On Incentives And Ridiculous Tropes
The Bottom Line On Trust and Medicine
Ivermectin .vs. Covid In A Poor, High-Density State
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 be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Considering sending spam? Read this first.
Let's make it simple, since now there are rumors flying around that he tried to blackmail Bill Gates regarding an affair he might -- or might not -- have had with a young but of legal age woman who was very good at playing chess.
Nobody has explained how Epstein made his money. He had a lot of it; you don't buy an island and outfit it, never mind a nice big jet aircraft which is expensive to buy and also very expensive to maintain, fuel and staff without some source of income.
We all know, for example, how Elon Musk got his money. And Bernie Ebbers. And Ken Lay. And any one of myriad other very wealthy people. Whether ultimately it was discovered they were doing foul things or not the fact is that it was trivially easy to know exactly how they made their money, in the main.
Except for Epstein.
Therefore, by simple deduction, Epstein got his money because someone, or a group, were paying him and had the means to hide it from ordinary, routine surveillance that "outs" everyone else.
That in turn means one or more governments were doing it and none of them who had actual knowledge were adversarial to the others.
How do we know this?
Because it would have been to the adversary's tremendous advantage, and a nation-state is immune to "mere arrest" for some trumped-up offense, to blow the lid off of it had that been the case.
Therefore it wasn't.
Since the activities took place in and around the United States it is also therefore clear that one of the funding conduits was one or more agencies of and in the United States. There may be others but our government was one of them.
That is conclusive.
What is also conclusive is that all of the 535 members of Congress know this and none of them have done anything about it.
That includes your Congressperson and both of your Senators, in each and every case.
To restate just in case your IQ is smaller than your shoe size: One or more of our agencies suborned and used the sexual abuse of underage girls, along with the sexual coercion of women who had reached the age of consent, for reasons we do not have knowledge of but which can be reasonably believed to be underhanded, illegal or likely both. Such acts are criminal felonies even if the government performs them; there is no immunity for a US Government agency or instrumentality to fund activity leading to the rape of children.
This clearly did occur.
Whatever other gripes you may have with our government we, the people, clearly are willing to permit this to stand.
Though only one bus of migrants has arrived in Chicago this week from border states, leaders expect more and plan to house hundreds at Windy City at a South Shore High School, Chicago's Fox 32 reported.
Many of those who live in the area and are concerned about the decision's impact on the community, with several Black members from the area protesting the move outside the school on Thursday.
"Why would any leader put our Black communities already riddled with crime, at further risk by placing unvetted, non-taxpayers steps away from our seniors, our children, and our homes we've worked so hard on our own to secure," said J. Darnell Jones, a resident of South Shore.
But wait...... we're told all these "migrants" are just here to work, pay taxes and be peaceful residents -- even if not citizens.
You mean that was a lie?
It appears the black folks in Chicago have seen through the lie: These so-called 'migrants' in fact are here because they are getting handouts, they have no interest in being actual lawful taxpaying citizens, if they can't get what they want they will destroy whoever is in their way and the black folks already dealing with gang-bangers, rapists and similar (who happen to be black) expect these people will be WORSE.
"Our specific frustration lies in the continuous and blatant disregard for the safety and overall quality of life for Black residents, as many of these migrants have been dumped in our neighborhoods without a plan in place to monitor and house them long-term," Dunn said.
Oh, you mean you don't like the idea of all these free loaders coming into your community and destroying it, either indirectly by siphoning off the resources you pay taxes to support or directly by robbing you blind?
Well go figure; that's the same problem the rest of us have with these folks: Its an invasion of locusts, not a bunch of hard-working people who want to pay their own way, contribute to the tax base more than they suck off everyone else and live under the rule of law.
Indeed the proof of this is that they come and break the law originally by coming here, demonstrating mens rea; that is, "of a criminal mind" by their mere original route of entry into the United States. In addition to criminality they also bring a sense of entitlement to break the law with them, which is exactly what nobody needs.
But heh folks, since we're talking politics here let me look up the voting registration percentages by party in that part of Chicago. Oh, that was easy: You all (statistically-speaking) voted for the current occupant of the White House and thus the current Administration including those implementing these procedures.
In other words you asked for it directly by elevating these people to said office thus you are the ones who ought to go clean house.
And no, given the generally lawless nature of this administration I don't particularly care how you do it either.
I'm going to pull up a chair, crack a cold one and let you folks take out your own trash -- the very trash you created and caused to be distributed in your community.
If you had any questions remaining -- well, do you have a brain?
“The Turkish government asked Twitter to censor its opponents right before an election and @elonmusk complied — should generate some interesting Twitter Files reporting,” Yglesias wrote.
In response, Mr Musk fumed: “Did your brain fall out of your head, Yglesias? The choice is have Twitter throttled in its entirety or limit access to some tweets. Which one do you want?”
And now we know the framework: As soon as a government threatens to limit access to Twitter if it doesn't do what they want Musk will cave and screw you -- "free speech" be damned.
For once the left and its mouthpieces figured it out:
She said there “is only one brain falling out of one head and that’s Elon’s”, going on to label him “Mr Free-Speech-Until-It-Impacts-My-Money-Shaker”.
Oh by the way, this is how he picked his new CEO too.
Which I already covered. And which I served a 12 hour jail sentence in Twitmo for explaining on Twitter that said pick was one of the prime architects of the near-complete diversionary bill of lies around "countermeasures" for this little public health issue during the last three years.
Said lies killed tens if not hundreds of thousands, including by leading people to believe that if they took the magic jab they were safe to be around those at high risk when in fact they were not.
There is an election coming up here in the United States and there will be more instances of "public emergency" of this sort or that in the future. Despite the "national security" folks (including the CIA which is forbidden to operate or in any way interfere, clandestinely or otherwise, in the United States) we now know with factual certainty they did interfere in collusion with social media companies when it comes to Hunter's laptop right before the election and thus, beyond reasonable doubt, they interfered in an American election with the full cooperation and extension of every single social media platform and major media company of significance.
Would their not doing so have changed outcomes? It is not possible to know with certainty. However it is reasonable to assume that had the entire Russia-Russia-Russia thing Hillary and then Joe Biden ran had been exposed as a scam and Biden was forced to answer regarding the laptop, diary and other materials before the election there is a decent chance that the entire now-known money-running scheme out of China and Romania (along with Ukraine) and the 20-odd (or more) shell companies with no actual legitimate business being conducted might have come to light before the election.
Those who tried to bring any of this forward were immediately banned -- exactly as just happened with Turkey and their election.
Given that we were in the middle of a pandemic which China may well have caused and many of those money flows came from China do you think that might have changed who people voted for? Would you have voted for a President if there was a reasonable suspicion that he and his family had taken bribes from the believed source of the virus?
It is very probable had this all been aired out prior to the election not only would Biden not be President, for good or bad, but that the entire Russian-Ukraine war and all of the economic dislocation and death that came from it would not have happened either.
Exactly who's brain fell out here folks?
Musk's or YOURS?
Let me remind you that had Biden not been elected the gasoline and natural gas price spike of the last two years would definitely not have happened. We'd probably still be facing crazy inflation in virtually everything else because it was Trump's nutso spending policies with regard to the pandemic that was the root cause of said inflation and while Biden made it worse he didn't start it -- Trump did.
But this issue doesn't end with just Turkey or what happened in the past with Biden, the election and the pandemic. Someone I know who is of a fair bit of note in the financial world posted a factual statement about our current HHS secretary and was banned for that. Despite Musk saying he would reverse all those prior bans hers stands today as she will not retract her factual statement.
The reality of so-called social media is that the way it is "sold" to you is a fraud. It is not a virtual town square where you and your "friends" can have a conversation on whatever, and whoever happens by can overhear it and add their own voices to the conversation, limited only by the reasonable boundaries of law.
It is in fact a place where you are conned into participation under said false pretense that is a "virtual town square" but it is clear that as soon as you veer away from posting cute kitty pictures and attempt to debate the issues of the day that is absolutely not true. Whatever "certain people" do not want discussed will not be, and if you violate that you will be thrown out of the alleged "public square" -- even though your speech is absolutely within lawful boundaries.
It is yet to be determined how bad this might get, but it could get very, very bad.
Go back and read this article again.
This risk is real and its universal with all the Covid "vaccines" currently being produced and in trials in the US. Worse, we relied on the RNA and protein data directly from China without independent validation via Koch's postulate and our own isolation and purification of the virus itself. Today, as you read this, that isolation, purification and confirmation via Koch's postulate in the United States has not been done.
If you choose to accept that risk because, in your sole opinion, the risk is higher if you get The Coof than from taking this sort of vaccine, have at it. It is my considered opinion that for virtually everyone under the age of 60, and almost without exception anyone under the age of 25 or 30 that's a very bad bet with the odds spread being nearly 100:1 against you.
Remember, if this bet is lost there is no hiding if you took any of these vaccines. ADE-initiated harm is extremely likely to kill; in trials when it has shown up it has been nearly 100% fatal to the animals under test. This, by the way, is why I consider coercion by any person toward anyone to force them to take such a shot to be justification for a "Hannibal" style response out of said victim or (if they expire) their family members.
But I want to focus today on a very important distinction between the three common EUA'd vaccines today and a couple that may show up later this year (NOT AstraZeneca's; that's the same basic technology as J&J.) The J&J (viral vector) and two mRNA vaccines are all parlor tricks and IMHO extraordinarily dangerous.
While mRNA and viral vector vaccines use different techniques they all suffer from the same fatal flaw; they trick your body into producing the spike protein by infecting your cells. The literature on these vaccines states that the injection into your arm causes your arm muscle to produce these proteins. This is a lie by omission; your muscle tissue of course is vascularized, that is, it is very highly perfused with blood flow and thus anything injected into a muscle inevitably circulates in volume through your entire body. Said "instructions" are thus inevitably taken up by cells throughout your body until the dose is exhausted. The instructions delivered cannot replicate but their distribution into your body is not limited to the muscle of your arm and implying that is flat-out bullshit.
The problem is that when the tricked cells produce the spike protein and thus your immune system identifies them as "defective and dangerous" it now attacks the cells. This raises the potential for a serious or even permanent autoimmune problem; autoimmune disorders arise when your immune system goes haywire, declares your own body's cells harmful and attacks them. Exactly why that happens is poorly understood but hijacking one's own body cells intentionally to produce a protein that you intend to be identified as dangerous and thus provoke an antibody response, on the basics of biology, appears to be criminally stupid.
In addition the potential for serious direct damage in very bad places exists because, as noted, there is no way to confine the injection to the muscle tissue. This is almost-certainly why there is a history of blood clotting disorders and similar showing up in some persons who get these vaccines given that the virus itself, when it kills, almost always does so via thrombosis (clotting); if the epithelium of the blood vessels winds up getting some of these instructions it is not at all difficult to understand how that can produce clotting right there when the cells becomes infested and the body reacts to it. To be clear: That can kill you outright or do permanent harm, especially if it occurs in cardiovascular blood vessels.
The other vaccines under trial right now in the US use a more-traditional approach. They instead grow the spike protein in something else; typically in an animal of some sort via a virus that can reproduce in said animal host. That component is then isolated, mixed with an adjuvant (a drug that promotes immune sensitivity) and directly injected.
Notice the difference: Your body cells are not hijacked to produce anything; instead the desired antigen is directly introduced into the body. This is basically the same process used to make many other vaccines including the seasonal injection for influenza.
Those vaccines still can and do produce severe trouble in certain people but it is usually the adjuvant that is actually responsible because those adjuvants are typically required in order to get a sufficient immune system reaction. However, the specific risk of hijacking your cellular metabolism which cannot be localized to your arm muscle is absent.
Note that potential "attack vector" for a foreign adversary still exists because as with the other vaccines they are still only using the spike protein and not the rest of the virus, so the potential to target a bioweapon at someone who has that unique, never seen in nature antibody pattern remains. Until and unless a whole, killed virus vaccine reaches the United States there is no way around that risk if you accept a Covid vaccine. How large that risk is remains a complete unknown; you can bet our adversaries are attempting to come up with such a virus, but whether they will succeed cannot be determined; we will find out only if they do succeed and vaccinated people start dying in large numbers.
In addition note that historically the reason whole, killed virus is not used for coronaviruses is that animal trials have repeatedly produced evasion by natural mutation and ADE. It is for this reason that everyone has focused on using "only part" of the viral protein complex. It may well prove up over time that exactly zero of these vaccines are safe for this reason; we do not know because we did not do the work. You are the cat or ferret in the coronavirus vaccine trial, basically -- and in previous attempts they all died.
Finally let's talk about absolute risk. During the trials only 1% of the control group got the virus. That is while they like to tout "95% effective" that's wildly dishonest since the base risk during the trial period for an unvaccinated person to get the virus was only 1%. Therefore the maximum absolute risk reduction possible was one percent. This is, of course, never discussed.
But in terms of relative risk these later-to-the-party offerings are very likely to be much less dangerous. I would not be surprised at all to see that they have the same sort of serious side effect profile as the flu vaccine since they are basically the same technology.
In other words in the fullness of time I fully expect it to be proved that speed will have killed, and while for seriously-morbid older people the risk of using these "first" formulas" may well have been worth it this is almost-certainly not true for those under the age of 60 or thereabouts and, with extremely rare exceptions, basically never a good bet for those under 30.