The Market Ticker - Cancelled
What 'They' Don't Want Published - Category [Health Reform]
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
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. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

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.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in any firm or security discussed here, and have no duty to disclose same.

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 be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2023-11-28 08:33 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 298 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Oops....

Conclusions While HEPA filters can significantly reduce the viral load in room air, this does not lead to reduced COVID-19 prevalence in the selected kindergartens in Germany. 

They then go on to try to argue that "well, it shouldn't work because face-to-face play still occurs and the pathogen never goes into the filter."  In short all that fancy-pants (and expensive) filtration not only didn't work the rate of infections went up.

Eugyppius went into some depth on the hand-waving excuses they attempted to use to explain the results.  I argue he's right in the instant case but not in the general case because in the general case physics and mathematics preclude it working, so if you did find "it does work" the instant expectation I have is that you committed fraud.

I explained why both filtration and masking was unlikely to work early on in the 2020 timeframe.  The same is true for non-sterilizing shots, which the Covid-19 jabs all are now known to be; reducing viral load even if they do durably succeed in that this is immaterial to transmission if the virus is expelled from the person who has it, and if you mask symptoms you now remove from the infected person the only reasonable signal they have to stay home which reduces their contact with others and, as a result, actually would reduce transmission.  That is, all of these "mitigations" would be expected to increase infections!

Why is all of this true?

Because beyond the minimum infective dose (MID) of a virus the amount you take in has no impact on whether you get infected or how poorly it goes for you.  This is always the case because viruses replicate exponentially and as a result unlike a bacteria which replicates in a binary fashion there is no benefit of materiality to a "minimum" .vs. a "large" dose of the pathogen; once you reach a sufficient amount for infection to take place the further amount does not matter.

This is basic mathematics and denying it marks you as fucking stupid in that you obviously failed high school math, so if you claim some "advanced degree" or "advanced sort of knowledge" yet argue that dose-response is material with a virus you are a fucking idiot, should be expelled from your profession and, if you're not and your "advice" is put into mandates taken out and hanged in public as you are literally going to injure and kill people and you are either maliciously doing so or are so goddamned stupid your conduct reaches and exceeds the standard of gross negligence.

Think not?

Viruses typically require from 8 - 72 hours for each generation but produce from several thousand to more than 100,000 copies each.

So if the minimum infective dose (that is, the dose which assures that at least one viron will in fact start the cascade) is, say, 10 virons  (virus particles) then whether you inhale 10 or 1,000 is immaterial because each of those produces at least 1,000 and up to 100,000 copies each (depending on the virus.) 

So if we start with 10, for example, 5,000 copies per viron and an 8 hour time to progress we get:

10 -> 50,000 -> 250,000,000 (!!!) in 24 hours.

If you start with 1,000 virons how long does it take before there are 250 million or more?

1,000 -> 5,000,000 -> OVER

Effectively the same amount of time passes and the difference in your body's capacity to interdict the infection's consequences is pretty-much immaterial as the difference in replication to the same viral load is only a couple of hours even though you started with one hundred times as much of a dose.

This also means that if you wear an "N95" mask and cut the dose inhaled to 5% of what it would have otherwise been (and you won't because the "pore size" of an N95 is too large; you will block some, but nowhere near 95%) you still get nailed because you reach the MID in your respiratory tract and any amount beyond the MID results in infection.

This is why only a positive-pressure filter that can and reliably does remove 100% of the virons from your inspired air is or can be effective and worse, since virons can get into your body through any mucosa, such as that surrounding your eyes, you must wear a full-face mask that shields them as well.  A PAPR (which is positive-pressure) or P100 might work, particularly if it also covers your entire face.

Even an N95 will not.  If you think it will wear one while sanding drywall and when you take it off you will note the ring of dust where the mask was on your face.  That is proof of sufficient penetration to screw you if those particles were a virus.  Yes, it reduces the amount of drywall and mud dust you inhale (good) but does not prevent an infective dose of a virus from getting into your respiratory tract.  Further, tests have shown that for N95s leakage around the media is 10x or more greater than penetrationwhich of course renders the claims of "95%" complete crap -- yeah, its 95% effective in blocking what goes through the media but 10x more goes around!  This, incidentally, is why only positive-pressure systems from a known-sterile air source actually work and why they're used in viral laboratories.  An N95 doesn't work to keep you from becoming infected by a virus because it can't work.  It, like a surgical mask, blocks you from DROOLING on someone -- but nothing more.  Note also from the cited study that viral particles are too small to be effectively filtered and thus are not blocked with any sort of efficiency anyway.

(I will note that Neil Orr proved 40 years ago that surgical masks were worthless even among all trained professional groups in an operating room.  That should have been the end of the charade -- they're literal drool protectors and nothing more.)

The same is true, incidentally, for a HEPA filter in the room.  Yes, the exchanges do filter out the particles.  However enough of them are in the air for long enough to infect you because there is no way to insure that the exhaled air from someone else will pass through the filter before you inhale it.

Likewise a MERV13 filter in an HVAC system (assuming you can use them without unacceptable restriction) does indeed trap viruses.  However, it cannot get enough of them before someone gets the minimum infective dose from another person who is in the shared space because there is no way to force the exhaled breath of the infected person through the media first.

I pointed all this out originally when this crap started.

You can't get around transmission except by physical isolation of ill people and worse, anything that reduces symptoms in fact increases exposure as people will not know they're infectious and thus will inadvertently expose others.

If someone does get infected you want them to know they are ill.

Anything that masks that knowledge makes the problem worse.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2023-11-16 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 372 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Here we go again....

PHILADELPHIA, Nov 11 (Reuters) - Novo Nordisk (NOVOb.CO) on Saturday said the heart protective benefits of its wildly popular Wegovy obesity treatment are due to more than weight loss alone, according to new data presented at a major medical meeting on Saturday.

Early data from the Danish drugmaker's Select trial released in August demonstrated that Wegovy, which has been shown to help patients lose an average of 15% of their weight, also reduced incidence of heart attack, stroke or death from heart disease by 20%.

Uh huh.

The FDA approved this stuff for Type II diabetes in 2017.  It is now five years later, more or less.  The 2mg (higher) dose was approved less than two years ago.

There is no long-term data on these drugs because nobody has a time machine.  The mechanism of action is known but we have very poor fully-systemic understandings of the human body and in particular the endocrine system.  We like to claim otherwise but that's a lie.

The drug has a known adverse impact on the pancreas and there is some evidence it can damage or destroy the kidneys over time.  Destruction of either the pancreas of kidneys will kill you, and before you die you will be severely and permanently injured -- all at great medical expense, of course.

In addition to this there is some evidence the drug has a risk of causing heart attacks and strokes, so how is it that it is now claimed "protective"?  Can both be true?  Sure; one can be true over the short term and the other when used for increasing lengths of time.

Of course the problem with the "short term" benefit is just that; it doesn't last and to keep it you have to keep using it and take the longer terms risks.  How does that balance out?  I don't know, but from what I can see not only does nobody know nobody wants to know.

Here's what I do know, because its irrefutable fact: The increase in metabolic syndrome, Type II diabetes and its complications, all of which are very bad, very expensive, ruin your quality of life and may eventually kill you are environmental and thus are absolutely subject to your control.  They have to be because genetic differences don't occur over this sort of a timeline -- ever.  Therefore it is being caused by one or more things that have changed in what people do.  The strongest correlation lies with the ridiculously-increased level of consumption of both fast carbohydrates and vegetable oils of all sorts, none of which were in common use even 50 years ago and 100 years ago for all intents and purposes did not exist outside of those who were extraordinarily wealthy.

Nobody consumed a thousand kcal of sugar a day unless you were a King (who were notoriously fat -- go figure) because nobody else could afford to do that.  In addition animal husbandry for recorded time has intentionally fed grains to animals of all sorts for the explicit purpose of fattening them up, which it very-reliably does irrespective of their species.  Indeed but for such forced-feeding fois gras would not exist!

I foolishly watched a college football game the other day on network television.  Virtually all the ads were for pharmaceuticals and all of them featured glowing, beautiful scenery and imagery.  Nowhere was the dude who took whatever and then had a heart attack shown with the Paramedic on top of him pounding away on his chest!  The industry calls them "side effects" as if they're neutral (side, not forward or reverse) when in fact they're all ADVERSE effects, that is, things you don't want to happen.

Is there a place for possibly quite-dangerous drugs in medicine?  Sure.  Steroids, for example, are extraordinarily nasty drugs with a whole list of really ugly adverse effects that can screw you blind.  But in certain circumstances they can also save your life.  The same is true for many antibiotics; some (absent allergic sensitivity) are pretty benign but not all; fluoroquinolones, for example (all the ones ending in "-floxacin") have a very significant risk of causing tendon ruptures.  These can be long-term or even permanently damaging; the Achilles, for example, is a rupture that can result in permanent compromise particularly when it comes to any sort of athletic activity and the injury can come months after you stop using the drug, suggesting that the damage, once incurred, may be permanent.

Nonetheless if you have a bacterial infection these drugs treat and don't use them the bacterial infection may kill you.  Is it thus worth it?  Well, dead is worse than compromised athletic activity, right?  Oh by the way Zpak and cephalosporins have also shown up as associated with this risk, although the strength of that risk is less-qualified.  Note that there is now a black box warning on these antibiotics -- which did not come until 2016 although that class of drug was put on the market 20 years earlier!

Simply put until time passes you can't possibly know what the long-term impact is since nobody has a time machine and yet everyone rushes to the new shiny thing as soon as someone pops up with it in the medical field.  This frequently leads to a trail of dead and permanently-damaged people.

Don't be the lab rat folks.  In 20 years perhaps these drugs will prove to be as good as they first appear.  Maybe.

But this much I can tell you for certain: Getting the vegetable oils, which never existed in nature in any material consumable quantity, along with the fast carbs out of the group of things that go down your pie hole will not hurt you as none of them contain anything essential to human life and nutrition.  Further, we know fast carbs have an intended and expected effect of making you fat because we have used carbohydrates this way all the back to biblical times (e.g. "the fatted calf") for the explicit purpose of making animals fat.

Want to change the world?  Make it unlawful for a restaurant or other facility that serves food to the public (including schools) to use vegetable or plant-derived oils without a "black box" warning on the menu and/or prior to taking one's order and specific identification of each and every such oil used and ban them entirely where minors are served.

Oh, and while you're at it?

Tell me again why every so-called "public health" official, never mind hospital administrators, physicians and nurses, isn't swinging from the gallows.  Here's a 58.8% effective method of reducing your risk of winding up in the hospital or worse from Covid and it has a zero risk associated with it.  Yes, you read that right, zero.  Yet the authors call this "small potential benefit" -- yes, a 6 in 10 reduction in going to the hospital (which of course precedes you going to the morgue) is now classified as "small" so the fear is maintained and you'll take a shot.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2023-11-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 332 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

The immortal claim from Shakespeare's Henry VI is "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

It is in the context of a solution to a perceived societal problem of pretenders to the throne.

So having set the table with societal problems perhaps its not lawyers, but rather physicians and pharmaceutical company employees and executives who should go first.  We all know (whether we admit it or not) the insanity of the last three years, including rushing to market and into arms jabs that not only don't work -- they're dangerous.  Most of us by now know someone, directly or indirectly, those jabs screwed, specifically with a heart attack, occlusive strokes or worse, if the cardiovascular issue didn't kill them outright, extremely aggressive and atypical cancer.

But, as I've written on for over 15 years in this column, and have spoken about for even longer, there are several bigger societal issues intertwined with the pharmaceutical and medical industries.  One of them, metabolic disease and the related issues and outcomes is as much the fault of our society as the doctors and drug firms, in that we're fundamentally lazy and further we like being addicts, never mind refusing to admit that we have integrated literal man-made metabolic poisons into our society as part and parcel of what we consume -- but unlike alcohol, which we know is one and many of us choose low levels of its use freely and without much complication, in that case better than half the population, all the way down to young children, use it with wild abandon, get nothing meaningful out of it, then try to pop pills and now take injections as a result of the intentional self-harm it causes.

No, this one is different.  It is SSRIs, which have a wild-eyed association with mass-violence which neither the media or the drug companies will go anywhere near in terms of reporting, nor will the lawyers.  Turning someone into a rage monster ought to be good for enough liability to put you permanently out of business no matter how much money and assets you start with, but it hasn't been despite a couple of decades of hard evidence that in fact it occurs, especially in those under 25.  Blocking those drugs from those under 25 by law -- or applying strict liability to both drugmakers and the prescribing physician when someone on (or withdrawing from) these drugs snaps is an obvious countermeasure, but noooooo!  That would impair the profits of doctors and drug companies!

Now, however, have something much worse that in fact may implicate both causing depression which of course is why you'd give someone an SSRI in the first place and the adverse effect in many people appears to be permanentwhich is really nasty.

Doctors and patients have long known that antidepressants can cause sexual problems. No libido. Pleasureless orgasms. Numb genitals. Well over half of people taking the drugs report such side effects.

Now, a small but vocal group of patients is speaking out about severe sexual problems that have endured even long after they stopped taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most popular type of antidepressants. The drugs’ effects have been devastating, they said, leaving them unable to enjoy sex or sustain romantic relationships.

Long known yet these drugs are still on the market?  We give drugs to someone to "help" them from being depressed when there is a risk of destroying their joy in adult sexual expression?  Further, we know that the risk is real and in some cases the damage is permanent; of course there's no way to know if it is for you until after you use the drug!

Of course the article linked there doesn't talk about the fact that sexual pleasure, of course, is the exact opposite of depression!

How the hell do you ignore the fact that orgasms are joyous?

“I think it’s depression recurring. Until proven otherwise, that’s what it is,” said Dr. Anita Clayton, the chief of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and a leader of an expert group that will meet in Spain next year to formally define the condition.

Until proven otherwise?  Go fuck yourself, cunt, and may you have a numb, worthless clitoris for life.

This is the sort of mindless stupidity that infests our drug and doctor-addled culture.

If you want to know where the rise may come from in young people who "aren't really who their sex says they are" you may well find the line starts here.  After all if you're a boy who finds no particular joy in what pretty-much every boy figures out at roughly the age of 12 or 13 then perhaps you may conclude that those parts of your body have no joyous connections and, seeing others obviously obtaining joy from such paired relationships is it not logical you might think you were really a girl inside since the "boy thing" doesn't produce pleasure for you when you play with it?  Or, for that matter, the other way around.  Is not one of the defining factors for so-called "sexual dysphoria" depression at being "the wrong sex"?  How many of those kids and young adults have been given these drugs and had their sexual pleasure destroyed, and of course pleasure is the opposite of depression, so you generate both "trans" and a lifetime drug customer.

How convenient.

Oh by the way the entire "trans" thing can't be genetic because that sort of thing takes thousands of years; it is environmental in that it has occurred within one or two generations and it is not possible, simply on the math, for a genetic divergence to spread like that.  The same, by the way, is true for Type II diabetes, obesity, metabolic dysregulation...... and autism.

But back to SSRIs.....

About 13% of the US population over 12 is on these drugs, with the percentage being higher among women than men.

My position for the last two decades, that these drugs have no legitimate use in anyone under 25 except those in residential inpatient psychiatric treatment, is now modified to "these must be banned and the monsters responsible for their production and distribution removed from free society."

Now let me add to that when it comes to the dating pool -- and I strongly recommend everyone adopt this irrespective of their other preferences and sex: If someone has ever taken these drugs they're excluded from consideration as they must be considered to have a compromised pleasure response with regard to sex and that is an utterly-necessary part despite the BS that various scolds run from time to time, of successful pair-bonding between couples.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-09-01 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 967 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Let's get to the bottom of it.

I don't give a crap what the CDC or FDA defines something as retrospectively.

drug is a substance you introduce into the body that modifies a biochemical process with the intent of producing a specific result.

vaccine is a substance you introduce into the body that is part or a modified whole of an infectious agent modified to not be harmful, and which causes the immune system to believe (falsely) that it is being invaded by the actual infectious agent and respond in kind.  By doing so the immune system gains knowledge of the invader so a subsequent actual invasion is met with an appropriate response (and thus you do not get sick.)

A substance that is designed to cause the body to produce a thing via its cellular machinery rather than by inhibiting or accelerating a chemical reaction is neither a vaccine or a drug.  It is a genetic modification of the body's cellular processes.

In 2018 I wrote on a Chinese bio-engineer who had done exactly this to two embryos which were then implanted into a woman and resulted in two live births.  The intent of this modification was to produce resistance to HIV.  The condemnation of that act was swift and universal; China's government in fact went after the people responsible and the international scientific and medical community reacted with horror.

With good reason.

Now Scott Gottlieb, aka "Monstrous Asshole who ought to be in prison", has compared the upcoming Covid "refactored" boosters to a software upgrade.

This of course is an admission the original was a "software load" -- that is genetic modification which is exactly what that "bio-engineer" in China did.

There is no such thing as a safe means of performing this act.  None.

There may never be such an act that is safe.  In fact, absent strict proof one must presume its not.

You are reprogramming the cellular machinery on purpose with such an action.  To do this safely you must know all of the following:

  • Exactly where the reprogramming will take place.  In other words, which cells?  Since the intent is to cause a cell to produce a protein that the body will identify as foreign it must be presumed the immune system will destroy all such cells that take up that programming.  That's the immune system's job.  Therefore you must know where, in specific terms, the cells will be that take up the substance or the body will damage itself with no way for you to to control where that damage occurs.  There is no possible way to guarantee this in the body; an injected substance will travel through the entire body although concentrations will vary from place to place.

  • That the reprogramming cannot become integrated into the cellular machinery; it will, with 100% certainty, be "one and done."  If you cannot guarantee this with 100% certainty then a person who you give it to may never clear it entirely from their body.  We already know this is a very real risk with some viruses to begin with -- varicella (Chicken Pox), for example, is not fully cleared in many cases and can and will come back as shingles later in life.  That is, we know viruses do this in the wild; it is not speculation.  If the introduced agent does not clear it can produce durable, even permanent immune system damage.  This is essentially (yes, I know, this is a simplified explanation) the mechanism by which HIV eventually kills you; it overloads the immune system and ultimately destroys it, leaving you open to attack by and death from things that in an uninfected person with a competent immune system are easily controlled.

  • That the uptake which does take place will not result in serious or fatal damage to body systems from those cells that are, by design, hijacked to produce the protein.  This is an extremely tough thing to prove but prove it you must because otherwise you risk killing the person due to the body's own immune reaction to the insult that happens to concentrate in the "wrong" place.  This is of particular concern with anything injected because we know the body has myriad defensive systems to prevent invading things (viruses, bacteria, etc.) from getting into the circulatory system and its machinery and when those defenses fail the resulting illness is almost-always either extremely serious or fatal.

A "traditional" whole-or-part protein vaccine does not implicate any of this because the substance itself is introduced into the body.  The cellular machinery is not tampered with because the attenuation or destruction of the agent's replication capacity is why it's a vaccine and not an infection; it is incapable of getting into the cells and reprogramming the cellular machinery as an active, live virus does because it was intentionally damaged to prevent that from happening.

"Vector" injections irrespective of the mechanism violate all three of the above constraints.  By design they enter the cells of the person injected and cause reprogramming of the cellular machinery.  This means that by design whatever cells take up that set of instructions will be targeted and destroyed by the immune system.

We now know this occurs in a very large percentage of the population who took these shots and we are seeing that show up in non-Covid mortality that has accelerated materially starting exactly with the widespread introduction of these jabsIt has occurred reliably across the world since the beginning and middle of 2021.

We also know that viruses do occasionally integrate into the host's DNA.  We know this because a significant part of our DNA is traceable to viral genomes.  There is no other possible way for that to have happened over hundreds of thousands or millions of years (before man was man) than for it to occur when an organism gets infected.  In addition we know that viruses frequently do not completely clear in an infected person which means their cellular reprogramming remains available to be executed and thus we must presume anything that reprograms the cellular machinery also may not clear until and unless proved otherwise.

To make this worse we knew in December of 2020, before the shots rolled out that the "spike" protein standing alone was dangerous; no less than The Salk Institute published a paper on this that was then peer reviewed and released early in 2021. That's a direct violation of the third bullet point and it stands as fact.

What's even worse is that there is evidence the second bullet point required for safety is violated as well because circulating spike protein has been detected months after being jabbed.  This is extremely strong evidence that the jab is not cleared but rather has become integrated into the person's cellular machinery in some part of the body.

And finally we have evidence at this point that the damage from the immune system attacking the "factory" cells which are induced to make the protein via reprogramming is, in fact, dangerous and in some cases fatal.

Now this sort of risk might be worth it if you have an otherwise-fatal condition.  If you have clinically-active cancer, for example, then if left untreated you will die.  Therefore attempting to reprogram your cellular machinery to target and destroy said tumor(s) might well be worth the above three concerns because the alternative is that you're dead for certain and thus you can only make your personal situation better.  I will note that Moderna has been trying for over a decade to do exactly this for cancer and has never succeeded because the toxicity of the therapy was unacceptable even in someone who was going to die for sure if they did nothing.  Let that sink into your head for a bit.

These idiots are now talking about using this technology for flu shots!

Covid, like the flu, is not dangerous to most people.  It's damned inconvenient and, occasionally, kills.  If you're seriously compromised medically then the odds go up that the virus will flatten you.  If you're healthy (for real, not the "healthy at any size" bullcrap) the odds of it putting you in the hospital or killing you are statistically tiny and we know how to treat it too if we stop acting like we can't and don't.

As a partial aside may I note that one of the things we know potentiates heart attacks and strokes is poor glucose control.  We know why it happens too; excessive glucose damages the endothelial layer of the blood vessels (the inside wall) and the cilia inside said wall that form part of that layer's defensive function against damage, both physical and via infectious agent.  This makes it more-likely for inflammatory reactions to occur and not be reabsorbed back into the body and if a piece of one of those gets through the wall and breaks off it will block the circulation and cause a heart attack, stroke or pulmonary embolism.  It is not cholesterol per-se which does this despite common claims of those who ought to know better because they've looked at either diseased arteries themselves or images thereof; the damage is clearly inside the arterial wall, not a "clump" stuck inside such as with a clogged up drain.

Folks, there is no -- and I do mean no, as in zero -- injection that can control to the last bit of material where whatever is injected goes in the body.  If you inject under the skin into the dermal layer, into a muscle, into adipose tissue (fat) or otherwise some of what you inject will inevitably wind up in the circulation and thus go everywhere.  It cannot be otherwise.  Muscle tissue in particular is some of the best-perfused (that is, imbued with capillaries, arteries and veins) of all tissue in the body because muscles require that circulation in order to obtain the ATP (energy) they use to produce output and to remove the metabolic byproducts of doing so.

There is no such thing as an injection that hijacks the cellular machinery to produce a thing that is safe in either man or beast and that cannot be changed because the very character of what you're intending to do is dangerous unless it can be 100% confined to the desired tissue and you can prove with 100% certainty that the cellular reprogramming you cause is "one and done" and never, in any person, becomes integrated and thus continuous.

An injection by its nature can never guarantee said confinement and in this case we have evidence that integration does, in at least some people, occur.

This crap and ALL future attempts to use such "vector" methods UNLESS hard scientific proof is presented that ALL THREE of the above bullet points are met, with the penalty for fraud being death for every single person involved in said fraud, must be banned except in persons who have an otherwise-terminal condition or disease, in which case with informed consent it is of course acceptable because the alternative is certain death.

Anyone attempting to promote, sell, mandate or inject someone with such a substance under any other set of conditions is in fact acting with depraved indifference, that is the legal definition of murder.

What's worse is that if we keep this crap up we will eventually wind up with a modification that is passed to the next generation and once that happens the only way to "take it back" will be to literally hunt down and kill every person genetically polluted in that fashion.  With such a thing in mass-distribution if such is passed down through even a single generation eradicating it will lead to a very-literal catastrophic collapse in human society.

THIS RISK MUST NOT BE ALLOWED.

Nobody has any reason to trust any medical practitioner in any respect who does not recognize, proclaim and enforce the above, and nobody has any reason to allow any political, commercial or social entity to attempt to violate same.

Period.

PS: When it comes to the "new formula" its even worse then all of the above; all the data we have came from eight mice.  Not one human, eight mice. This, by the way, would never pass regular approval but as we now know under "EUA" literally anything goes.  That would be bad enough, but what's worse is that those eight mice produced wildly different outcomes.  Yet there is no explanation as to why, or to what it means.  Nobody knows yet 170 million such doses were ordered and will be "offered" to people anyway.  If you allow that crap to go into you or anyone you love or care about then you're stupid beyond words, and if you or they get severely screwed or die, given these facts -- you deserve it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-07-12 10:43 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 3204 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

.... every business model you see in the financial and personal world was just transplanted into health care?

Let me explain.

How many companies have gone from "you buy it, you own it" to you pay for it as a service over the last 10 or 20 years?

Quicken.

Adobe.

Music (where'd the CDs go?) and video (DVDs? Ah, Netflix!)

Accounting and sales management for business (e.g. Salesforce)

How many more would like to go there?

Transportation perhaps?  Nobody owns a car, you "hail" one?  Or more to the point, over the last 10 or so years it has become nearly impossible to do something basic like get a new key for your vehicle to replace a lost one without paying a dealer $300 for something that costs $20.  Why? Because the manufacturer has explicitly made it impossible to obtain the security key required to pair the new key; you bought the car but they won't give you the security code!  Or you have a module fail that can't be replaced without the dealer's tool to code it to your vehicle's VIN and the car won't run without that module working.  You are effectively forced to pay continuing rent on something you allegedly "own."

Housing?  Bloomberg recently ran an article on exactly that, which I reported on (and why it was bad for a huge percentage of the population.)

Now granted, there are times that paying what amounts to a rental fee is a net positive.  If you fly into some city and need a car, it would be stupid to buy one.  You only need it for a week.  Odds are you may never need it there again.  In addition there is no cost to you beyond the immediate loss of use when you terminate the agreement.

Now look at Quicken.

Your data is in their format.  Stop paying, what happens?

Adobe?

Your data is in their format.  Stop paying, what happens?

See the problem?

Same problem exists when you build for a "cloud" platform.  It's their data format and their application APIs, which are theirs.

Stop paying, what happens?

Ok, now think about this.

Pfizer is already saying they think you need a booster Covid shot.

Moderna has in the pipe a whole plethora of..... annual mRNA shots.

What happens if you stop paying?

Nobody knows in this case.

We don't know because we didn't test, we didn't force them to test and we didn't publish the data because we don't have it.  How do we know they don't have it?  How do we know that once you took the first one of these jabs you didn't buy into a perpetual "vaccines as a service" product and if you stop you will run a greatly-accelerated risk of death?

How?

OAS and ADE, to name two reasons to be concerned and one of the reasons we do not license vaccines for 5 to 10 years or more as that has to be excluded and doing so is virus-specific.

Oh, they'd never do that you might claim.

Except they already have with health care.

Obamacare anyone?

Insulin, anyone, for Type I diabetics?  A biologic that has been off patent for decades and yet has seen the price skyrocket?  How's that, when its not patented?  Simple: Nobody goes to jail because we didn't tell the government that they will either enforce the law (15 USC Chapter 1) that makes such collusive action illegal or we will make everyone involved stop.  They will either stop voluntarily or they will stop because they are no longer breathing, but they WILL stop.

Do you really think this isn't what most of medicine is about today?

Of course it is.  Why else would you have an FDA that will approve drugs that are not either (1) better or (2) cheaper with that being the requirement to be proved?  It isn't, you know.  Witness the most-outrageous recent example for Alzheimer's, which hardly stands alone and all of the advertising for various drugs, none of which is proved to be better or cheaper.  Notice how as soon as such drugs become generics all those ads disappear.  Where did Viagra ads go when the patent expired?  Notice how the advertising disappeared last April?

Oh, and as for scams, the patent was supposed to run out in 2012.  Men got fucked (no pun intended) for another eight years.

Why do you think you get told to go ahead and eat the carbs -- chase it with drugs if you're Type II diabetic?  The zero cost option is to stop eating the carbs.  If you do it early enough then there's a good chance your body will heal and the damage will not only stop, it will be reversed.  No, this doesn't mean you can go back to eating the pizzas with wild abandon, but it does mean you'll never need a single blood-sugar related drug, nor will your toes and fingers drop off and your kidneys will likely not fail.

The problem is that if you let your doctor talk you into doing it his way for long enough the damage will be irreversible and then you're beholden to ever-more expensive drugs and, ultimately, likely surgeries and even dialysis.  If you walk that path you may or may not expire from something else first but you certainly will spend a hell of a lot of money on the journey with virtually all of it being unnecessary.

What makes you think that's not what they just did under cover of a respiratory pandemic that was destined to burn itself out like every other respiratory viral pandemic for which we have good records spanning more than 100 years, and in fact which had done so in the United States and was on the wane before the first shot went into the first arm?

What if your life and that of your children are now a service, courtesy of Moderna and Pfizer at whatever cost they wish to impose on you now and into the indefinite future with the price of quitting being a much-higher risk of death, and what if that is in fact exactly what pharma, the medical industry, Trump and Biden all had in mind originally and still do?

Think I'm wrong?

Have a look at the 2018 MTS and what happened to Medicare payments.  This fiscal ended in September of 2018, the second year of Trump's Presidency.  Prescription drug spend was down from 95 billion to $82 billion, a decrease of close to 15%.  Hospital spend was nearly flat - up right at 1%.

Do you think Pharma and hospital administrators liked that?  The next year drug spend was up 3.6% and then ending in September of 2020 it was up 5.3%.

Hospitalization?  That posted a 26% increase year ending September 2020 with hospitals being paid $39,000 per person by Medicare to shove a tube down your throat and kill you instead of being paid to give you drugs early with them only getting paid when you didn't get intubated and die.

In other words health care as a service which in fact paid more to kill Seniors was good for a 26% increase in what the federal government spent despite killing a half-million people with the vast majority of them being Senior Citizens on Medicare.  We didn't pay for performance we paid for a subscription even though what it bought sucked and in fact killed your Grandmother.

Do you think that's stopped?  Well then you better look at the current MTS which says that while hospitalization spend is down (gee, all the old people who could be easily killed seem to already be dead and we ran out of suckers we could exploit by sticking a toe tag on them) when it comes to prescription drugs the current year spend via said subscription model scam is up 12.4% over last year thus far on a comparable-period basis!

Don't you think we should have proved that wasn't the model being intended for these shots to be forced on EVERYONE before we started letting people get stabbed when the data before us, on October 15st of 2020, was that indeed that was exactly the model the health care system had run for the previous fiscal year into the maw of the pandemic and got paid to deliberately not treat people early which both led to their death and got them paid a record amount, an utterly obscene additional EIGHTY TWO BILLION DOLLARS above the previous year's expense?

You better hope that's not what they tricked you into because if it is you're screwed at least economically and may be fucked out of your life.  I remind you that the MTS proves that is exactly what they did to Seniors when it came to medical care just during the first six months of the pandemic to the tune of $82 BILLION which was in fact paid out as a reward for generating 500,000 CORPSES.

But you still won't make them stop -- will you?

That refusal is why we all deserve what's probably going to happen.

When it does just remember this: That wasn't an accident, it wasn't unforeseen and all of it was and is illegal but you sat back and not only let it happen, many of you cheered it on.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)