The Market Ticker - Canceled
What 'They' Don't Want Published- Category [Health Reform]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
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.


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 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.

2021-06-11 10:22 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 391 references
[Comments enabled]  

When do we take out the trash?

First the FDA "approves" an Alzheimer's drug that, on the data, does not work -- but it sure as Hell is expensive.  At least one and perhaps two of their advisors quit over that one.

Now the CDC is going to meet on the "extremely rare" myocarditis risk to kids getting tard shots.  Extremely rare my ass; you never see if you don't open your eyes, and given the reports in the news and social media there is no way this is "extremely rare."  How many people have heart attacks every day yet that doesn't make the news unless they're a celebrity or somesuch.

So when nobodies start being reported on, well, folks, it's not rare.

To be "reported" at all you have to wind up in the hospital or similar, so the presumption that these are "mild" is horsecrap. nobody with a bit of discomfort goes to the ER; you go to the ER if you have chest pain, and that's not minor.

The big unknown is whether the damage done in these cases is permanent.  Nobody knows.  But, I remind you, a grand total of eighteen, more or less, kids have died with Covid all the way back to March of 2020.

Now tell me exactly how many of the hundreds of those myocarditis events being reported, and that's an undercount where Covid was an overcount, are acceptable if they produce permanent damage?  

If your answer is anything other than zero you're a ghoul.

If you gave these shots to kids, or advised kids to get them, well... you ought to have a problem.

A big one.

And so should Biden, Trump, all public health departments and every single corporation and social media firm that has been advocating these things for young people.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Oh look what we have here.... which I talked about over a year ago.

In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as double CGG) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you'll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine.

Yep.  And here's the rub -- while this is a "preferred" (lowest energy) combination for human cells it is not in other animals.  Biology is a thermodynamic process as is everything else in the universe.  For instance, your body prefers to burn glucose rather than fats; that is, the process by which ATP is generated prefers glucose or glycogen over lipids (fat.)  Why?  It's easier, metabolically.  If you are out of glycogen (what glucose is stored as), and those stores are very limited, then your body will burn fats.  In addition you body will not store fat (which also requires energy) until it fills up the glycogen stores for the same reason -- it is more efficient.

That's thermodynamics folks -- and everything in the universe follows those laws.

That which is easier is always preferred over that which is harder, or another way to put it is that all things, absent input, go from higher energy states to lower ones.  We call that "entropy" and it's part and parcel of thermodynamics which tell us that there is no such thing as a free lunch -- indeed, you can't even break even.

If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2.

In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn't present in any other virus.

I did not know back in early 2020 that there were no other coronaviruses found naturally that had the CGG-CGG pairing.  I did know that it was not the preferred coding for that amino acid in other potential candidate source or pass-through animals than humans, and it was on that basis that I put forward early in 2020 that the odds of this virus naturally jumping to humans as a result of infecting other animals was statistically non-existent since recombination in those animals with that pairing was impossible.  Oh sure, anything can happen, but the odds of it happening are basically nil.  That was the basis on which I stated that I believed it was a lab leak; no other explanation was logical.

But now we know that the most-common means by which viruses mutate, which occurs when one cell is infected by two or more viruses at once (called "recombination") could not have occurred in humans at all as the viruses must be compatible to do that and all the other coronaviruses lack that sequence.  Therefore it could not have happened that way; you can't exchange for what's not there.

Could it have occurred by just wild random chance instead of recombination?  Perhaps.  But damned unlikely -- like asteroid strike unlikely.

What's even worse, however, is that this is a preferred insertion in lab work because it is so unique, as it is not preferred in other than humans cells and as a result you can figure out where the virus went and how it "performed" when you're working it with because you won't find it in the ambient environment by chance.

There is the other problem that is raised as well; the relatively light mutational history in humans.  Generally speaking the first mutation that makes viral invasion of a new species possible isn't the "best" one.  Not by far.  Indeed it takes many of a given species to get infected over time as the virus adapts to its newfound host.  The pattern, absent tampering, is for the virus to become less lethal but more-easily spread.  That's simply because both confer an advantage to survival, which requires that the animal infected live long enough to infect more animals.  A mutation that makes a virus more-lethal is disfavored in humans (albeit perhaps not in other animals) in that humans will actively shun someone who looks like they are sick.  If you're coughing your lungs out or are puking people will stay away from you and this is to the disadvantage of the virus; that mutation is less-likely to make it into the next person.  This is likely what happened with SARS; it made people extremely sick and thus nobody else got it; you get it, you get so violently ill that as soon as people recognize there is a deadly virus nobody will go anywhere near you and thus the virus fails in its essential purpose -- to get to the next person.

But in this case at emergence, unless China is also lying about when the virus got out, was immediately extremely contagious  This is statistically very unlikely for a zoonotic strain because, again, the jump itself just occurs because of possible infectivity; it takes many more random mutations before through time and iteration the contagion level rises sufficiently to cause a pandemic.

Oh by the way, what does this tell you about the so-called "process" in our government?

It better tell you quite a lot.

Among other things vaccinating into an outbreak with imperfect immunity puts abnormal evolutionary pressure on a virus, and during the period of time after vaccination until you develop a full antibody response is the most-dangerous in that regard.  In other words what we're doing right now can cause more-dangerous mutations to arise and probably has.

Suppressing infection with drugs does not do this because you ultimately develop perfect antibody recognition against that which infected you, and thus the risk is much lower.

But, you see, the very same people who told you to wear masks and take jabs that have not been fully tested while denying that what are now known to be effective medications work, all for the purpose of promoting and getting authorization for said jabs.

How many times do you let people lie to you before you tell them to **** off and ignore them -- or worse?

The first time it was where the virus came from; they knew damn well, before I figured it out, what the odds were overwhelming it came out of that lab in Wuhan.  Fauci, the CDC, the NIH and everyone else lied.  It was no accident either; Fauci's emails prove that.

But then, on top of the first lie they cost 500,000 Americans their lives by claiming that inexpensive drugs don't work when they do and is now known by the weight of nearly SEVEN HUNDRED studies.  What's the problem with these drugs?  They're cheap and readily-available, thus there's no money in it.

Now they expect you to believe that the jabs are safe and effective.

How'd believing their bull**** work out for your Grandmother?

You'll have to hold a seance to ask her opinion, I'm afraid.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-06-05 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 947 references
[Comments enabled]  

You ought to read this folks.

600,000 Americans, including probably your Grandmother if she died of Covid, are dead because of it.

If the jabs go sideways you might be dead because of it too.

Contemplate the gist of that piece: Race, gender, whatever -- are the alleged foundations of medicine now.

I've seen this in public material from places like Johns Hopkins.  Conform go the "woke" agenda or be cast out.  Consider whatever woke decides today or be ejected, ridiculed, censored.

Higher education has done this for decades now.  If you're of a certain group then you get an "extra bonus" for diversity.  Employers have done it too.  It's wildly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment but never fear, the Supreme Court is here to say that "addressing something that happened in the past makes it ok."

Except it's not ok; that's claiming that the result of my great-great-grandfather's actions are my sin for which I must pay.

They're not, any more than a black man's great-great grandfather, who perhaps sold his villagers into slavery, is his responsibility and those are his actions.


Indeed our Constitution prohibits attainder (corruption of blood) specifically even for an act of actual Treason, the highest offense of all, in Article III Section 3.

I’ve heard from doctors who’ve been reported to their departments for criticizing residents for being late. (It was seen by their trainees as an act of racism.) I’ve heard from doctors who’ve stopped giving trainees honest feedback for fear of retaliation. I’ve spoken to those who have seen clinicians and residents refuse to treat patients based on their race or their perceived conservative politics.

The article goes on to talk about whole areas of research that are considered "off limits."  Where have we seen that in the last year and change?  Oh, fraudulent studies, like the retracted one in The Lancet that condemned hundreds of thousands of Americans to die?  It slammed HCQ as worthless and even dangerous when in fact it was not.  Henry Ford Hospital System, huge and highly-respected medical group in SE Michigan, came under attack for developing and successfully using a HCQ-based protocol for Covid-19.  They reported their results and were instantly slammed by the woke Orange-Man-Bad mob, issuing a press release shortly thereafter saying they would have no further public comment on treatment protocols.

How many died in Michigan because of that?  How many died elsewhere in the nation because of it?  Did Henry Ford look further and use Ivermectin as it became known as both useful and then superior to HCQ, or perhaps investigate synergy between the two?  I have no idea; they never, as far I know, registered or ran another trial, nor publicly reported further results.

HENRY FORD HAS OVER 1,500 PHYSICIANS; the "woke mob" silenced the professional opinions of each and every one of them and almost-certainly led to the deaths of thousands in Michigan alone.

How many of the 175 dead in this county would be alive had that not happened and this debate played out in the medical sphere over the last 15 months?  Would you even want a jab if that debate had played out and 90+% of the time as soon as you got sick you used $30 worth of cheap, off-patent medication and never went to the hospital at all?

We don't know -- but I assure you some of them would be, because that's what the data tells us.

How scared would you have been all last year and would you line up to roll up your sleeve if almost nobody had died?  If, when you started feeling like crap you got a handful of cheap pills and a steroid inhaler at the Urgent Care or doctor's office along with a few pills for everyone in your household, you went home and in a couple of days everything was fine -- and none of your family members got it?  If the care-givers in the nursing homes used same as a preventative, never got it and thus never transmitted it?  If all the old people used it as a preventative and nearly all of them never got sick?

Where was the professional debate on everything in  NOWHERE!

You can't speak of any of that on Facebook, Instragram or Twitter nor on any of the other social media outlets such as Youtube.  You in fact can't cite medical studies on any of these drugs nor can a physician speak to any of it, including their experience with them, either.  Dr. Kory, an actual front-line physician treating patients, had his Senate Testimony removed by Youtube.  But you can sure talk about and advocate Remdesivir, a $3,000 drug which has been shown worthless in a random controlled trial!

Now let's go back and apply the same sort of skepticism to the now-known bogus PCR tests.  How many were counted as "cases" that really weren't?  How many were quarantined and thrown out of work when they weren't sick, stoking fear in the community?  We know this was rampant because Elon Musk proved it conclusively, taking four tests in sequence on the same day with two coming back each of positive and negative.  Obviously an utterly-enormous percentage of the tests we administered were no better than flipping a coin.  Oh by the way our local WalMart is now selling BinaxNOW tests (same technology and possibly identical to the ones Musk took, and the same ones the Trump White House was using) for cheap out of a standing display right near the door.  Come and get it; who knows how accurate they are especially considering you're not a lab tech and might screw it up!

The article above cites the case of Norman Wang, who published a paper arguing that merit is the only thing that should count in cardiology.  Frankly, if you disagree with that you're nuts.  Indeed, merit should be all that counts in any profession, but especially in medicine where the less-capable doctor may well be the one who plays "assembly-line" with your body instead of clinician -- and you die as a consequence.

We didn't see any of that in the last 15 or so months, have we?  Oh wait -- we have; to the tune of about 600,000 corpses.

Do you think that's a singular incident?

I know personally it is not as I know physicians -- including some very good ones in certain specialties -- who have had it happen to them.  In fact they're so good that were I to need that particular specialty I might travel halfway across the country and pay cash to obtain their advice and treatment.

Are there other clinicians who are equally good?  I'm sure there are.  But when you displace people on political ideology and allow corporate medicine and "woke" culture to take the place of merit you run the risk of being dead.

You don't like being dead, right?

Do you want the guy or gal who got straight "A"s in medical school or is the dude who got a "D-" ok?

They're all called the same thing after graduation: "Doctor."

Think about this folks:

In it, the doctors argue that in order to address discrepancies in health-care access and outcomes, hospitals should commit to “preferentially admitting patients historically denied access to certain forms of medical care.” That is, they should admit people to health services based on their skin color. 

Or perhaps we choose "treatments" based solely on who pays the most and deliberately censor and even blackball those who speak of something that costs $2 and might work?

Never mind that racial preferences for referrals and treatment is wild-eyed stupid.  We know, for example, that an enormous percentage of cardiac stents are inappropriately used.  Yes, if you're having a heart attack they will save your life and as such they absolutely have a good and proper place in medicine.  But many cath labs are basically $20,000 check printers, since the specialists in them are paid by the procedure and anyone they can get on the table generates a bill.  Is that the right thing to do?  Not all the time and that's not a entirely safe procedure either; no medical treatment or drug is.  If you stick one in someone who doesn't really need it the best outcome is that he or she is out the $20 large.  The worst is that they die on the table which does happen when their underlying condition wasn't going to kill them at all.

Again: Do you want the guy who got the "A" and will tell you "don't do it" or the dude who got the "D-" and all he cares about is the $20,000 because he either isn't good enough to know the difference or is being directed by some big hospital network to take the money and he's afraid to speak up about the scam as he neither trusts his expertise nor does he believe he'll get another job if he sticks up the middle finger?

Meritocracy is why you have electric lighting.  It's why you have an Internet.  It's why you have automobiles.  It's why you have flush toilets and don't have to go **** in a hole in the back yard, or in the gutter of the street.  It's why dozens of things we take for granted every single day exist.

Much of "woke" culture doesn't really impact all that much of importance to ordinary people.  Do I really care about CPAs being white or black, and is a difference in competence all that important?  Probably not -- right up until someone embezzles a bunch of money and then suddenly it might matter.  The better CPA might catch it where the lesser does not.

But when it comes to medicine its a different story, unless you want the modern "car mechanic" who really isn't one at all.  He plugs in the computer, it tells him that "Sensor X" is bad, and he goes and gets one out of the parts cage and installs it.  He doesn't have to think because the machine does it for him.  He's a parts-swapper, basically.  Perhaps very highly-trained and with a very expensive suite of tools but he doesn't have to think about much and that's exactly how the dealership likes it.  It's McDonalds in the car repair business; the hamburger sort of sucks, but it sucks the same way and is identical everywhere, no matter which store you go into.

That works for a lot of things in our economy.  McDonalds and Starbucks have become utterly enormous on that exact basis.  But if you've ever gone into MAAS in Ft. Walton Beach and ordered an espresso, you got a really good coffee.  If you've ever gone into Intelligentsia in Chicago, well, you have had an outstanding espresso.


Because in those two places people knew what they were doing.  They were artisans.  In MAAS you had people that knew how to run the machine the old-fashioned way, which beats the automatic push-button coffee you get in Starbucks.  Granted, if the clerk in there is stupid, you get bilge water.  But MAAS trains people and they know what they're doing.  Ditto at Intelligentsia but there they even go further because they not only roast on site they're really picky about it too.

But the Starbucks "barista" couldn't walk in there, go behind the counter, and pull a drinkable espresso shot.  He or she is simply not capable of it; they're not good enough.  They might be able to be trained, but off the street?  Nope.

I could do it, because I have a machine here at the house.  So could Sarah.  But the average schlub st Starbucks?  Nope.

The average repair guy in the car dealer today couldn't disassemble, clean, put back together and re-calibrate a carburetor on a 1970s V8.  He probably couldn't set the points and timing either.  He doesn't know how.  He has no computer for that.  If it doesn't run right he doesn't know where to start because he has to actually be able to think.  Some of those folks in the old shops were really good, and some not-so-good.  That was the time before assembly-line "service."

Unfortunately the human body isn't a computer-assisted car.  It's far more complex, and far more unique than an espresso machine and the beans that go in it, starting with green and being roasted.  The nuances of that are one thing, but in the human body despite the claims of many we understand only a small part of it.

We're really good with assembly-line medicine if you get in a car accident and break your leg, or if you get shot.  Anatomy is pretty simple, after all, and there's really only one way the pieces of your leg bone are supposed to go back together.  If you have holes in your body from a gunshot that ain't so tough either.  We're the best in the world when it comes to trauma, and it's mostly because we do a lot of it and anatomy really isn't all that complex, so "assembly line" medicine is not only ok it has a low error rate.

But when it comes to everything else -- not so much.

Witness Covid-19.  We had clinicians who were canceled because they were trying and using drugs that we'd had for decades in other indications.  Who gives a crap about the color of someone's skin when the bottom line is that the person who got sick does not die?  Are we really going to play cancel culture and essentially toss out on their ear anyone who is making people not die when others are failing to do so?

Your mother, grandfather or other family is dead because you let this go on.

This isn't abstract any more folks.  Now you're being told to get stabbed by the same cretins who killed your grandmother, even if you already had Covid and recovered There is not one scintilla of scientific evidence supporting such a thing for any disease, ever, in the history of mankind.

I had chicken pox -- the old-fashioned way.  That shot is very safe, by the data, which by the way took 20 years to accumulate and trust.  But if someone attempted to tell me that I had to be jabbed with it I'd shove it up their ass sideways.  There is exactly zero scientific justification for that and everyone knows it.  Likewise if you already had the measles before there was a measles shot.  I got the shot when I was a kid, but not long before I got it there was no measles shot.  If you had the measles and then the shot became available nobody ever suggested you get jabbed for that; that would be insane.

We have gone through 15 months of Cancel Medicine.  Physicians who found through their own practice how to keep people from getting seriously ill and dying have been pilloried and canceled because they disagreed in their professional judgement or popped their head up on the wrong TV show.  Think about how stupid that is and then consider that it wasn't just individual physicians; the entire Henry Ford Hospital System was "canceled" for the same reason -- because their protocol happened to include something a politician advocated and that instantly branded a highly respected medical group worthy of being silenced.

How many of the 500,000+ dead died for this exact reason?

How do you advance knowledge if you silence some of the people who are attempting to be in the debate or, in response to their professional opinions, label them for political -- or racial -- reasons? 

What you get when you do that is what we got -- assembly line, computer and large-corporate driven zombies who perform as directed.  There is zero medical expertise required to do that job.  Other than actual surgical procedures computer could take your symptoms and spit out a prescription.  Person "X" shows up with "Y" symptoms, give them "Z" or have someone perform procedure "Z1".  Period.

No learning takes place, nobody advances the science, the "one true way" is all that is done and in this case we now know that was corrupted, you in the American public not only let it happen half the nation actually cheered it on and screamed "Orange Man Bad" instead of demanding that those who wanted to cancel this or that person shut the **** up and let the results speak for themselves.

As a result 500,000+ people are dead.

YOU killed your grandmother by allowing this, America.

You must have really hated her -- and perhaps yourself -- if you're going to remain in your chair and allow this to go unpunished, or even worse, keep advocating and supporting it.

After all the next person who dies as a direct result may well be you -- or your child.

And if you or they do you will deserve that outcome too.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-26 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 127 references
[Comments enabled]  

I do mean never again.

Who does this apply to?  Any physician that is not in entirely-private practice, including all so-called "public health" screamers.

That is, any physician or other medical professional who:

  • Works for a corporate medical group, for-profit or not (yes, this includes IHME, Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, along with "local" physician offices);
  • Works for a hospital, if said hospital is part of a corporate or larger umbrella organization (basically all of them are);
  • Works for a government entity, whether local, state or federal.


Because they're not practicing medicine anymore.  Covid-19 proved it.

Let's define practicing medicine:

A process by which a person with a concern or malady consults with someone who is believed to have superior knowledge of the medical realm, and the person consulted with alleged superior knowledge acts on the evidence without bias, bribery or pre-existing mandate from a corporation, employer or any other entity to render recommendations including the potential risks and benefits of each course of action they believe may provide improvement.  Said person with the concern or malady then chooses the path of action to take, if any, in the hope (but not guarantee, which is why it's called practicing ) of furthering a positive outcome.

Note that the physician does not choose.

The person with the malady chooses.  The physician advises and, if requested, performs whatever procedure(s) the person chooses provided that, in their personal judgment, the choice of the person with the malady does not violate The Hippocratic Oath.  A physician who disagrees that the path the person chooses is "best" in their opinion respects the person's decision anyway; the only reason to refuse said decision is that they believe, in their sole professional judgement, the path the person is asking for, after said consultation, is materially more-harmful than doing nothing.

There are zero physicians who work for an incorporated entity other than themselves who follow this process in today's world.  Likewise there are zero physicians in the so-called "free world" who do so in any socialist or government-run medical system because in that case the bias, bribery or mandate comes from the government, ala what is going on in Canada right now.

Take, for example, our local hospital and "affiliated" medical centers.  2/3rds of those who were admitted for Covid-19 died.

In the entire state of Tennessee the hospitalization rate was approximately 2.5%; of those 56.9% DIED.

So how about Zelenko's patients?  Dr. Zelenko was branded a conspiracy nut, quack and tinfoil hatter for treating patients early with HCQ, Z-Pak and zinc.  He claimed repeatedly that it worked, and was attacked relentlessly.  Most of his patients were ambulatory, but some did present to him in severe trouble -- that is, with severe respiratory distress.  Months down the road he wrote up the severe patients and got it peer reviewed, which exactly ZERO of the "big media" outlets have covered.

What were his peer-reviewed results?

2% of the treated patients went to the hospital while 15.4% of those not treated did.  One of 141 (0.7%) treated died compared with 13 of 377 (3.5%) of those not treated.  Zero cardiac side effects occurred -- remember, we were told that if you used HCQ for Covid-19 you'd have a heart attack or fatal Afib and die.  That was a lie.

These results were with the now-known less effective protocol than what we have today.  We've learned much, specifically, that Ivermectin works better than HCQ.  Nobody has run a trial with both; there was one registered but it was never enrolled and completed.

Corporate medicine, in short, killed eighty to ninety percent of those who died of Covid.  That's the data.  If you did not rely on corporate medicine, got Covid and instead took the advice of the alleged tinfoil hat-wearing doctor your risk was 1/5th to 1/10th as much as if you relied on corporate medicine.

That's enough for me and there's nothing you can do to change my mind.


You'll never convince me to take ten times the risk of becoming a corpse simply to appease some Corporate Ghod.

The only way to convince me that the paradigm has changed would be to burn all of the corporate ghouls and the physicians working for them at the stake.  That won't happen and in fact Trump's HHS immunized all of them from legal repercussion for every single one of those deaths.  Biden's HHS has not rescinded those protections.  To this very day they can deliberately withhold peer-reviewed treatment and watch you die.  Several people have in fact had to sue to get prescribed treatments in said hospitals.

I'll roll the dice on whatever else may go wrong with me and rely on non-affiliated persons in that regard who respect my choice and offer options and information, should I decide I need said information.  These days I don't have to sit in a medical library for weeks to read papers on disease, cause, and medications -- I can find 90% of it online at no cost and read it myself.  If I need help interpreting what I read I can ask and pay for said advice.

Corporate medicine will deliberately omit options or even tell you that they're dangerous when they know they're not.  Ivermectin is one such example; many doctors were refusing to prescribe it, saying it was implicated in "liver damage."  There is zero evidence for this in the scientific literature; there is one -- count it -- one -- documented case of liver damage when used for parasitic treatment which completely resolved.  While any drug can be dangerous the serious adverse event risk for Ivermectin is less than aspirin and it's been used for roughly 40 years, including on a regular prophylaxis basis with several billion doses handed out.  For comparison Tylenol kills about 500 people each and every year due to acute liver damage in the United States and sends a couple thousand to the hospital.  There is a very large body of evidence on Ivermectin; across the years 2003-2017 there were 55 deaths associated with its use over more than 15 million people.  Virtually all of the deaths were in people with severe parasitic infestations at the time; in short if you're infested the death of those parasites can kill you, just as treating a dog with heartworm can kill the dog -- not from the drug, but from the dying worms.  This forms a huge part of the argument in those areas for using it prophylactically; it is far more-dangerous to try to treat the infestation than to prevent it by using the same drug in the first place.  We understand this drug very, very well and the claims made about its "dangers" in people who might get or who had Covid were knowing, intentional lies.

But -- these very same doctors recommended and still do recommend the use of Remdesivir which does have evidence of severe liver damage in the scientific literature, never mind cardiac damage!  In fact the data is that somewhere between 10-20% of those treated, approximately, have seen liver enzyme problems indicative of damage and there is somewhere around a half-percent risk of immediate heart attack during therapy with an approximately 10% risk of cardiac harm.  In addition renal toxicity (very bad -- that's your kidneys folks!) was noted in just under 10% of those given it.  This is thousands of times, if not tens of thousands of times, more dangerous than Ivermectin and is in a drug that has zero long-term use data whatsoever!  In addition there is zero scientific evidence that Remdesivir will keep you from dying of Covid; a very large trial ("Solidarity") demonstrated this.  Yet the drug remains available in the United States, and is routinely used, under EUA.

How can that be justified?  Only in one way: Remdesivir costs $3,000 a crack and thus makes a lot of money while Ivermectin costs a couple of bucks and is generic and thus makes the doctor's corporate bosses nothing.

How about the current set of shots for people who had Covid and recovered?  That is, people who were symptomatic and tested positive, so there is every reason to believe, with reasonable medical certainty, the test was accurate.  The corporate doctors are recommending the shots.  Why?  The science is that prior infection, if you get Covid and recover, is equally effective as the shot.  So, on the science, you're taking risk (there's no such thing as a risk-free drug) with no expectation you will receive a benefit.  If you cannot benefit from a medical procedure no matter how minor, since all procedures have some level of risk then why advocate it?  Simple: Each shot, if you're insured or even if not does get paid for however; either your insurance gets billed or the government does.  In other words the only benefit is to the person giving the shot, not the recipient -- that is, the giver gets paid.

Is this representative of corporate medicine as a whole?  When you go to the doctor for a routine check-up and he or she gives you a prescription to manage something are they looking at the science or are they being told to fill someone's checking account whether what they give you does nothing, helps or might even injure or kill you?  Again: There is no such thing as a completely-safe drug.

Are you willing to bet your life, when you have something that is bothering you, that they're not doing the very same thing it is now proved they were doing for the last year with Covid, leading to over 500,000 dead people in America alone?

If you go to such a doctor or hospital -- that's the bet you're placing.

Years ago my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer.  They operated and removed a tumor.  Then she was asked about radiation and chemo.  She declined.  They respected her choice, and a few years later, which had just two bad weeks or so at the very end, she passed.  That's medicine; the physician recommends and the person chooses.

You can't fix this with regulation nor with socialized medicine.  All you have to do is look at Canada, which has literally barred physicians from discussing any treatment that does not conform to "official government recommendations" for Covid-19 along with Australia which threatened doctors with arrest if they attempted to treat infections early to know that there is no way forward via that path.

We either, as a nation, decide to destroy this edifice from top to bottom, we let them kill us whenever it's profitable for them exactly as it was with Covid-19 or we opt out personally and accept that, in some cases, this may mean we do the best we can without their "advice" at all.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 1724 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's time to stop it folks.

Actually, it was time to stop it decades ago, and having shoved a half-million in the hole who choked to death while being told there were no safe alternatives with evidence they might work, perhaps including someone you love, maybe you'll get angry enough to make it happen this time.

I'm a capitalist.  But unregulated capitalism, or worse, capitalism with coercion to prevent competitors isn't capitalism at all -- it's fascism and if not stopped by the people inevitably gets worse over time as it becomes a self-feeding extractive model that has accumulated so much "dead weight" that force and fraud become the only way it can survive.

I'm speaking of how we "do drugs" in the US today.  No, not heroin, fentanyl and meth -- pharmaceuticals.

The pandemic has brought into stark relief the outrageous and yet irrefutable evidence of depraved indifference at the altar of money found in both our government's organs, where we let people in power get a cut of the proceeds and in the private sector that has turned into a wildly-venomous serpent striking at anyone and anything that interferes with its cash flow.

Today nearly all of drug development begins with public grants.  That is, your money.  It goes to primary research at various teaching hospitals and medical institutes.  Read the history of discovery of mRNA and you will find littered through it various institutions, most of them funded in one way or another by tax money.  Whether through a "non-profit" institute or directly via taxpayer this is not unique; indeed virtually all of our pharmaceutical breakthrough have, in fact, traced directly to said public funds.

The problem is what happens next: Some firm gets their hands on it, commercializes it, and seizes the patents associated with it.  But.... how?  Well, mostly because they can, and because we let them.  We do not insist that you actually originate anything in that regard and in fact we go even further, allowing people like Fauci to have their names on some of these patents, meaning they get to collect royalties.  Indeed, the ACIP, a committee of the CDC which recommends vaccinations, has sitting on it committee members who hold patents on the compounds in question and receive money from the companies that make the products.  This is an outrageous and obvious conflict of interest that nobody has put a stop to for decades.

Contemplate this: The entire pharmaceutical industry spent just $83 billion on R&D in 2019.  That sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't when you look at the federal budget, even confining it just to Medicare.  Indeed, there's a serious problem here in that most of this spending is on biologics in what is called the "specialty drug" category.  These are large-molecule, hard-to-make things that treat complex, rare or chronic conditions.  But not too rare: Nobody will spend a billion dollars to develop a drug that only helps a thousand people at best, as the price just to cover the development expense is over a million dollars a person.  The bottom line is that the system we have today has incentivized the development of large-molecule, expensive and complex drugs that are ridiculously expensive and aimed at complex and rare conditions -- defined as a small body of people, but not too small.  Fall on the wrong side of the "too small" line and you get nothing.  Become to easy to look at where someone will take a crack at synthesizing something simple that might work and again you get nothing.  Once in a while this winds up in the news or even generates lawsuits but only when it's a large group impacted, as was the case with Sovaldi.  If it wasn't for the wide prevalence of Hepatitis C, driven by IV drug abuse, nobody would have bothered to chase that and the drug companies know it.

In addition there's a secondary perverse incentive which is that inevitably fatal and rapidly degenerative diseases are targeted preferentially.  The reason is safety standards; nobody would tolerate a headache medicine that killed 1 in 1,000 users, but a cancer medicine that does so is acceptable because without treatment you're going to die for certain, and any chance of living is better than none.

Many drugs and other therapies developed over the last decades have, in fact, been frauds to at least some degree.  It is not that they don't work; most of them do.  It is that they displace other working therapies without demonstrating a cost:benefit increment and, in many cases, wind up being more harmful that either the alternative or having no better benefit.  But in every case they are more-expensive.  The most-outrageous are "re-label" events such as what happened with Albuterol inhalers in which the propellant, but not the active ingredient, was changed and then it was re-patented screwing asthma suffers out of billions of dollars.

What's happened with Covid-19 is a wildly-blinding illustration of the problems.

There was an immediate target for one intervention against Covid-19 -- inoculation.  But inoculations take ten or more years to develop, and the reason is simply that many of the longer-term side effects take that long to find.  Something that results in a negative cross-reaction with the original virus over time or other viruses in the environment cannot, in humans, be "challenge trialed" because the potential outcome is death.  So all you can do is look for safety signals over a long period of time in a small number of people.  Yes, you do animal work first to identify potential threats in that realm, but you can't be exhaustive and many viruses will not infect the animal used for testing, so your ability to screen is limited.  In addition there are all manner of other things that show up that are very bad, including autoimmune disorders, and again those almost always take years to develop.  Finally there is no way to reasonably do regular blood work and such on large groups; it simply costs too much money.  But any such signal generated is important so you want to do those on small groups where intensive laboratory analysis can be done on each and every participant to catch any indication that a problem may be present but not instantly obvious via presented symptoms.  You can't do this across 30,000 people, say much less 150 million.  But you can do it across 1,000 people and you damn well should have to for a couple of years as a risk-limiting corral when the eventual result is something you cannot take back if it turns out to be seriously harmful.

You also had a pair of "platforms" called "mRNA" that the companies had been trying to use for other things -- specifically, against serious chronic diseases (didn't I just comment on that? I think I did.)  They didn't work; using doses large enough to provide benefit in animal testing they all failed on toxicity concerns; in short you couldn't keep the therapy only where you wanted it and when it inevitably got into other places it did harm.  The companies in question pivoted into the idea of vaccines (there are many in the pipeline for these, incidentally) on the belief that doing so would allow much smaller quantities to be introduced and thus avoid the toxicity problem.

This is an extension of the dilution is the solution to pollution claim.  It is true at a certain level, but the problem is that at that level you may well get no effect either.  We're not talking about 10 half-lives or similar here where you go from 100% to one part per billion.  Further, and perhaps more-importantly, this is a class of viruses that has never been successfully vaccinated against before, joining HIV and RSV along with a few others.  The basic science on this virus and its components was simply not done before decreeing that the alleged intended agent of recognition (the spike protein) was harmless standing alone.  We now have hard science this is false, and in fact had indications of that science, all the way back to September of 2020.  This paper along with several others now show that the S1 component alone, without the rest of the Covid-19 virus, can cause clotting disorders.

The next claim was that the "spike protein" would not show up in the circulation anyway when you were inoculated.  That turned out to be fanciful bull**** as the entire spike protein has now been identified in the blood two weeks after the shot was administered and there was no nucleocapsid present, so the alternative, that the person got infected naturally in the interim, is excluded.  In other words we now know that a believed-dangerous thing, both S1 and the spike protein as a whole, winds up in the circulation as a direct result of inoculation in a significant fraction -- about one quarter -- of those who get jabbed.  Not only was S1 detected in the blood well above baseline in a number of participants paradoxically the entire spike showed up in some inoculated persons two weeks later.  Both of these things, we were told, did not happen, that claim formed a primary element of the safety claim of these inoculations and that it has now been proved false is a serious problem.

Let me point out that this was discoverable in a very small trial -- a hundred people or less.  The complete spike protein showed up in roughly one quarter of people tested, which means the claim that it didn't happen was trivially able to be falsified and intentionally was not, and that S1 showed up in in the circulation of virtually everyone inoculated was also trivially discoverable.  Whether it was known and deliberately ignored (that, by the way, is deliberate misconduct and if true voids the immunity the manufacturers have) or whether they were told not to look because Warp Speed didn't permit diligent inquiry in the interest of time is for the lawyers to figure out.  What we now know is that in at least one quarter of those who get these shots a potentially very dangerous thing wound up in their circulation and a known-hazardous component of that potentially-dangerous thing shows up in almost everyone who gets these shots.  This explains many of the couple-week-delayed very bad outcomes (strokes, heart attacks, platelet destruction and clotting disorders) that have been reported and leaves open the possibility that tens of millions and possibly virtually all, now well beyond a hundred million people in the US had damage done to their circulatory system of unknown severity.

This should have never happened and this risk should have never been allowed out of a tiny test population -- it should have been run down and eliminated as a concern before the first shot went in the first arm on a mass-basis but it did happen, it is still happening, the FDA has not stopped it despite a legal duty to do so and the reason it happened in the first place is that we did not look.  The only question now is "how bad is it" and, at this point, we have no answers to that question.  Its entirely possible we could have a disaster on our hands akin to or even worse than Vioxx, which killed 1.5% of the people who took it.  It took five years to pull that drug from the market.

This does not mean that pursuit of novel therapeutic avenues should not take place.  It should take place.  But in the pursuit of same in this situation any competing ideas for actual interdiction of disease were not only slammed as "OrangeManBad" in the media and by so-called experts without evidence they were forcibly suppressed with doctors threatened by their employers and medical centers, including hospitals, refusing even direct demands by patients and their families to use known-safe drugs in the hope they might work.  Multiple people have had to sue to get these drugs and in most cases when they did they immediately improved from what was expected to be a fatal outcome, survived, went home and recovered.

We in fact had more data that suggested these drugs were effective than what they had for the jabs all through 2020 and thus irrelevant to anyone infected before 2021 in that a person infected prior to the release of the shots can't possibly benefit from what doesn't exist.

In other words we actually deliberately withheld known safe agents from people for the explicit purpose of making sure the development pipeline for these shots was not derailed.  We did not know if the pipeline would be derailed by widespread early use of these drugs but we did not try, on purpose, because if even one drug worked that would have been the end of the EUAs -- all of them.  A demonstration of widespread successful use would prevent the issuance of these EUAs and in fact even after issue such evidence legally requires the withdrawal of said EUA.  Under the law an EUA requires that no other effective treatment be known.

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. 

All of these alternative drugs were previously approved for other conditions.  There is thus no argument to be made that said drugs were not "approved"; all are approved under regular FDA provisions.  None of them are experimental.

All are also readily available as they are used for other conditions and, being generic compounds can be sourced rapidly and inexpensively.  In other words nobody makes billions on patents.

Therefore it was utterly necessary, in order to get and maintain EUAs, to prevent any potential demonstration that these alternatives were adequate (that is, they worked.)

How do we stop this sort of thing both now and going forward?

We take the development of these drugs and the patent capacity, pandemic or no, back into the public sector and thus destroy the profit motive to promote therapeutics and, in perverse cases like this, we prevent those who would block potentially-effective alternatives from being able to do so.  Drug companies can bid to produce, but cannot own -- and those bids and production can come from anywhere, with the government funding the factories if necessary and nobody else wants to make a reasonable, commodity-level per-item profit on the manufacturing.

I know, sounds like communism.  Except it isn't, since the start of all of this is public money.

Rather, it's a hard stop on the rape of the taxpayer.

Pharma will of course claim they've developed all these "miraculous cures" and this will stop.  It's a lie, at least over the last several decades.  The low-hanging fruit has been picked and where the current system focuses development has nothing to do with the conditions that impact a large number of people and for whom lower cost is important, rather, it is aimed at the maximum extraction of money from everyone even if you have to literally watch 500,000 Americans choke to death on their own spit by intentionally blocking them from getting known safe and possibly-effective alternatives, lest one or more prove up and your entire development path becomes instantly worthless.

That's what we did folks and it is Satan-level evil up and down the line with the entirety of the CDC, NIH, FDA and both Trump's and Biden's Administrations, along with the vast majority of corporate and educational institutions "all in" on promoting same.

They literally bought this "development" by allowing 500,000 Americans to die on purpose and you let them do it, minting several new billionaires in the process.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)