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.

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.

2023-02-07 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 611 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

You do, right?

If so you recognize the hierarchy of evidence when it comes to poorly-understood subjects.

And let's be clear on this: If a subject is well-understood then the outcomes are deterministic.  You don't have a "percentage" change, a thing either is or is not, and its repeated every time.  Almost nothing in medicine meets this standard; ergo, virtually everything is poorly understood.

The hierarchy looks like this, from worst to best:

  • Study-of-one -- a single person, a single trial of a thing, and an alleged result.

  • Notch trial on one -- The best "one person" can do; you start, get a baseline, do a thing which you hope is all you changed, record results and then withdraw the thing you changed and see if you go back to the baseline.  This is best evidence for a single person, and is wildly better than a "study of one", but it suffers from the fact that you are distinct.

  • Anecdotes or "case studies" of lots of people -- Not much better than a Study of One as its very hard to control for all the externalities.  It is in fact worse most of the time than a single person notch trial, but it is often all we have.  Retrospective studies are all in this category as it is almost impossible to control for confounding factors.

  • Random trial, open -- Everyone knows if, for example, you have a mask on or not.  Therefore a "random controlled trial" is random and controlled, but not blind.  This has serious bias problems and unfortunately the next type is often demoted to this, although almost nobody ever admits it.

  • Random, double-blind trial -- The thing being tried is matched against a placebo or other known intervention, but nobody knows which person got which.  This obviously only works if the trial and control are not able to be distinguished by the person giving it or the person getting it.  This is often not true even though claimed to be true; an infamous version of this happened during the AZT trials for HIV in that the pills had a taste that was distinguishable from placebo.  Oops.  However, if blinding can be maintained this is pretty good evidence, because nobody knows which person to apply the bias to if they want to.  The problems come in the implementation; if there is a financial interest in the outcome by the people running the trial gaming it suddenly becomes both expected and very profitable, and thus you can never trust such an analysis if the entity running it has a financial interest other than if it fails!  Oops.

  • Meta-analysis of many random controlled trials of either of the above -- These are the best evidence, particularly when they debunk a claim.  Again, the reason they're only dispositive when they disprove a claim is that typically there is a financial interest among the trial operators in success, so if you find "success" its questionable.  But if you find no success that you can accept as fact, as the bias was running the other way.

Cochrane runs these sorts of meta-analysis as their primary line of work.  They do God's work in this regard in that they debunk a lot of what was otherwise accepted, and every one of those instances is very valid.  Anyone arguing against a debunked position they have analyzed has an enormous burden of proof before them.

Well, here we are with masks.  And not just any masks -- all masks, including N95s.

We included 12 trials (10 cluster4;RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza4;like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate4;certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). 

In short: They don't work, and the meta-analysis was against RCTs, which are two up the chain, not one because its obvious if you're wearing a mask or not.

Nonetheless this is conclusive.

But... it gets worse.

The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings.


One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non4;inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients. 

Not only do masks not work but N95s don't work either, even among properly-trained medical workers.  If a medical worker, who has been trained and knows the proper protocol for donning, doffing and time-in-use restrictions, can't get superior results with an N95 the common person in the public has no chance of doing so.

There is good news.  Well, sort of.

Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). 

Here's the problem with this: hand "hygiene" likely is mostly about hand washing.  Why?  The next couple of sentences:

When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference.

Note, however, that hospitals have largely-replaced the "hand washing station" in each patient's room with the use of "hand sanitizers."  That's a problem and a confounder that may be responsible for the heterogenous outcomes.  We don't know, but what we do know is that "sanitizer" is more convenient and faster, thus it has become preferred.  Is that at the cost of infections?  We don't know.

This result is consistent with the known exponential nature of respiratory viral (really, all viral) infections.  Unlike bacterial infections which replicate in a binary fashion (1 becomes 2, then 4, etc.) viruses typically produce thousands or more of their copies per infected cell.  That is, it doesn't progress "1, 2, 4" it progresses "1, 500, 250,000...."

Thus once you reach minimum infective dose you're screwed and the likely outcome is not expected to change.  Many people say otherwise but the data in this regard is conclusive.

Now the punchline: This is not new news.  In fact it was known in 1981 and all of the trial participants were trained medical professionals.  No person in the common public can be expected to do as well as a trained doctor or nurse in this regard, yet even among them they were unable to demonstrate benefit.

I pointed this out -- that masks are mere performative theater, much like the common white coat a doctor wears, and have zero to do with infection transmission.  We've known this factually for FORTY YEARS.

Those who insist otherwise in the medical or any other field need to be destroyed.

It's time to be done with the lies when it comes to this sort of crap.  Three years on is three years too many.

Anyone attempting another mask mandate deserves everything they get.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2023-02-05 09:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 1992 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

This sucks folks, and while the I told you so banner is at the end, its not the sort you enjoy flying.

The author of the substack is pretty-much spot-on here.  This is characteristic of an immune runaway response in the endothelium which we know is a problem with these jabs because it was demonstrated that direct endothelial damage occurred due to the presence of the spike protein even without any other part of the virus back in the fall and winter of 2020.

Again, as I have repeatedly pointed out no less than the Salk Institute published a paper on this and while they tried to frame it in the context of Covid infection that was a political and not medical decision and was screamingly obvious on its face, as their analysis and investigation used only the spike.  Obviously a Covid infection that results in viremia (that is, virus in the circulation on a systemic basis) will by its nature include the entire virus; that is, the spike and nucleocapsid.

But there are exactly zero injections you can give to someone, anywhere, that will not result in some amount of circulation of the material via the blood.  An intramuscular injection by definition is systemic within seconds as muscle tissue is some of the best-perfused in the body and irrespective of exactly where the needle lands the material will be taken up by said tissue and that tissue is supplied with oxygen and nutrients (and the waste products carried away) by the circulation.

That this occurs with the Covid jabs was scientifically proved by the biodistribution study Japan insisted be produced (after our FDA did not do so) and which was leaked early on, demonstrating that among other places the product ended up in the ovaries.  The only way it could have gotten there is via the circulation.

Unless you can find evidence via toxicology or similar that both of these young men did something else to jointly cause this damage the common element of being jabbed, given the Salk paper and others on this topic that demonstrate direct spike injury to the endothelium must be considered the likely cause.

Note that occlusive coronary artery disease (which would be extremely unusual in anyone this young) was not found.  The heart attacks, in short, were not caused by a cut-off of circulation on an immediate basis into a region of the heart muscle.

Heart attacks of this type occur when electrical conduction is disrupted.  If you get lucky the disruption happens in the atrium and you get aFib, which is often symptomatic and can be treated before it causes serious problems.  Untreated aFib over time tends to produce clotting in and around the heart which is extraordinarily dangerous because if one of those breaks off it is in the arterial side of the circulation and very likely to wind up in a coronary artery (you have an immediate heart attack) or brain (you have an immediate occlusive stroke.)

But the atriums of the heart are much smaller than the ventricles in terms of their contractive force and electrical impulse (which is why when you look at an EKG that first spike is so much smaller); the much larger element is the ventricle, and if that conduction gets disrupted you go into vFib which immediately cuts off the circulation and, unless you're immediately attended to and can be shocked back into sinus rhythm you die.

Most -- but not all -- of the time you can find this damage with an EKG, troponin test and/or a cardiac MRI (looking for LGE.)  The latter is invasive as it requires contrast and thus is not free of risk.  What I can't speak to (and I don't think anyone, even a cardiologist, probably can with accuracy as this has simply never been done before to enough people to know is whether an EKG, for example, can rule out this sort of pathology.  I simply do not know if you have taken the damage that might result in this electrical disruption in your heart muscle whether it will invariably produce an abnormal EKG trace.  In addition there's another problem in that if it does is there anything, realistically, you can do about it?  The answer to that might well be "nope."

The evidence that this risk was real predated the rollout of these jabs in America.  It was deliberately ignored by both the medical system and those in our government, all the way up to the President at the time, Donald Trump.  Joe Biden, who was at the time President-elect, also deliberately ignored same as did both of their running mates and both the current HHS Secretary and Biden's to-be nominee for same, along with the entirety of the FDA regulatory apparatus.

Mass-deployment of these jabs was criminally stupid and everyone involved in doing so and the process that led to it, including specifically Trump and HHS Ash, ought to be held criminally responsible for every single death linked to this as should every manufacturer, distributor and health care professional and organization involved in the administration of same.  This must also extend to every single "influencer" and CEO who trumpeted this garbage or even mandated it as accessories before the fact.  Yes, this is a call for indictments, prosecution and imprisonment and execution of those responsible.

All of them.

The default position, given what we know at this point, is that everyone who took one or more of these jabs sustained some amount of this damage until it is conclusively proved otherwise.  Over 200 million Americans, in short, must be assumed to have taken this damage as a direct and proximate result of the willful blindness and intentional misconduct of everyone involved.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Category thumbnail

How do we resolve the problem we had with "Warp Speed" jabs -- which had potential serious (even fatal) nasty unintended effects and, as it turns out, were unlikely to be of benefit even if they worked 100% of the time in anyone other than the seriously morbid?

This is a serious problem in medicine generally that was underlined by the near-universal "recommendations" or even mandates from health providers (e.g. those needing transplants, etc.) and various employers.

Its not hard, and we can it without in any way otherwise tampering with the "practice" of medicine.

We need make only two changes:

  • If you declare something is safe then you accept personal criminal liability if you either (1) omit information you know or (2) make that claim without having actual proof that indeed it is safe in the dose you recommend.  A CEO (or for that matter a University Provost) who issues a mandate that a jab is "safe" puts himself and his entire board of directors in the position of being an accessory before the fact to felony battery or even manslaughter if it turns out that the thing they mandate is not indeed safe in every single person they force to take it.  In short nobody can mandate anything, including schools, corporations, hospitals or anyone else unless the thing mandated is indeed safe and, if they're wrong every single person in an authority position goes to prison.

  • If a thing is not safe then you must disclose the odds such as you know them specifically to the person before they are given the drug, procedure or whatever and obtain their affirmative, signed consent first except in the limited circumstance where exigence makes this impossible.  If you were just in a car wreck and unconscious the EMTs and doctors can use their "best judgment" related to the incident in question, and only related to it, because you're unable to consent.  But -- if the person can consent then informed consent must be obtained before the drug is dispensed, the device is used or the procedure performed.

There is no liability if a clinician or other person truthfully discloses what they know and, within their professional practice, has made a reasonable diligent effort to know.  We hold professionals to a standard of reasonable care in their research and decision-making, not omniscience.  If there is question as to whether willful blindness was in play that's for a jury to decide.  A clinician advising people to get the jabs, for example, who failed to read various scientific materials on the risks of the spike protein in the circulation has breached his or her professional responsibility and is thus responsible.  One who reads the material, discloses that there is reason to believe the jab might be dangerous on an irrevocable basis to the circulation, including the heart and brain, and the patient accepts the risk anyway is in the clear.  I remind you that this was known in December of 2020 so anyone who jabbed anybody after that point either had a duty to disclose or would have accepted criminal liability.

In addition the words "side effects" are banned.  If you use them as a clinician, CEO or otherwise you accept full liability.  They are adverse effects, that is, unwanted and hazardous.  You cannot mislead through language; that's fraud.

This law holds notwithstanding any other provision of law or liability; there is no shield under any set of circumstances including a pandemic or even an Act of War.

That's it.

Do this and the problem disappears in an instant.

How many university provosts or CEOs would have risked going to prison for decades per person who took heart damage or a stroke as a result of their jab mandate? 


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2023-01-27 07:05 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 809 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Read this one folks -- its rich.

A physician who came under fire for comments claiming that obesity is more of genetics than lifestyle in a "60 Minutes" interview earlier this month is now a member of the Biden USDA's 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which will help determine dietary standards for Americans over the coming years.

Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, a doctor specializing in obesity medicine at Mass General Health in Boston, claims diet and exercise have little impact on the disease that affects nearly half of all Americans, so what does she think people should do about it?

"The number one cause of obesity is genetics," Stanford told CBS' Lesley Stahl.

Half bullshit.

I say half because there is a kernel of truth in there but this is how so-called "scientists" lie to you -- just like they have for the last three years when it comes to Covid.

We know it is half true because the Inuit had a near-zero rate of obesity, diabetes and heart disease on a historical basis.  All they ate, being above the arctic circle where essentially nothing plant-based grows in enough quantity to eat, was fish and seal.  This of course meant their diet was extremely high in fat content (seal), moderate in protein and had an effective zero carbohydrate content.

As soon as they got access to modern, western refined carbohydrates and refined vegetable-based oils they went from nearly zero obesity, diabetes and heart disease to having one of the highest population-based rates of those three conditions in the world, all within a single generation.  Said record continues today.

Obviously their genetics, honed through generations of living on what they consumed, in fact informed what they should consume and when they ignored that everything went to Hell.

British people also get fat eating the same things, but not as much.  Why?  Because through generations they've eaten those things, thus the impact has been blunted -- but not removed.  But again, this was over generations of time and, all you have to do is look there and you'll find that no, you can't safely eat those things without risking getting fat.

Thus the kernel of truth is that yes, genetics is a factor.  But it's a lie as presented because while its a factor it hasn't changed in the short period of time that obesity rates have, and can't because that's not how genetic selection works -- it takes millennia but essentially all of this has happened in the last 50 or so years -- not even one human lifetime.

More than ten years ago, having listened to the bullshit spewed by this lying sack of shit from dozens of other people, many with "Doctor" in front of their surname and similar, driven by the recognition that Obamacare was in fact a rescue of the collapsing medical industry and put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound, thus was destined to fail (which we just saw proof of being correct with the 20% "bonus" to hospitals for anyone who they could say had Covid irrespective of why you were there) and, when it did fail, at my age of the time it was basically certain by the time I reached Medicare eligibility the program would either not exist or be seriously rationed.

This in turn meant if I did not fix my personal ever-expanding waistline I was probably going to die sooner than I otherwise would, it was going happen after a lot of disability in terms of being able to do things I enjoy, it was going to hurt (what Type II diabetes does to you over time is a horrid way to die) and since I knew all of this in advance to continue down that path was in fact choosing to commit suicide.

Well, that was a path I did not wish to walk, since I have no intent or desire to commit suicide.

Since multiple attempts to excise body mass through increasing exercise had failed, leading only to small decreases that immediately reversed as soon as I slacked off to any degree there were two options: Either the answer lay in what and how much I ate or I was destined to become increasingly fat, ultimately obese, and there was nothing I could do about it.  The latter was (and is today) giving up (and what basically all the "experts" pedaled as fact), the former wasn't.

But there was a basic problem with the position of the so-called "experts": It was inconsistent with the fact that (1) the problem came about far too quickly to be evolutionary in origin and (2) it was specific to homo sapiens.  This meant the cause had to be (1) environmental and (2) not only under our direct control but something that was imposed only on our species.

I decided to try that which we know works to identify food allergies: Remove foods until the bad thing stops happening.

The facts I worked with included the following which are not subject to dispute and any doctor who says otherwise should be stripped of his or her credentials and thrown into a snowbank naked in February as they know damn well they're lying; this is basic mammalian physiology:

  • You metabolize the three basic forms of food into ATP, the actual cellular fuel: Carbohydrates and fats.  (Protein, if it is taken in to excess beyond the amounts required for cellular and muscle maintenance, has the excess  ultimately converted to glucose and glycogen as is carbohydrate by a process known as gluconeogenesis signaled by the hormone glucagon.)

  • Carbohydrates are always preferrable biologically to fats for metabolism as they require less energy to process into ATP.  That is, they're easier and the basics of entropy and thermodynamics tell us that the easier pathway is always preferred.  This is a fact of the universe.  As such if you have carbohydrates which have been converted to glucose and stored as glycogen your body will consume it first.  Indeed there is a specific type of carbohydrate, Ethyl Alcohol, that is even easier to process and thus is always consumed first by the body; this is why you don't stay drunk until and unless you have depleted your entire glycogen storage -- ETOH is easier to process by the body than ordinary carbohydrates (e.g. sugars, grains and starches, the latter two of which are turned into sugar) and thus has preference.

  • The adult human body can store approximately 2,000kcal of energy in the form of glycogen in the liver and muscles, about half of that in the liver.  Only the liver can re-liberate glycogen back into the blood as the muscles lack of the enzyme necessary to do so; as such once glycogen is taken up by a specific muscle it can only be used as fuel by that specific muscle tissue.

  • If you consume carbohydrate and there is nowhere to put the glycogen as the storage is full then the only option the body has, other than allowing your glucose level to rise to poisonous amounts in the circulation, is to process it into lipids (fat) and store it.  The amount of glucose in actual circulation at any time in a non-diabetic is approximately equal to one teaspoon of sugar.  In other words almost none of what you consume is in circulation at any given point in time.

  • Your body does not run on glucose; it runs on ATP.  ATP is synthesized from either glucose (glycogen, if stored) or lipids (fats.)  There is this common falsehood that cellular life depends on glucose.  You'll notice that article says nothing about the metabolism of fat; it is intentionally false as we all know fat is indeed metabolized or you could never reduce your weight.  An accurate and reasonably-understandable description is found here.  Notice that this cycle yields more than twice as much energy as does carbohydrate of the same mass, but it is disfavored as it requires more work and thus entropy says it will not, in general, be used if the easier alternative is available.

  • The above facts are why you do not die if you can't eat every 24 or so hours, as the average person requires 1,500 to 2,000kcal/day without vigorous exercise.  That is, when your glycogen is depleted your body will consume the stored fat, but it will not do so if glycogen is available.  This preference is why humans and, indeed all mammals (and likely most others) can and do exist since the reasonable certainty of food intake on a daily basis is a quite-recent development among human society.  Without this basic set of biological facts there would be no humans; it is not a theory and it matters not why it works (which we do not fully understand other than that it obeys the law of entropy as expected), just that it does.

The hypothesis I decided to test was two-fold:

  • Caloric-dense and rapidly-convertible (into ATP) carbohydrates are very easy to overconsume simply because of their caloric density.  It is very easy to consume more calories than you burn and fill your glycogen stores entirely if you consume those foods, since more of them than you can burn will fit in your stomach.  If you have a positive energy balance (that is, more energy in than out) obviously it must go somewhere.  The "somewhere" is your waistline.

  • Rapidly-convertible edible things poison your signaling mechanisms, which are quite-poorly understood, and thus are essentially addictive.  It is very hard to avoid eating something if (1) you have it and (2) you are hungry.  This is often called a failure of willpower but the underlying issue is that your body is craving the thing just as it does if you're hooked on drugs or alcohol. 

Therefore I had to (1) withdraw from said addiction (which is never going to be fun) and (2) stop poisoning the regulatory mechanisms in my body by ceasing to "spike" them with large and unreasonable demands.

They both came down to the same thing: No more fast carbohydrates and, because the premise is that evolutionary adaptation takes millennia, not years no more consumption of processed vegetable-based oils which have not existed for enough time to allow the human body to adapt to them.  Whether the latter is actually dangerous is open to some dispute but it does not matter since fats in the diet can come from animal sources which man has been eating for hundreds of thousands of years.  If you wish to argue that you know better than (or even are equal to) the evolutionary pathway that has worked you are going to have to prove that, not just claim it.

There is no such proof, by the way.

Since there are only three basic forms of food (carbohydrate, protein and fat) restricting carbohydrates to green vegetables, which are not dense and digest slowly (thus do not insult your metabolic pathways -- never mind that they're nutrient-dense on a per-gram basis which is good) meant that the other two percentages had to rise.  Since I knew that biologically excess protein was identical to carbohydrate replacing all of the carbs with protein was likely to be a bad idea since metabolically there might not be any change.  Thus, what I aimed for entirely through selection of what to keep around and eat was low carb, high (saturated, animal) fat and moderate protein.

I also, once again, began exercising more but this time I did it differently: I instrumented my body so I knew how many calories I expended in each exercise session I undertook.  In short I wanted to learn if the exercise actually mattered to body mass.  I knew it mattered to strength and cardio endurance but was skeptical when it came to impact on body mass.

Several things became immediately apparent.

  • The first couple of weeks sucked; yes, I was an addict and was withdrawing from it.  "Carb flu" is real.  It's not fun.  There is no way around it. Breaking a drug or alcohol addiction is hard too, but you make it nearly impossible if you have booze or drugs in the house.  Therefore you must toss all that crap, or at least all of it that you like to consume.  At the time my daughter was eating "Flaming hot Cheetos" in size but I don't care for them so those being in the house didn't ruin my quest.  All the other fast carb stuff went in the trash bin and I bought no more of it.  No more pancakes, pasta, bread and similar where formerly the bread-maker was running all the time, pasta and pancakes (actually waffles, most of the time in the morning) were bog-standard around the house and similar.

  • After a couple of weeks I noted a very material change as the "hangries" and "carb flu" abated: I was not hungry when I woke up anymore.  Slowly that extended; now I am typically not hungry until roughly noon.  It is very easy to not eat when you're not hungry.

  • The exercise was not a material contributor -- and I was running 3 miles (well, more walking than running when I started) almost every day.  Exercise, in short, was not the answer to excising weight.  There are plenty of other good reasons to do it, including cardiovascular capacity which, I will point out, was a major factor in terms of whether Covid was going to get you.  If you have excess capacity then some temporary loss of it due to disease does not kill.  If you don't, you're a dead asshole.  Never mind that being winded and at the limit of your cardiopulmonary capacity in every day life is quite limiting in terms of what you can do.  Mowing the lawn, weeding the garden, just running around having fun -- all of that is hard when you are limited in that regard but both easy and enjoyable when you're not.  Nonetheless the facts on excising and weight are what they are: One mile of walking, jogging or running is only good for about 100-120 kcal, which is trivially easy to replace with your fork or spoon in literal seconds.  YOU CANNOT OUTRUN YOUR FORK; IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE AS I CAN TRIVIALLY CONSUME A MARATHON'S WORTH OF FOOD AT ONE SITTING AND SO CAN YOU.

I have written several articles since, all of which Google now insists, after being perfectly fine with them at the time of publication, to not have ads run against them as they deem them "misinformation."  How is it misinformation to report a factual thing?  The facts are that what I changed is what I changed and the body mass was both excised and has stayed off as I have maintained that lifestyle for over a decade.

Here's the tour-de-force, if you will, on what I do and don't eat.


It is a lifestyle, not a diet, and it works.

Want a somewhat-earlier one?  Right here.

Again: It works.

Once it started to work I sought more information on why it was likely working.  And, again, I found that we had indeed identified the mechanisms but we had, and still have, crappy understanding of the fine details of both.

It appears to work because it stops poisoning the leptin signaling system in your body which is responsible for controlling the unconscious drive to eat and, at the same time, stops spiking insulin levels which, if it occurs, produces serious hunger on the back side of the curve.  If you're not hungry you will typically not eat where if you are it's a psychological war to avoid reaching for whatever can be shoved in your mouth.

If you do not consume fast carbohydrates there is no need for your pancreas to release a large amount of insulin since there is no large spike in blood glucose levels and thus no bodily drive to get that out of there.  This in turn means there is no hunger on the back side of that curve.  Thus an hour or two after having food you no longer have an artificial, insulin-derived desire for more.

I took an engineering approach to the problem, in short.  What was being claimed under a "science" approach was illogical; the human body and genetic mutational change does not occur in a population over one or two generations; those changes require thousands of years or more.  We know this.  It is fact.  Therefore the cause of the change over the short period of time involved has to be environmental.


When an engineer sees something unexpected and he knows something has changed the first thing he does is eliminate those changes and goes back to what he was doing before the problem occurred.  The most-likely cause, even if he can't identify the "why" immediately, is always what changed thus before you go look for other possible causes you must remove the changes and see if the issue persists.

These so-called "doctors" slaughtered your loved ones for the last three years via this same line of crap and both have been for two decades and still are when it comes to obesity by running bullshit and hiding behind statistics and, now, drugs.  They refuse to approach this as an engineering problem: Since the bridge collapsed, and the calculations have been reviewed and are correct, it had to have collapsed because the specifications were not followed or the structure was overloaded.  We can eliminate the second by knowing what traveled over the bridge in reasonable proximity to the failure after the last inspection and, once we have, what's left is that someone used substandard materials or assembled them incorrectly.

In an honest society that honors the rule of law when you come to that conclusion you find the persons or entities that did this and you string them up for the damage they have done.


PS: This is not one of the "science .v. engineering" debate series of posts.  Those are still in-queue....

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2023-01-26 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 745 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Interesting context and editing, as usual.

Pfizer Executive: ‘Mutate’ COVID via ‘Directed Evolution’ for Company to Continue Profiting Off of Vaccines … ‘COVID is Going to be a Cash Cow for Us’ … ‘That is Not What We Say to the Public’ … ‘People Won’t Like That’ … ‘Don’t Tell Anyone’

Pardon my skepticism -- never mind the very real constraints that are supposed to exist on such research.

He knows just enough to be convincing.  But, having watched it -- something is off.  I can't put my finger on it but unlike several Veritas has done that made my eyebrows go up (although I challenge anyone to find the indictments that said "bombshells" have resulted in) this one just didn't feel right.

Before you run around with your hair on fire the details are extremely important.  And, I might add, any of this sort of thing would be entirely beyond the liability shield related to jabs generally or "countermeasures" under EUA.  Don't kid yourself about research generally, including with pathogens: It is going on all the time and yes, there have been multiple screw-ups.

But: Do recall that Pfizer is not really the whole story; unlike Moderna they partnered with BioNTech, and there's plenty of risk-aversion reasons for them to have done so.  And there's just a touch of.... too much in this one.

We'll know within a few days if there's anything other than smoke here, or even perhaps a trap.

Perhaps this is what it looks like and you're free to point all the fingers you want on an immediate basis -- but I'm gonna let it percolate a bit.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)