The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

And yet, they still say you should take this crap.

Statin therapy appears to increase the risk for type 2 diabetes by 46%, even after adjustment for confounding factors, a large new population-based study concludes.

This suggests a higher risk for diabetes with statins in the general population than has previously been reported, which has been in the region of a 10% to 22% increased risk, report the researchers, led by Henna Cederberg, MD, PhD, from the University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, and colleagues, who published their study online March 4 in Diabetologia.

What's worse is they found a dose-dependent relationship, which is a strong confirming factor.

Folks, there is really not much worse in terms of chronic conditions than Type II diabetes.  Seriously.  Anything that causes it in my opinion ought to be treated as a flat-out metabolic poison, period.

Yet these clownfaces still persist in claiming that cardiovascular "risk" is reduced.  Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't.  Maybe, if we looked at the actual morphology of cardiovascular events, we'd find something causative rather than correlative, but we might also find that there's no hundred-billion dollar annual market that can be "developed" as a consequence.

But this much I believe with all every fiber of my body: Anyone who claims that a "therapy" that causes diabetes is not actually doing harm has rocks in their head.

Never mind that cholesterol isn't only not bad for you, it's essential to life.

Yeah, I know, people are hung up on the LDL thing.  Well, first and foremost, the fact is that "LDL" in the standard cholesterol test, as I've pointed out, is not measured -- it's calculated using a formula that is not always accurate and is subject to confounding factors.  Worse, only one subtype of LDL is known to be dangerous and the standard three-panel test is non-specific for that sub-type of it.

It's your ass (and life) my friends -- do what you want.

But don't complain if, after having done so, you wind up with both your feet amputated and blind, followed by being forced on dialysis (all of which will make your doctor, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals very rich) before you die because that is the frequent path that Type II diabetics find themselves on.

Let me be clear just in case there's any question on my perspective: These drugs will never willingly enter my body and, if someone tries to force me to ingest them I will treat that act as attempted murder and respond appropriately.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-03-04 11:44 by Karl Denninger
in Education , 440 references
 

The cracks in the dam have begun to show, and water is spurting from them.  Meanwhile, the ivory tower, gold-encrusted with the many millions of taxdebtor dollars (many forcibly extracted from impressionable young people via knowingly-false starry-eyed claims peddled to same) is beginning to sway as the foundation has been undermined -- and will soon come crashing down.

SWEET BRIAR — In an announcement that stunned students Tuesday, Sweet Briar College said it will close at the end of this academic year because of “insurmountable financial challenges” blamed on the dwindling number of women interested in single-sex education and the pressures on small, liberal arts schools.

The "insurmountable financial challenge" is charging young adults upward of $100,000 for four year degrees all-in when a liberal-arts education is, in most places, a recipe for a sub-$50,000 a year salary.

This, in a nation where tax burdens on such people in the "middle class" reaches 25-30% of one's base pay and is guaranteed to rise due to deficit spending and entitlement decisions that cannot possibly be paid on existing cash flow is utterly insane.

It was once the case that you could get a liberal arts degree for about $3,000 a year including books with no other mandatory costs.  That is, roughly $100/credit hour.  You could live off-campus as you decided but if you wanted to live on campus block-constructed dorms of modest expense were available, making the $5,000/year full-in college education, absent discretionary spending, quite possible.

This, in turn, could be worked for during summer vacation and a part-time, mostly weekend-hour job during the school year, making the proposition one of an entirely sunk cost.  Thus, if you only earned $40-50,000 a year after getting your degree you were still ok.

That is no longer possible and it is the intentional acts of the higher-education "industry" that have made it so, along with the idiotic bleating and advocacy for more loans on looser terms that have driven costs to the moon.

Undergraduate tuition is $34,935, and room and board costs $12,160. In 2013-14, 99 percent of undergraduates were awarded aid (a mix of grants/scholarships, loans and work-study) that averaged $18,914.

The full 4-year cost here is $200,000!  Even with "financial aid" the cost is still over $100,000 for four years, and what's worse is that in all probability half or more of that "aid" is loans, which means the graduate comes out of this school having sunk more than $100,000 into their so-called "education" while carrying back $50,000 more in debt!

This is utterly insane and indefensible.  It was indefensible a decade ago and it is today.  

Any school peddling such a system of so-called "education" is selling something has negative real value ex-costs, and they know it.

If you're a parent and assist, recommend or even sit silently while your kid applies to and goes to such a place you are either an idiot or worse, you are actively conspiring in destroying your now-grown child's economic future.

In short, you, along with the faculty and staff of any such institution, are monsters.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

This was posted a while ago but it deserves a read -- and listen.

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, delivered an unusually candid speech on Thursday about the difficult relationship between the police and African-Americans, saying that officers who work in neighborhoods where blacks commit crimes at a high rate develop a cynicism that shades their attitudes about race.

Maybe.

Or maybe it's not just black people and cops.

Maybe it's the environment cops operate in today, where they can violate people's rights with impunity, even to the point of planting evidence on them and bragging about it on the Internet without going to prison.

“I have a method for getting people off the street that should not be there. Mouthy drivers, street lawyers, *******s and just anyone else trying to make my job difficult. Under my floor mat, I keep a small plastic dime baggie with Cocaine in residue. Since it’s just residue, if it is ever found during a search of my car like during an inspection, it’s easy enough to explain. It must have stuck to my foot while walking through San Castle. Anyways, no one’s going to question an empty baggie. The residue is the key because you can fully charge some ******* with possession of cocaine, heroin, or whatever just with the residue. How to get it done? “I asked Mr. DOE for his identification. And he pulled out his wallet, I observed a small plastic baggie fall out of his pocket…” You get the idea. easy, right? Best part is, those baggies can be found lots of places so you can always be ready. Don’t forget to wipe the baggie on the person’s skin after you arrest them because you want their DNA on the bag if they say you planted it or fight it in court.”

How is this guy still on the street?  If you think this is a "unique" or "uncommon" thing, no, it's not.  This very cop later admits it happens (probably) every day and that planting evidence and lying is "just part of the game."

What's even better is that this same cop claims the Sheriff supports this behavior and has for his entire career.

Just the other day I pointed out another, similar case -- this time in Louisiana, with quite-clear involvement of many law enforcement officers and attorneys.

Oh, and if you're a cop and try to put a stop to it?  You're threatened with "going home in a casket."

We can't have a civil society with this sort of thing going on anywhere in the country.  I don't care what your political leanings might be this sort of crap is straight out of Nazi Germany and everyone aware of or protecting it deserves to stand trial.

Wake up America -- before the next time you do it's behind bars or worse, you don't wake up at all.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Once again Congress is likely to do something stupid.  Really, really stupid.

Sometime next year Social Security’s $150 billion disability-insurance program will become insolvent. The program, which offers income supplements to those who cannot work full time due to physical or mental disabilities, has buckled as the number of beneficiaries has soared to more than 11 million in 2014, from 3.8 million in 1984. The bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board has urged reforms.

You can't explain this away as "demographics" (e.g. people getting older); that's not the answer at all.  Further, not only have the self-reported rates of work-limiting disability not changed materially in 30 years but the reported rate of on-the-job injuries has come down materially.  Whatever you may think of OSHA, the fact is that "the job is getting done" in that regard.

But Congressional loosening of benefit requirements, and more-importantly allowing people to remain on disability effectively for life once they gain it (less than 1% of the people on disability return to the workforce in any given year) make the problem one that is utterly intractable without major changes.

In addition we must consider those who become disabled through either intentional personal conduct or willful refusal to follow through on a rehabilitation program.  Today you can literally smoke meth or suck down bottles of booze for decades, utterly destroy your health, and then go on disability, receiving what amounts to a $24,000 a year income between your SSDI payments and eligibility for Medicare at zero cost.  That's not bad, and you can then turn around and make up to about $13,000 on the side without losing any of those benefits!

I will note that these gimmes are also non-taxable, meaning that we're talking about a middle-class living for which you need do exactly nothing.  There are a whole host of people making $30,000 a year that take home less than the person on "disability."

There are in fact people who, through just bad luck or otherwise no fault of their own, find themselves unable to work.  Then there are those who legitimately are hurt on the job.  Part of your Social Security taxes that are paid in by you every pay period is supposed to go toward the possibility that one of these things will happen to you.

But it is utterly outrageous for you to be able to buy fire insurance on your house and then intentionally burn it down to collect the money.  That is considered arson and a crime.

But that is, in effect, what we permit with this program when we allow disability claims for people who are unable to work due to self-inflicted and intentional injury, such as disability caused by the ingestion of drugs or alcohol.

Cutting that off alone would not resolve all the problems but it sure would go a long way toward helping.  So would requiring medical exams on an annual basis by physicians paid for by the government instead of "private physicians" who have every incentive to find someone "disabled."  Indeed, independent studies have found that a very material percentage of the people on disability have the ability to perform some sort of  remunerative work.

If we shift funds to the Social Security disability fund from the Social Security retirement fund it will simply will hasten the day on which the retirement fund goes broke and is unable to pay promised benefits.  Shifting money around from one bankrupt program to another is not only bad policy it's an act of fraud and one we must not tolerate as a society.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

This article is mis-titled.

TALLAHASSEE — The case against Tadrae McKenzie looked like an easy win for prosecutors. He and two buddies robbed a small-time pot dealer of $130 worth of weed using BB guns. Under Florida law, that was robbery with a deadly weapon, with a sentence of at least four years in prison.

But before trial, his defense team detected investigators’ use of a secret surveillance tool, one that raises significant privacy concerns. In an unprecedented move, a state judge ordered the police to show the device — a cell-tower simulator sometimes called a StingRay — to the attorneys.

Rather than show the equipment, the state offered McKenzie a plea bargain.

The article goes on to talk about a "confidentiality agreement" between the FBI and local authorities with relationship to this gear and how it works.  However, that article misses the point.

In the United States, along with most other nations, you must be licensed to emit RF (radio) energy in most cases.  There are specific exemptions for certain bands within certain requirements, which is why you can buy a WiFi "hotspot" over the counter and use it without a license, along with your computer that talks to it.

Your cellphone has to be tested and approved to comply with the limits of radio emissions, including personal safety limits.  Modifying that device, as it operates on a licensed band, is explicitly illegal.  Likewise, the cell tower transmitter must be and is licensed to the carrier, who has specific authorization to use the frequency bands they are using -- and in fact they paid for access to those bands.

A government agency is not immune from these requirements and as such operation of such a "StingRay" device by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency without said license or the explicit permission and involvement of the license-holder, including verification of its operation within legal limits regarding power level, splatter and interference with others is explicitly illegal.

We must not permit this sort of lawless behavior by so-called "law enforcement"; it makes a mockery of their oath to uphold the law and in fact renders them criminals on their own!  As such their remit to allegedly "enforce the law" evaporates the minute such an intentional act takes place.

When will you wake up, America, and demand that this crap stop?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
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 reproduced 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 or for commercial use.

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.