Amnesty? Absolutely NOT
The Market Ticker - Cancelled - What 'They' Don't Want Published
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.


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.

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.

2022-11-01 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 4251 references Ignore this thread
Amnesty? Absolutely NOT *
[Comments enabled]
Category thumbnail

Oh no you don't, bitch.

These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.

Oh, but you claimed to know.  You didn't claim opinion and neither did anyone else on your side.  Like, for example, the claim that people should celebrate those who refused the jabs and then died.

Well how about those who took the jabs and then got screwed, either by side effects or worse, the new data that shows that within 60 days you're more-likely to wind up in the hospital or dead if you were jabbed than not?

Further, this is not a matter of luck, as Emily suggests and Clott Adams has claimed in his puerile attempt to evade responsibility for leading people to their doom.  Do stupid things, win stupid prizes may well apply to him from what I've heard reported of late (he long ago blocked me on social media for calling him out on jabby advocacy.)

Luck was not a factor on many people's parts, mine included.  Many of our positions were in fact the outcome of deductive reasoning, having put in hundreds of hours reading literal hundreds of scientific and medical papers that stretched back decades.  I gave up a hell of a lot of sleep over those two years attempting to analyze what was in front of me and provide useful commentary to the public going all the way back to Diamond Princess.

For example I concluded very early on that masks would be pointless.  Was this "speculation" or "luck"?  No; it was scientific fact that had been repeatedly confirmed over more than forty years, dating back to a study by Neil Orr published in 1981.  That study provided conclusive evidence that in a sterile field (an operating room) with every person present being a trained medical professional adherence to the use of medical-grade masks to interdict transmission of disease failed and in fact potentiated disease transmission.

Obviously nobody in the general public will do better than trained medical professionals and you cannot do better in terms of environment than a sterile operating room.  It was therefore impossible for masks to work -- this was known forty years ago.

How about ventilators?  We knew they were worthless in March of 2020 because in more than 9 out of 10 people with Covid they were used on in Wuhan the person died.  That was published very early and thus it was known they were valueless.  Yet everyone screamed for more things that killed people.  Here is the data table on that from the time -- March of 2020.


32 people were intubated and one survived.  Three got ECMO and that didn't work either; zero of those attempts were successful.

Ventilators and ECMO, in Covid patients, are worthless and this was known in March of 2020.  Yet CMS to this day pays hospitals a bonus if they intubate Covid patients despite knowing all the way back to March of 2020 that it was pointless and if it did anything at all it actually killed them.

We also knew in March of 2020 that if your kidneys got hosed you were screwed too; that is also in that table in that renal replacement did not save one patient (since there were 10, that means its less than 10% effective and perhaps zero.)

Yet CMS did and still does pay hospitals to stuff you full of Remdesivir which has a known side effect profile that includes destroying your kidneys as this risk was known when it was tried against Ebola years earlier and more people died when given the drug than if they got nothing.

We will never know how many people who went into the hospital and were given that drug were killed by the virus and how many were killed by the drug.  If the deceased was given Remdesivir and developed kidney failure it is a reasonable presumption the hospital killed them, not the virus.  Disentangling that is impossible; isn't that convenient when you pay the hospitals to give people a known-dangerous drug rather than paying said bonus only if the person walks out alive under their own power?  I don't need to prove who got killed by one or the other; I need merely to observe that anything you pay for you will get more of -- every time.  This is basic human nature so why didn't we pay bonuses to hospitals only for success?

My position on these things did not come from wild speculation -- it came from detailed and documented study which I dutifully linked in my commentary on a daily basis, expecting nobody to take my opinion at face value without the sources to back up my point of view.  Yet that position earned me the ire of many, including that of Google, Twitter and others who sought to force me to shut up about that which had been true forty years prior and still was at the time -- and remains so today.

Where is the apology and restitution to those of us who got this right not by random chance but by deductive reasoning that came from detailed and laborious study?  What about those who got sick, went to the hospital, were stuffed full of Remdesivir, suffered kidney failure and are now dead, including one of my friends?

At the root of Emily's sin is that she had no evidence for benefit in any of what she backed or the fear she instilled in her family and others, including her demands for policy but the harms of going down the road she advocated for were known.  Specifically, closing schools was known to be harmful in every case, with the only dispute over the degree of harm.  Masking children, especially young children, was known harmful too, because language development in children is largely through facial expression.  This isn't speculation; it has been known to be scientifically true for decades.  Thus we had on the one side known and serious harms and on the other no evidence whatsoever, just fear-driven belief.

This was and remains no different than someone who believes in "witchcraft" and then uses that belief as an argument for burning the alleged witch at the stake.  That harm will take place if you burn the witch is obvious but you have no evidence that the "spells", even if they were actually cast, did or would do anything at all.

Then there's the 40-odd years of economic and social study on pandemics spanning multiple academic works which made clear the correct action when it came to mitigations was to do nothing.  That is, you couldn't stop the virus so there was no benefit to mitigating factors but there was harm that each of those factors would, with certainty, cause.  Therefore from an analytical point of view the best and only defensible measure was to maintain normalcy through the economy and social environment to the maximum possible extent.

Personal fear does not trump 40 years of academic study, but for Emily it not only did so it drove her public pronouncements.  Hiding under the bed is a personal decision.  Demanding others do so, particularly when you start waving around credentials, is another matter.

Emily demanded, and got, the exact opposite of what decades of formal study concluded should be done differing only in degree from one place to another and we deliberately undertook courses of treatment despite having plenty of evidence they were worthless or even were responsible, in whole or part, for the death of the person in question.

Emily wishes for absolution after engaging in this enterprise and being a proponent of it.

Not only should she not get it she, her family and her employer should be utterly destroyed for not only pushing it on others but now trying to profit from it in "teaching" about it, when every bit of what was done in that regard was either due to laziness, fear-mongering, possible political animus (e.g. Trump) or all of the above.  In other words at best it displayed idiocy and at worst malice and nobody who claims the title of "Professor" should be allowed to use the excuse of idiocy.

You don't give someone who is malicious and unrepentant ""amnesty" in a just, lawful society -- you give them a trial and, upon conviction, a date with the hangman.

Unfortunately what Emily wanted didn't end with the stupidity surrounding masks.

Oh no, Emily was and is a shill for this too:

Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.

Oh, that's all it was Emily?  It would appear you're lying by omission:


The Internet is forever; unless this particular excerpt as was posted on Twitter is forged you personally advocated for and supported the deprivation of human rights on the basis of your fear, without evidence, and you were wrong.  For that, above all else, you deserve punishment BEFORE due process exactly as you demanded happen to others.

You weren't alone; here's just one of hundreds of examples calling for people to be shot if they refused the jabs.  I saw more demands of that sort over 2021 than I can count.  You were one of those people varying only in degree so if you think you're getting away with running that crap as it if never happened you've got another think coming.

We further now know your pipe dream was pure horseshit, was predicated on lies and has produced real harm.  Let's go down the list.

Fact: There is no evidence that any vector-based medication, whether viral-vector (e.g. J&J) or mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna/etc.) is safe.  Neither has ever been used on a widespread basis, despite more than a decade of trying.  All previous attempts ended in failure either on efficacy, safety or both.  This is simply due to the mechanism by which they function; rather than introduce an antagonist to the body directly as with every other vaccine they reprogram the cellular machinery in cells that take up the material to produce the antagonist.  This in turn means the immune system will consider those cells which are reprogrammed but are part of the person to be a foreign invader and attack them.  Any injected medication will inevitably result in some of the material winding up in the circulation and thus some of the cells that will take that up are in the circulatory system and the immune system will attack them.  This will in every case result in some amount of damage to the person injected.  That's not speculation, it is fact, it is basic physiology and it cannot be evaded as the very design of the technology uses this exact mechanism to work; the only question to be answered is how bad the damage will be and how that balances against any benefit you might receive.  If you wish to falsify this fact with the claim of "new discovery" it will take decades of formal study to do so.  Until that is demonstrated there is absolutely no place in the medical world for these forms of therapy on a mass-administration basis.  Period.

Fact: There has never been a successful coronavirus vaccine developed and we now know that's true for these jabs too.  This is not due to not trying; we have tried for decades in both man and beast.  All previous trails have failed at the animal testing stage due to adverse events, whether by direct adverse events or causing ADE, potentiation of the actual infection.  The reason for the latter is partly due to the rapid mutational pattern that all coronaviruses exhibit.  We knew immediately, before the shots were deployed, that Covid also mutated rapidly and thus was extremely likely to exhibit evasion or enhancement whether immediately or down the road.  To deploy shots without conclusive proof that this decades-long unbroken record of failure in fact had changed was so wildly-irresponsible that anyone promoting it deserves prosecution and, upon conviction, the death penalty for depraved indifference to the very real possibility of mass-slaughter and morbidity either by disease propagation or direct injury.  It is not possible to obtain this evidence in three months time, say much less two or three years, and thus there was no ethical, moral or legal path to use these shots on a mass-basis given the known state of science at the time.

Fact: A vaccine must produce sterile immunity or it is not a vaccine.  You can take a prophylaxis against a disease but there is never a "public health" argument for a compulsion to do something that impacts nobody but you.  Changing the definition of "vaccine" post-hoc does not change facts but it does prove intent to maliciously deceive.  The original trials were never designed to demonstrate sterile immunity and this was public knowledge as the trial design was published at or around their initiation in the summer of 2020.  Deborah Birx has admitted that she knew this before the first shot went into the first arm.  Anyone "ordinarily skilled" in public health matters or epidemiology knew this too, as did anyone who read the study designs, such as myself.  To represent otherwise was to spread deliberate false information and Fauci, Joe Biden, Birx and thousands of so-called "medical professionals" did exactly that.  Emily says we should take steps to deal with those who spread deliberately false information.  When are the trials scheduled for Biden, Birx, Fauci, the VUNT who came after me here locally in public, every single Governor (including DeSantis, by the way) who pushed and still does push this crap, all the CEOs and more?  Yes, that list includes Trump.

Fact: There is now in those nations where we have the data publicly available and they used these technologies a wildly statistically significant and persistent increase in all-cause mortality that is not, in any plausible way, Covid related and what's much worse is that it is not falling back off to national baselines.  We've all seen the anecdotal reports of people dying of the "suddenlies" and "unexpectedlies" in age groups that statistically do not have that happen, such as cheerleaders, soccer players and the like.  The data shows that this pattern began to emerge a few months after the jabbing started and despite the poor uptake of boosters it has not gone away, implying that the damage done was permanent and these outcomes will be with us for a decade or more if we stop giving these shots now.  In other words the potential risks outlined above now appear to be realized risks.

Fact: We knew, because there were papers published as early as December of 2020, that the risk of severe or even fatal damage if the spike entered the circulation was not theoretical.  To deliberately continue on a program to inject people in a way that was physiologically certain to cause that to happen to some degree in each person is the definition of depraved indifference and that is the difference in law between negligence and murder.   No less than the Salk Institute flagged this discovery in December of 2020, following up a study from September that had suggested it might be true, and said paper was peer-reviewed and published by spring of 2021, long before most people had been jabbed and before all mandates.  That was more than sufficient evidence to put a full and immediate stop to the jabbing program and it was deliberately ignored.  Now we have a new study out of Europe that appears to show that one hundred percent of the people inoculated with these jabs suffer some degree of cardiac injury.  The medical and government personnel involved in this, never mind the corporate and educational actors must be held criminally accountable for these actions as they went ahead with approval and even mandates while intentionally ignoring evidence published by a highly-credible international medical society before mass-distribution began.

Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.


"Moving on" requires the three steps that are always required to demonstrate penitence, none of which you or any of the other people involved in this garbage have displayed


  • You must admit you were wrong in all material respects where you were.   This extends to masks, schools and shots.  You must do so equally publicly to what you advocated and beg forgiveness for your wrong acts, advocacy and the harm that came from that which was imposed on others not by their free choice but rather by coercion or force, forfeiting every privilege and penny you gained therefrom.

  • You must make restitution for that imposition of coercion or force to the extent it is possible.  There are millions who were materially and even permanently harmed, including being killed as a result of this bullshit.  You can't make adequate restitution but you can forfeit everything you have including all credentials, all capacity to earn a living beyond the fast food industry and live out your miserable days bowing before every single person you meet in atonement.  You won't, of course, because you haven't even taken the first step -- that is, you still don't admit you did anything wrong and instead are making excuses for your behavior.

  • You must act to put into place legal protections such that what you did can NEVER happen again, and if it is attempted any person against whom it is attempted is fully within their rights to use whatever level of force is necessary to stop it, including lethal force.  Of course you'll never agree to that either, nor lift a single finger in furtherance of same, if for no other reason than you want to continue to force your view on others.  That, standing alone, makes you a monster.

Indeed the truth is you are nothing more than a smug piece of excrement unfit to draw oxygen from the air. 

In my opinion you are no longer afraid of a virus but you are very concerned that you may receive exactly the same amount of due process before you are punished by those you fucked, which by the way was none, that you advocated be imposed by force upon others.

I believe THAT, and only that, is why you penned your article and that same fear is why the editors at The Atlantic published it.

To both of you my answer is the same: FUCK OFF.

I will NOT grant amnesty, I will NOT forgive and I WILL rub your bullshit and record in your face at every opportunity, along with reserving the right and option to exact every lawful penalty I can against you and every institution you are associated with, now or in the future, for all eternity.

I remind you that the Biden Administration has yet to drop the "Emergency", it is still trying to mandate jabs and fighting said court cases even after they've lost and neither the Administration, NIH or CDC has issued one apology just as you have not.  Indeed the FDA and CDC have both recently acted to further protect the entities making and distributing these shots from any legal responsibility for the harm they may or have caused.

As a direct and sole result of your and others personal actions and choices I do not care if you and every single other person involved in this fiasco over the last two years receives zero due process before punishment is handed out, whether legally or otherwise, as neither you or they gave a wet crap about due process of law when you and they were acting to screw everyone else.  That which you refuse to accord to others you have no right to expect for yourself.  If that bothers you or keeps you up at night then perhaps you should have acted in accordance with said principles in the first place.

The only way we will stop this crap and prevent future incidents of this sort is if everyone who put their fingers in their ears and deliberately ignored known harms to demand a speculative benefit without a single shred of evidence, or worse ignored decades of evidence that the path they advocated for was dangerous and might have permanent, irreversible harms associated with it, such as these "viral vector" technologies and filling people full of wildly-dangerous experimental drugs in hospitals, is held to full account for their actions and the harms that their demands caused, not by personal choice of those who independently decided to do foolish things but who were coerced or forced, whether it was closure of schools, forced masking or mandates of any other sort including but certainly not limited to the jabs.

There is no money damage award that can provide restitution to the tens of millions of kids who have been irrevocably screwed out of two years of their educations, or those kids who were irrevocably screwed out of language development as the window has closed on that part of their developmental process.  Those harms are going to go through our economy and society for the next sixty to eighty years and there is nothing we can do to change that at this point.  You, and others like you, particularly Teacher's organizations and Democrat Governors, own every bit of that and deserve the consequences.

The ridiculous economic damage imposed through the wild spending spree and inflationary impact resulting from the numerous fiscal orgies vomited forth by both Trump and Biden in that regard is going to screw people for a generation into the future.  How do you propose to compensate the screwed for that harm?  You can't, but the harm is real.

Further, those who were lied to about these jabs or even worse, coerced cannot be made whole.  New study work out of Europe strongly suggests that every single person who got these shots suffered some degree of cardiac damage.  Some more, some less but if the data is correct every single person did take some amount of damageA separate French study found that nearly 3% of all persons injected with mRNA jabs had clinical (not simply elevated troponin) myocarditis damage and it was more common in women than men.  How do you compensate two hundred million Americans for what may well prove to be a decade or more off their life expectancy?  What about the kids who are now five or six and lose a parent ten years from now due to heart failure these jabs caused?  How about those who have already died due to this harm?  The number already screwed is in the hundreds of thousands in America alone and nobody knows if or when it will slow down or stop.

Never mind the CDC's "recommendation" to jab kids with this crap, which is entirely unsupportable on facts or science and thus has only one plausible explanation: It is the only way to get these jabs into the NCVIA liability framework and prevent Pfizer and Moderna from being sued to beyond the orbit of Mars with their "businesses" turned into a smoking hole as soon as the EUAs drop.

The difference between Emily's position and mine is that while I set forward my opinion and the data supporting it I did not attempt to force anyone to follow the same path or demand they come to the same conclusions.  If you came to a different conclusion and wanted to wear a mask I had no quarrel with that.  In fact I repeatedly pointed out that if you truly believed you needed respiratory protection the only sane thing to do was to go buy a P100, available at most home stores for painting and other fume-generating procedures which has an exhaust valve, replaceable cannisters for when their time-in-use expired and because it filters only in one direction it can actually provide a seal around both the nose and mouth.  I expected even that to fail, given what we knew early on about transmission, but if you concluded it would work then you were free to have at it.  If you, despite the lack of any long-term safety data and deliberately ignoring the fact that spike in the circulation was directly harmful wanted to jab yourself with said dangerous experimental drug anyway, judging that the potential benefits were work the risks, have at it as well.  I had no desire to nor did I advocate that anyone be forced to do or not do anything, but I did demand that those on the other side refrain from attempting to force compliance with their views and expectations which all were, in point of fact, predicated on fear rather than analysis and deliberately ignored the balance of harms in each and every case.

That was and is the difference between my position and those on the other side of the alleged "debate" and there is nothing any of us can do to change it now.

Amnesty for Emily and others like her?

Not a prayer in Hell, bitch.  Not now, not ever -- not for you or anyone else involved in any of this crap.

You're damn lucky the people of this nation have long ago lost their sack to whatever soy-infested crap they worship these days or everyone involved would have already been sacked -- justly so.

Try this sort of crap again -- ever -- and you might find the word "lawful" is left out of the description of what is justly earned and that suddenly said sack has been found.