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 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.

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? 

Zero.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2023-01-27 07:05 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 786 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.

NOTE THE DATE ON THAT ARTICLE.

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.

WE DID IT WHICH MEANS WE CAN STOP DOING IT AND THE MEANS OF FINDING WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE SIMPLY INVOLVES ELIMINATING WHAT WE DID UNTIL YOU FIND THE CHANGE OR CHANGES THAT REVERSES WHAT YOU ARE EXPERIENCING.

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.

Well?

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)
 

2023-01-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 579 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Proof of the postulate: CMS is still paying an extra 20% on the entire hospital bill to anyone on Medicare or Medicaid if you test positive for Covid-19.  It matters not why you're there -- if your chart has an ICD code on it for a positive Covid-19 test the hospital gets an extra 20% over what they would be paid.  No less than CNN's Wen has admitted that a huge percentage of those people who have gone into a hospital "with" Covid were not there for that reason and testing positive for the virus had nothing to do with the cause of the incident, nor with their treatment.  The reason the so-called "Emergency" has not been dropped is exactly this; that "bonus" would expire immediately with the end of said "Emergency", as would the "standards" that made the hospitals billions of dollars on Remdesivir from 2020-2022.  In fact Remdesivir was the highest billed dollar amount to CMS for drugs -- including cancer drugs, which are typically very expensive.

It would be nice to lay this all at Obamacare's feet but you can't.  It in fact goes back to the 1980s.  But Obamacare mandated "Electronic Medical Records" and then they started paying bonuses for "complete health-related information" coded in said records which include things like whether you own guns or...... now, whether you're Covid-vaccinated.

You have ceded all this information -- every single medical thing you do and anything they deem "relevant" to health -- to the government.  Yet despite the Constitution making it illegal for your records to be seized or inspected without a particularized, individual warrant its done every single day by CMS and every private health insurer.  You have no choice; every physician is coerced in one way or another to participate and none of them have banded together and stood up for this, refusing to do so.  They have also not told you about it which makes every single one of them explicit co-conspirators in what's being done.

Thus must not just end, but the databases must be destroyed.  You, and only you, have a right to that information.  If you "share" it with an insurer for the purpose of payment that restricted right of use by said insurer must be absolutely honored and violations punished severely, including criminally for everyone involved.  The only exception permitted must be under an actual specific warrant issued with probable cause that you committed a crime, and where the reasonable confluence between the information and your culpability (or lack thereof) is established.

I have been talking about this for fifteen years and raising Hell about it for the last decade.  For the last decade the only way to avoid this has been to refuse all contact with the medical system at all.  I've pointed that out too.  In fact one of the key points of my medical reform agenda is right here:

All medical records are the property of, and shall be delivered to, the customer at the time of service in human readable form (a PDF provided on common consumer computer media such as a "flash stick" shall comply with this requirement.)  Any coding or other symbols on said chart must include a key to same in English delivered at the same time.  No separate charge may be made for the provision of a contemporary record of a medical visit or treatment other than a reasonable charge for physical media if the customer does not have same with him or her.  The obvious way to do this is for the customer to bring a flash drive to which the human-readable chart is written.  If the customer doesn't have one the office can certainly maintain a small supply of $10 flash drives and charge the $10 to their bill.

Obamacare was passed in order to rescue an imploding medical industry.  The entire Covid-19 response, on a medical level, was enacted to rescue another implosion.  The 20% "bonus up" is proof of this in that it has no gateway requirement that Covid be implicated as the reason for the visit or treatment in said hospital, and it has not been dropped, nor has payment been refused for known worthless and even harmful drugs if you are positive, including Remdesivir.

At the same time CMS has argued (correctly-so) that alleged "Alzheimer's" drugs which do not actually improve cognition should not be paid for by Medicare.  Well, yeah -- if you can't show an objective positive result why should Medicare pay for it?  An extremely large multi-national study in 2020 and 2021 proved Remdesivir was worthless in terms of changing outcomes in people hospitalized for Covid.  Yet said EUA was not only not withdrawn CMS continues to pay for it, plus the hospital's billed infusion costs, PLUS TWENTY PERCENT.

We knew scientifically it didn't work two years ago which leaves the only real reason to keep paying for it bailing out the medical system, specifically hospitals, without a care in the world whether doing so kills you or not.

The problem with both "rescues", beyond the draining of the public treasury and potentially killing you immediately in the process is that both had the effect of transferring your private, personal health history and records out of your control and into the hands of others who can then use them for whatever they wish, whether privately or in the government.  You have no right in today's legislation to bring private suit over this -- HIPAA does not have a private right of action; the government must bring the case and obviously they will not if they or any other favored industry or firm are the ones abusing the data.

I have no idea what sort of peaceful method exists to resolve this problem.  Donald Trump's Presidency along with Biden's have initiated, gone along with and extended this, or both.  Neither political party will even discuss the privacy and legal protections for your personal health information and its misuse, nor the fact that this collection of information is wildly valuable for the purpose of compliance, blackmail, blackballing you in hiring and more.  If you think not tell me once again how "certain people" were being FINED with insurance surcharges for the last two years for refusing something that in fact didn't work and actually INCREASED risk, especially if you already had Covid and could prove it via having antibodies with a test that reads in 10 minutes and costs under $5 to manufacture.  That it increased risk rather than reduced it is now proved fact and thus the "fine" was, from a legal point of view, extortion and since it was coordinated that makes it racketeering as extortion is one of the predicate felonies that must be present for RICO.

Both Trump and Biden were not only ok with this they in fact put the rules in place to make it possible and both, along with every member of HHS, CMS and Congress should hang for it.

Oh sure, the law says this sort of abuse of medical records is supposedly prohibited but you can't personally sue and there are no criminal penalties so said "protections" are pointless so long as the government likes whatever abuse is being heaped upon you irrespective of who is doing it.

As I noted the only way to avoid this happening to you in the present set of circumstances, and this has been true for the last decadeis to never set foot in a medical provider's office.  That means you have to become your own doctor and it also means you must accept the risk of things you can't catch and/or fix being potentially threatening to your health or even life.  Of course there are exceptions where you can't avoid that encounter -- if you get shot or are in a car wreck, for example, and really do need prompt trauma care there is no choice; it's that or die.

If you think this data isn't being used right now to screw you then you're flat-out crazy.  It is, and it is going to get much worse.  The only way to stop it is for it to be outlawed with serious criminal penalties and the right of private action which neither political party will take up -- or the screwed being entirely unconcerned about the legality of the retribution they choose to inflict.

That's a shitty deal but it is what we as a society deserve for refusing to handle this back when Obama first proposed that crap and allowing the GOP to repeatedly grandstand and not deliver once they recovered control of both Congress and the White House.  Indeed Trump had no less than three platform planks toward resolving this and all three disappeared within minutes of the election being called for him in 2016, never to be seen again.  You do remember that, and my reporting on it, yes?

Trump didn't do good things in this regard as he was the architect of and set up that 20% bonus which stands to this day and you'll not Kevin McCathy has not said word #1 about stopping it, nor has Rand Paul or any of the others so spare me your bullshit about "voting" to fix this.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2023-01-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 2408 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Now we have documentation that Scott Gottlieb was involved in the Twitter Censorship on Covid.

Of course anything that dissuades you from being talked or even forced into spending money in the pharma world is bad from their point of view and Scott is on their board.  May I remind you that this is a company that has been repeatedly fined huge amounts of money for various violations of both law and regulation?

Pharma has been a big advertiser on Twitter, of course.  Can't bite that hand with the stack of Benjamins in it, can you?

Then we got this report -- a key study on an anti-stroke drug may have been falsified with potentially fatal side effects ignored.

That study dates to..... 2009.

So much for "they're trying to kill you" eh?

Naw.

They just don't care about anything except money.

At its core the problem is that the civil justice system can only award money.  Yet pharma, and the medical industry generally, is not like a bank, broker or businessperson who can only screw you out of money.  They can screw you out of your health or even your life at the same time they get your money!

More to the point you pay for the awards.  The pharma companies and medical firms can simply raise prices on their remaining products if you get a judgement, some of which you then will wind up paying for!  Its similar to suing the government; you win and then get taxed the pay the judgement!

While its true that you may get a disproportionate amount (compared to what you pay in the additional taxes) the fact remains that the people who did the bad thing do not wind up personally responsible at all, even if you are seriously injured or killed.

If you did the same level of harm to another you'd go to prison.  All the money in the world doesn't make prison nice.

This is the root of the issue, and why all the Covid crap occurred.

It's also why if we don't put a stop to this there will be more of it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-09-01 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 956 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)