill among smoking women, well....

Older women who smoke have excess risk associated with OCPs (400/100,000 woman-years). 

Oh my.  So now if you smoke and are a bit older it's 416/100,000.

But what if you're don't?

They found that there were fifteen unexpected idiopathic cardiovascular deaths in the following proportions: 4.3/100,000 for levonorgestrel OCPs, 1.5/100,000 for desogestrel OCPs, and 4.8/100,000 for gestodene OCPs.

Well now that's a lot more-reasonable.  Now we're into the roughly 3/100,000 range.  But remember -- these are additive, so we're around 20/100,000, more or less, assuming you don't smoke and aren't too old (but still of child-bearing age.)

Breast cancer, incidentally, happens all the time whether you use birth control pills or not.  In fact the data is that a risk of 123/100,000 woman-years exists.  Cervical cancer in the US is about 8/100,000.

How many of these are caused by birth control pills?  Not known.  But the rates have gone up a lot, and unfortunately the odds ratio is 1.52, which, while not proof, strongly associates a whole lot of these cancers with birth control pill use.  Indeed, it appears to roughly double the risk from the literature assuming the woman in question started using said contraceptives before they were 20.

There's even worse news in that if, as a woman, you use HRT once you reach menopause the risk is additive.  Lots of women do to manage the symptomology of menopause, which can be quite life-impacting on its own.

I could keep going from other scientific literature, but I don't need to.  I will note that these risks are in fact modest and thus considered acceptable -- unless, of course you happen to be one of the people who gets nailed by them.  Then all the odds ratios in the world don't matter.

Now let's compare with what we're not doing right now with Covid-19.  You see, there is evidence that Ivermectin is effective.  We first knew this in the spring and the evidence has gotten stronger, becoming quite clear by mid summer 2020.  There are now over two dozen studies of varying quality showing that it works during all phases of the disease including as prophylaxis with effectiveness averaging over 80% which is statistically identical to that of a vaccine.

Why has there not been a series of very large random controlled trials?  They cost money and being off-patent nobody is doing them because there's no profit in it.  You'd think the NIH or other public health agency would fork up the money and do very large random controlled trials immediately on this and many other drugs that show potential promise -- you'd be wrong.  These "agencies" are simply adjuncts of the pharmaceutical industry; they are not public interest entities at all, which is clearly evidenced not only by this disease but by many others over the decades, including the 1980s when AIDS was originally ravaging the land. 

But I digress, so let's get back to the topic at hand.

Like oral contraceptives Ivermectin has been used for decades in humans as an anti-parasitic.  Those doctors claiming it has no other effect are liars; among other things we know it works for Rosacea, which is not a parasitic disease.  Indeed, Rosacea is believed to be immune system related, which is very strong evidence that Ivermectin has immune modulating effects.  That is a sufficient mechanism of action to explain why it would be effective as an immune modulator that inhibits the immune system dysregulation that occurs in severe Covid-19 patients.  When you look at the data on clinical trials you see effectiveness; what you need is a mechanism that can explain this.  We have that.

No drug is without risk.  But note that oral birth control is available over the counter, without a prescription, in most nations.  The US is one of the very few exceptions, and the obvious reason for this is simple: It forces you to spend money at the doctor's office in addition to the drug itself.  However, despite that if a woman demands it from a doctor she will get it -- even if she smokes.

Yes, Ivermectin has risks -- but so does aspirin.  All drugs have risk.

So let's quantify the significant adverse event risk of Ivermectin.

You know, what I just got done giving you information on for birth control pills which are given to any woman who demands them?

But before we do that, can we agree on one thing?  Getting pregnant is potentially dangerous as is dying from Covid.  However, pregnancy is not a pathology.  It carries risk, of course; in fact if you are pregnant in the US the risk of death was about 9/100,000 in 1986 -- but now is nearly double that.  Why?  Because people are fat pigs as a direct result of their lifestyle choices and those choices have roughly doubled the risk of dying from the simple, natural and ordinary process of pregnancy.

Yeah that sucks folks, but you did it to yourselves just as the very same behavior makes you more likely to die from Covid-19.  Is it my responsibility that you are more likely to die by getting pregnant because you ate yourself half-to-death?  Intellectual consistency much folks?

And remember, birth control pills have a roughly 20/100,000 significant (not fatal) adverse event risk in women.  Pregnancy is roughly equal but the risk there is of death, not significant adverse event.

So what is the significant adverse event risk for using Ivermectin?  It would have to be much more dangerous to forbid its common use as a prophylaxis against Covid-19 than birth control pills used as prophylaxis against pregnancy, right?

You'd be wrong.  In fact, you'd be very wrong.

There's a very large study out of the DRC where the drug is used routinely as  prophylaxis for loiasis and onchocerciasis, both parasitic infestations.  Across a population of 15 million the significant adverse event risk was 6/100,000 with most of those occurring in people who had active loasis.  In other words while the quantifiable risk of using Ivermectin absent active parasitic infection is not known it is materially less than 6/100,000.

Or, to be more precise, less than one third of the risk of taking birth control pills which are routinely taken to prevent a natural, non-pathogenic condition.

Yet one we have no quarrel giving to any woman who asks for them while the other, despite hard scientific evidence of effectiveness both as prophylaxis and treatment for Covid-19 we are refusing to use widely under informed consent by persons so-infected or at high risk of becoming infected (e.g. household members of someone who has the virus, nursing home residents, etc.)

Yes, you can argue that the evidence is not conclusive and find flaws in the studies.  But we are talking about a drug that has a much lower risk of adverse events than using birth control pills which we hand out like candy to young women on demand and pregnancy, unlike Covid-19, is not a disease -- it is a natural function that people desire from time to time to prevent.

Access to birth control pills is considered a civil right.

Refusing to offer the other is manslaughter - to the tune of well north of 200,000 counts since this became known likely effective thus far, including more than 70 in my county alone.

When do we start locking people up?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)