The Market Ticker - Canceled
What 'They' Don't Want Published
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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.


Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be 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.

2021-08-02 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 2966 references
[Comments enabled]  

I warned everyone.

Now even CNN is on it, although they (like SAGE) think we're smarter than nature -- and evolution.

They write that some variants that have emerged over the past few months "show a reduced susceptibility to vaccine-acquired immunity, though none appears to escape entirely."

But they caution that these variants emerged "before vaccination was widespread," and that "as vaccines become more widespread, the transmission advantage gained by a virus that can evade vaccine-acquired immunity will increase."

In a word: Duh.

I know I've been banging on this drum since Covid-19 started but it is no-less important today, especially in the context of holding people accountable for killing several hundred thousand Americans and the economic destruction they brought upon the nation.

To be sterilizing a vaccine must prevent infection.  Since you never get infected you never replicate the virus and thus do not shed it.  If you do not shed it the potential path of the viral life-cycle for that particular infection ends with you and thus you cannot pass on or cause a mutation. You are sterile against that disease; from the point of view of the virus you are a lifeless rock.  Among commonly-used sterilizing vaccines are MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Varicella (chicken pox), OPV (oral polio) and others.  The only time that such a vaccine fails is when you do not build immunity (such as due to immune compromise.)  This is extremely rare and the protection from such vaccines tends to be either decades-long or lifetime.

A vaccine that is not sterilizing permits the virus to infect you and replicate and as a result you can infect others.  Technically it is not a vaccine at all (which by definition prevents infection); it is a prophylactic therapy.  Such a "vaccine" instead acts to reduce or eliminate symptomatic disease.  You don't know you're sick and you don't get sick.  You don't go to the hospital and you don't die.  Unfortunately since you don't know you're sick but are infected and the virus is both replicating in you and shedding you are more-likely to spread the infection to others.  All of the current Covid jabs are in this category and so is, for that matter IPV (injected polio vaccine -- the original Salk discovery.)

During the original vaccine trials in the summer and fall of 2020 they deliberately did not test any of the recipients for asymptomatic infections.  Only a person who developed a significant illness was tested.  This has continued post roll-out with the CDC specifying that a close contact of a known case who was vaccinated did not need to quarantine or be tested until and unless they became symptomatic.  They knew damn well, in other words, that the jabs were not sterilizing but did not want that data up for public debate because then those who have read history would be likely to make the connection to the present day and thus they did their level best to hide it.  That has now blown up in their face with it being conclusively known that jabbed people in fact not only get infected but spread the virus to others.

The problem with non-sterilizing vaccines is simply this: There is no safe means of mass-use of non-sterilizing vaccines so long as transmission within the community does or is likely to exist.

Ever.

There are no exceptions.

This was known to public health officials and virologists seventy years ago and is why the United States used both IPV (injected polio vaccine) and OPV (oral polio vaccine) in sequence for polio until the 1990s.  OPV produced sterilizing immunity but IPV did not.  OPV had a very small (but non-zero, about 1 in a million) risk of causing polio because it was a codon-deoptimized live virus which, on rare occasion, would mutate back to its virulent form in the human body.  So to mitigate that risk you got IPV first in the US (to prevent systemic infection; this was non-sterilizing), then OPV which is sterilizing -- that is, it prevents not only getting sick from polio but also replicating and shedding the virus, thus giving it to others along with preventing the promotion of mutations that WILL eventually escape the vaccine.

Had we done with polio what we're doing now with Covid -- IPV (non-sterilizing) use only with virus circulating in the United States -- it is very likely the virus would have mutated, escaped the vaccine and killed millions in America.  Every single so-called expert knows damn well why we didn't do that with polio and how dangerous it is to attempt it.  Indeed where polio still circulates but money is scarce they use OPV only (which is sterilizing) and accept the risk of the rare but possible active case it can cause for this exact reason.

Again: This is not a "new idea"; it was in fact the only rational path of action and known decades ago, forming the very basis of our polio vaccination strategy.  This combination strategy was necessary for polio but not for measles, for example, as the measles vaccine is sterilizing.

ONLY A STERILIZING VACCINE IS SAFE TO USE ON A MASS POPULATION BASIS WHEN A PARTICULAR PATHOGEN IS CIRCULATING IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

THIS IS NOT THEORY -- IT IS DECADES-OLD KNOWN MEDICAL FACT.

In addition natural infection with Covid-19 is sterilizing.  Being infected and recovering conserves the nasal and respiratory mucosal response which is where the virus enters the body.  Natural infection also conveys both "N" (nucleocapsid) and "S" (spike) antibody knowledge and T-cell recognition but the "N" knowledge is much stronger as coronaviruses have evolved to evade the immune system with the "S" portion through millions of years.  This is why they can infect you in the first place.  The "S" portion undergoes mutation at a quite-rapid rate while the "N" portion is conserved.  It was thus expected that prior infection would lead to durable (years to decades) of resistance and indeed that's exactly what we have found thus far.  Indeed in a small study it was found that this recognition extended to the bone marrow in a large percentage of cases and in those people is likely to confer decades-long if not lifetime protection.  This is not true for "S" induced immunity as it wanes rapidly and, far worse that is where the mutation is taking place and thus where escape risk lies.

It was acceptable to issue EUAs for potentially non-sterilizing jabs to be used only by very high-risk individuals -- such as those in nursing homes -- with the understanding that they will fail to provide anywhere close to complete protection and might, over time potentiate worse outcomes.  But with actual informed consent and on a limited, not population-wide basis, that was defensible.  This, of course, leaves aside the adverse event risk -- which we also know is much higher in these jabs, by a factor of 100x or more, than we have ever tolerated in any mass-use shot before.

It was ridiculously and grossly negligent entering into the territory of depraved indifference to mass-vaccinate the population with non-sterilizing jabs.  We knew very early on that eradicating Covid-19 was impossible; there are animal reservoirs, specifically felines (of all sorts), ferrets and likely others (now believed to include deer.)  We have never eradicated rabies and never will for this reason; as long as there are animal reservoirs you cannot eradicate a virus as it always has a host and a means of transmission outside of human control.

As such there was never, and will never be, a safe means to use non-sterilizing vaccines against this virus or any other coronavirus and the more jabs we deliver and attempt to compel the use of the worse the problem will get.

Eventually we are very likely to get a mutation that entirely evades the jabs.  That mutation will be caused by those who are jabbed since they are the only ones placing such mutational pressure on the virus.  An unvaccinated person who gets infected places no such mutational pressure on the virus where a vaccinated person not only does they provide the exact pathway that virologists use to intentionally select for more-transmissible, virile or both mutations -- serial passage through cells that does not kill the host.

What is potentially worse is that there is a developing body of evidence that those who previously had Covid and then get vaccinated may destroy their "N" protein recognition by doing so, ruining their previous nearly-perfect immunity.  That we did not specifically prove that this did not happen before giving these shots to anyone with prior infection is outrageous.  While the data on this is quite thin at present that there is a higher breakthrough rate in persons with prior infection than those who were infected but did not get vaccinated is what the data currently shows, which strongly implies that vaccination after infection actually screws you.

The people who did all of this did so intentionally either by willful blindness or worse, with actual knowledge -- and the so-called "public health" authorities who continue to push this instead of banning it are intentionally doing so as well.  Vander**** is just one example of this insanity but hardly alone -- Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Mayo, Cleveland -- they all know this is true, never mind the researchers at Ft. Detrick, the CDC and NIH.

Until and unless we prove a vaccine against Covid (or anything else that is circulating) is sterilizing it cannot be safely used on a mass-population basis.  That's the beginning and end of the discussion.  There are no exceptions, ever, period.  This was not even attempted to be demonstrated in the summer and fall 2020 Covid vaccine trials as the time period was too short to do so.  We now know, factually that in fact there are zero sterilizing and effective options among the vaccines in use -- whether here in the US or otherwise.

The only means to combat a pathogen absent sterilizing vaccination is to hit infections early and hard with whatever you have for the purpose of reducing viral load so as to produce durable, sterilizing immunity via infection.  If you reduce viral load you reduce both the risk of pathology seriously injuring or killing the infected person and also reduce the forward transmission rate, Rt, of said virus. 

Only sterilizing immunity cuts off mutation and exerting mutational pressure via non-sterilizing vaccines not only promotes mutation by removing the signal an infected person has to self-isolate and reduce transmission risk (since you don't feel ill) it nudges the virus toward codons that will escape the protection in whole or part.

In small groups of particularly high risk a non-sterilizing vaccine may be worth it but any use of one raises the risk of mutational escape and thus while attempting to protect that small group you may screw others.  Attempting to accurately determine who "deserves" to get protected while someone else gets screwed is a discussion that damn well ought to take place out in public as it is the public at large that is the recipient of the screwing if it occurs!

There remains a risk that drug resistance may arise which is why multi-drug regimes are important.  As an example HCQ+Ivermectin which was formally registered as a trial and then never actually run, is (among other options) one such potential approach.

When it comes to respiratory viruses as was the case with polio you need immunity via whatever source to take hold at the point of both entry and emission by an infected person.  This is why OPV worked on a sterilizing basis for polio where IPV did not.  IPV was injected; OPV was consumed.  As a result OPV produced mucosal immunity in the gut and thus prevented both colonization and forward transmission.  IPV, on the other hand, prevented symptomatic disease in the person immunized but did not express sufficiently in the gut mucosa to prevent infection, shedding and transmission.

THE SAME APPLIES HERE WITH THE COVID JABS AND FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE DANGEROUS, PROMOTING MUTATION AND ULTIMATELY VIRAL ESCAPE.

If you get Covid and beat it since the point of entry is your respiratory mucosa you have strong and broad resistance focused there.  That's sterilizing in more than 9 out of 10 persons and far more-durable than jab-based immunity as well.  That is what the data tells us. 

It is wildly superior to a non-sterilizing vaccine because you are not only very unlikely to get the virus again you are also nearly-certain to be unable to infect anyone else if you do.  This and only this is what cuts off mutational pressure.

It's too late now; we're stuck with the stupid, particularly all the screaming harpies who went out and got jabbed despite being at very low risk of serious outcomes themselves, turning themselves into literal gain-of-function labs for the virus.  If you took the jab, in short, unless you were at very high risk and thus it was justified on a personal mitigation basis you are, in fact, part of the body of individuals that are placing evolutionary pressure on the virus to evolve and ultimately evade the protection and screw not just others but you as well.

Those who are claiming "well, I got jabbed, I got infected, but it would have been much worse if I didn't get jabbed" are the worst of the psychotics.  First, the majority of Covid-19 infections are asymptomatic according to the CDC itself.  Indeed they claim at least six people get infected for each detected infection.  You may well have moved yourself from "I sneezed" to "I got pretty damned sick" by taking the shot.  You don't know.  But worse is that by taking the jab and then getting infected anyway you have now not just become a potential mutational factory you are one of the people causing what will ultimately become viral escape and the screwing of yourself and others because by definition if you got sick after vaccination the virus got into your system, it has now proved whatever occurred in you evaded the protection you had and then was emitted back out where others can catch it from you after that evasion took place.

You were either the mutational factory or an intermediate host that screws the next person you share the love with!

Not only did your protection against fail but, much worse, it's possible that said screwing will be enhanced by whatever residual antibody titer you may have since binding antibodies, if present (and which you intentionally put into your system) will still be present.  Even more-seriously you put the spike protein and thus the antibody response not in your nose and throat but in your blood vessels and other organs where they can cause the exact disease progression that occurs when Covid-19 kills people.  If you get a "break though" infection I hope you have your d-Dimer levels immediately checked because if not you may be a walking heart attack or stroke somewhere in the not-so-distant future with no other warning as a direct result of intentionally loading your body full of "protection" in the wrong place.

This, and only this, is why I will not consent to such a jab under any circumstances until and unless there is hard science showing that a sterilizing option exists.  That one, assuming the risk profile is reasonable, is one I might consider.  Said jab today does not exist anywhere in the United States and I'm unaware of any scientific work showing that any of the current jabs are sterilizing irrespective of where they are manufactured and sold.

Without sterilizing immunization against this disease the only sane approach is to attempt to interdict the progress of disease at first suspicion and evidence of infection instead.

I am capable of reading both history and scientific papers, I know I'm right, the CDC, NIH, Vander****, Mayo, Cleveland and Johns Hopkins also knew for decades that I'm right and they have either all turned what formerly were scientific organizations into politically-driven soy-boy pieces of worthless and even harmful crap or, much worse, they're deliberately lying.

If you were among the conned the only remaining question is what are you going to do with and to those who conned you?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of "You're ****ed, fool."

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-08-01 09:54 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 4663 references
[Comments enabled]  

I'm getting reports from all over the place, including on my forum and mailbag.

Nurses are walking out en-masse over vaccine mandates in hospitals and other care settings.  This of course leads to demand shifting to other places where they haven't done so (yet), but that's a problem too because they're short-staffed as well.

This isn't a big deal -- other than wildly increasing wait times -- until and unless you have something going on where waiting could kill you, such as a heart attack.

You aren't seeing these events in the news.  Guess why?

Yeah, that's why.

Guess where else this is going to happen?

You didn't want the firemen to show up and put out your house that's on fire, did you?  Well, better buy more garden hose because in several large cities it's been made clear that they will not comply either.  Ditto for Streets/San guys.  Oh, you want the garbage hauled away?  Too bad so sad.

Stupid is supposed to hurt.

It's going to, especially now that it has been admitted that (1) the CDC lied about "unvaccinated are 98% of deaths" when they knew damn well the jabbed were dying on a vertically-accelerating basis in May, we're two months further down the road now and (2) the CDC has also admitted that those who get "breakthrough" cases are ending up with equal or higher viral loads than unvaccinated people, which means there is no public health argument for the jabs at all since at best they can only protect you and not others.

The CDC gave us no word to keep either -- they just lied, repeatedly, all the way back to the start of thing.

Now it's time to pay for being stupid.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-07-31 10:13 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 1524 references
[Comments enabled]  

That's about all their scheme has left, which is why the screaming and threats now.

Note that I got jailed by Twatter for wishing that organizations mandating jabs go broke and starve when, in point of fact, they were advancing the very same thing toward their staffTake a drug or be fired, go broke and starve.

Why is this option for them about to expire?  They're about to get lynched and they know it.

In another dispiriting setback for the nation’s efforts to stamp out the coronavirus, scientists who studied a big COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts concluded that vaccinated people who got so-called breakthrough infections carried about the same amount of the coronavirus as those who did not get the shots.

The problem here is profound: The public was sold on these jabs as a solution; you will neither get seriously ill nor will you spread the virus to others if you get a "breakthrough", therefore if you take the jab you get your life back.

The problem with this premise is that the public should have never accepted it in the first place.

Why, you ask, when we have "mandates" to attend school for other vaccines -- MMR and Polio, to name two?

Have you ever been asked for evidence of up-to-date immunization for any disease at your job -- or to enter a pub, concert or sporting event?

Never.

I'm approaching 60 rotations around the flaming ball of death and never once have I been asked for that in my adult life.  I will point out that was I never asked for it in college either, and I was an adult when I matriculated and did it myself.  Both the community college I went to part-time in High School and the university I attended for a while (before telling them to go straight to Hell and quitting) never asked for a single bit of medical evidence, nor an exam, of any sort.  I never saw a nurse, doctor or other medical provider in either setting.

was asked for evidence when my daughter started kindergarten that her "childhood" series was done, but never again.  Not once.  Now is it possible that the school had some "back door" access?  Maybe.  But never was I specifically asked to provide it beyond original enrollment for kindergarten.  Never.  I also refused to provide her SSN to the school system as well since I did not trust their information security, so they had no "single access" key to use to dig it up either.

It would have been stupid, however, for me not to have her get those shots.  Why?  Because there I can (and did) look at the data and it was trivially obvious that (1) the protection from them was durable, lasting decades if not life-long, (2) the disease(s) in question were in fact truly dangerous to healthy people and (3) the risk of a bad outcome from the jabs were trivially small.

That makes the decision easy and you have to be somewhere off into crazyland to have a serious debate otherwise.  We can debate on the sequencing and timing, but not on a serious statistical level as to the rest.

I argued before the first jab went into the first arm that none of this was true for this specific jab.  There simply was no data to support the first point; three months is not enough time to determine durability and no amount of arm-waving can change that.  The disease, by that time, was proved to be of trivial to statistically zero risk when it comes to healthy individuals, especially young healthy individuals, and there are effective and immediate treatments you can choose to use if infected (despite the screaming of many.)  And third, the risk of adverse outcomes from the jabs was wildly higher, by several hundred times, that of other commonly used vaccines and this was with active interference in reporting the adverse effect rate.

Those who point to "flu shot mandates" in certain occupations are lying about their effectiveness too.  We know that the morbidity and mortality profile from influenza has not been materially altered with the widespread use of flu vaccines.  Yes, the CDC claims otherwise, but systemic review has repeatedly found confidence intervals that cross null.  Cherry-picking results when statistical significance is not demonstrated with a strong "p" value is fraud.

In other words the "mandates", which in other than health-care workers are all "soft" and always have been (recommendations rather than actual mandates) all stand on the basis that statistically-speaking the flu shot has a vanishingly small risk of doing harm; therefore you can argue that since it's almost never dangerous there's no argument against it.  That's very different, however, than making an argument for it.

Finally, the history of attempting coronavirus vaccination is that it never works.  We have tried before in both men and beast.  We've never succeeded.  Coronaviruses are notorious for both evading vaccination attempts and with their vaccine candidates being non-sterilizing, which in all viruses put evolutionary pressure on them and result in mutations that evade the protection.  The problem with viruses in this regard is that their replication is exponential; while mutational evasion of protection for bacteria with antibiotics typically takes years or even decades to occur because bacteria replicate in a binary fashion, that is 1 becomes 2, which becomes 4 and so on with viruses 1 becomes 1,000 and if that one winds up in recombination due to cross-infection with something else at the same time then while the odds of a productive mutation are no higher than they are with any other the outcome when you get a productive mutation is much more-likely to result in escape and transmission because the replication factor is so large.

We knew this nearly 70 years ago and it is why the polio vaccine in the US was actually two vaccines; IPV which is non-sterilizing followed by OPV which is sterilizing -- that is, which blocks actual transmission and not just symptomatic infection.

Viral evasion with polio would have been a disaster given the very high odds of paralysis or death resulting from said infection once you reached childhood or beyond.  Ironically it was our city dwelling and transition to attempts at sanitary waste disposal that led to polio becoming a serious problem in the first place.  Infections in infants very rarely lead to serious outcomes beyond a mild to moderate flu but sterilize the person infected.  However, infections in childhood and beyond frequently get into the central nervous system lead to paralysis or death.  As we started to literally get "**** out of the gutter" infection was delayed and thus morbidity and mortality become problematic.  Today both water and sewage supplies are sufficiently "safe" that even without vaccines widespread outbreaks are unlikely, but the IPV/OPV combination is very safe.  In third-world nations OPV is used because it is cheaper and sterilizing, where IPV is not sterilizing.

Now we are seeing the stupidity of what we did.  Note that while Delta is allegedly as contagious as Chicken Pox I am not concerned about going into a room full of people who might have it because I've already had it and thus are presumptively immune.  Likewise my daughter, who was immunized as a child once it became apparent that natural infection was not going to happen, has no reason to be concerned.

This is clearly not the case for those "vaccinated" with the Covid shots as the above article points out.

The White House and others are still clinging to the "we need more people to get jabbed" mantra despite the overwhelming evidence that it cannot work.  I remind you that if the CDC claim of Delta have an R0 of somewhere between 5 and 9 is accurate (which I don't believe by the way) then to suppress transmission you need somewhere between 80% and 89% of people to have actual effective protection against both illness AND TRANSMISSION -- that is, STERILIZING immunity -- to suppress the infection.

The data is that the jabs are not that effective even with 100% coverage which is impossible since some people cannot be vaccinated and even if eventually approved for children you can't get there from here.

Only infection confers sufficient protection, well into the 90% range, for sterilizing immunity.  Vaccination does not by the CDC's own data and claims.

Without being able to drive Rt below 1.0 you cannot cut the disease off.  It is not possible.  This is mathematics and is truth whether the government, Fauci, governors or mayors like it or not.

Further and of critical importance note that there is no way to cut off infections in skilled nursing facilities given the data on effectiveness from the CDC itself:

VE of mRNA vaccines for any infection (including asymptomatic) was 65%–75% in different locations and platforms during December 2020 – May 2021

Without getting to 90% even with 100% coverage you cannot suppress Rt below 1.0 and thus you cannot prevent outbreaks and forward transmission.

This, by the way, was suspected to start with because the trials did not enroll enough Seniors to know how badly age compromised their immune response.  Did the manufacturers deliberately under-enroll said highest risk people on purpose lest the data show that their jabs were unfit for purpose in that population since they were incapable of producing sufficient immune response even if mandated and at 100% coverage to protect a skilled nursing facility?

That is a question that nobody in the mainstream media or so-called "medical experts" will ask, but it's a damned good one considering how many Grandmothers we slaughtered by refusing to segregate the workers in such facilities in March of 2020.

Indeed that 65-75% was against original strains.  The "Beta" variant, which is less transmissible than Delta if you believe the CDC, showed that it was only 61% protected in LTCF by vaccination which is wildly insufficient to suppress Rt irrespective of any other protective measure and thus, on the data, the jabs are basically worthless to prevent spread and, as a result, only a personal protective measure of limited use even in such facilities where the need is greatest.

It's worse.  Their "98% of deaths are unvaccinated" is a knowing lie.  Again, from the above:

 

Again, this is not my data.  It is the CDC's data.

And since the CDC has now also admitted that aerosol transmission is real masks are not an answer either.

As I said back in the start of this thing: We either all have had this virus or are going to get it and only that process, natural infection, is going to eventually cut off this pandemic.  The more we attempt to tamper with that the worse it gets due to evolutionary pressure, with non-sterilizing actions being the worst of all as they promote mutations that will escape the measures taken.

Evolution is real and no amount of screaming and arm-waving will change it.

The only rational action is to attempt to interdict infections early and fortunately we have identified multiple agents that have shown at least some measure of effectiveness in doing so.  Even the WSJ now admits it -- and that the government has intentionally attacked doing so.

The screaming knob has been turned up to "10" for one reason and one reason only: The government and so-called "experts" all know that, on the data, they're about to lose their audience; trying to tell people who took the jabs that they just bought a subscription of indefinite duration that will never end is going to lead to a revolt.  They know this, and they also know that the odds of persuading someone who hasn't yet taken the jabs given that fact, which is now out there with Pfizer itself saying that these will be required on an indefinite forward basis are also about to drop to a statistical zero.

The government and so-called "experts" are all in a valley and staring at the "peasants" on the ridges surrounding them, knowing damn well what's on deck and that the simple passage of time -- and not much time either -- makes the outcome inevitable.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-07-30 21:37 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 17 references
[Comments enabled]  

You cannot wish that a vax pass causes someone to go broke on Twitter.

 
Their specific claim about this tweet?
 
 
 
So let's be clear: You cannot wish that someone go broke (and of course, what happens when you go broke is you starve since you have no money and thus no food) but it is perfectly fine for an organization or individual to advocate or actually force someone to take an unwanted medical treat OR GO BROKE AND STARVE by being fired, which was what the NY Post article I was commenting on was reporting.
 
ONLY SOME PEOPLE CAN FORCE YOU TO GO BROKE AND STARVE.
 
This is the sort of censorship, which we know, because the current administration has admitted they are coordinating, we as a nation are permitting to take place despite it being blatantly unconstitutional as the government is and has been involved in it.
 
It is also the twisting of both truth and discourse that so-called "private" enterprises engage in daily.
 
And it leads to the next question: If "certain people" are allowed to make you go broke and starve by force, which incidentally is attempted murder, while pointing out that voluntary shunning will turn that around on the person doing it results in being "silenced" why do the people of this nation allow that to persist?
View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-07-30 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 6055 references
[Comments enabled]  

Time to lock them all up.

Trump, Fauci, Vanderbilt's **********-in-chief, ****o, Witless, the lot of them.

Add to the list every "private sector" CEO, board member and HR person who is now attempting to force jabs through coercive measures.

They were all wrong and the so-called "expert of experts" has admitted not only that it is the case but that any continuation of said policy is felony assault with intent to commit homicide.

Let's be clear: Fauci has now admitted, on live camera, that a person with a breakthrough infection is just as dangerous as someone who was never vaccinated and gets infected.

This was expected by anyone who has ever studied anything about viral disease and the use of non-sterilizing immunizations when infections are active in a community.  We have known this all the way back to Polio and is why we insisted on a sterilizing vaccine (OPV) following the inactivated injected vaccine (IPV) in the United States until 20 years after we were declared polio-free.

In addition it is exactly what is expected if a non-sterilizing vaccine produces both binding and neutralizing antibodies and we know, scientifically, that all the existing jabs do exactly that.  When levels wane you still have binding antibodies and when the neutralizing level falls below the threshold to protect you now have an enhancement of the disease rather than protection.  A person who was never infected and not vaccinated does not have the binding antibodies and thus, while at risk, doesn't get the enhancement.  Now we have real-world evidence that in fact the jabs produce risk as immunity wanes and that said risk may exceed, on a personal level, what someone has who never been infected or vaccinated is exposed to.

As I pointed out the case rate had peaked and was headed down -- hard -- before the first jab went into the first arm.  That which you do after something happens can't be due to whatever it is you did.  Not one group saw that collapse come after vaccination and no sub-group, even the very old, reached even 20% coverage before the case rate was in the ditch  Obviously vaccines did not stop Covid in the winter and thus there's no reason to believe they will materially impact whatever variation may come around -- now or in the future.

Got JabbersRemorse yet folks?  It appears you may need to continually take boosters to avoid this and accept the risk of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, PAH and other adverse effects not just once or twice but every six months to a year if not more-often!  Oh, and if you choose not to the duration of your increased risk is not known -- it may last for years or even decades and may not be limited to Covid-19 either; any virus that can cross-react with the binding antibodies would be enhanced.

What I said was the correct path forward in early 2020 and have maintained since is:

  • Protect the most-vulnerable who cannot protect themselves.  This means locking in all care-givers in institutional settings for the elderly and medically infirm.  Yep, you work there, you do not interact with the public until and unless you can prove seroconversion.  Period.  If we have to pay more to get people to agree to this so be it.  It is what it is.

  • Urge immediate intervention with suspected or believed effective drugs that are rationally safe at the first sign of infection.  If you can buy or use something of statistically similar risk over the counter then you must be able to buy these over the counter on your demand to a pharmacist, with he or she checking for interactions with other drugs you may be taking and warning as appropriate, but with the choice being yours and nobody else's.  Period.  The list of said drugs includes hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, budesonide, famotidine and a few others.  Why?  Because we had no reason to believe originally that natural infection was not sufficient to prevent, in nearly every case, re-infection with a serious or severe instance as that has always been true for every other respiratory pandemic virus and time has proved this up for Covid-19 as well.  In short natural infection has now proved superior to vaccination (note that nobody is seriously claiming Delta and other "variants" evade natural immunityand therefore in those who are at reasonably-low risk infection is preferred as the immunity it produces is at least equal and likely superior, with said infection mitigated as to severity as one chooses.  MY ASS, MY CHOICE.

  • For those at extremely high risk offer but not mandate whatever prophylactic(s) we can come up with.  This includes the current jabs but certainly isn't limited to them.  For example there is some evidence that Ivermectin is effective as a prophylaxis.  Vitamin D may be; there is a very strong association between Vitamin D deficiency and severe or fatal Covid infections but association is not proof of cause nor that correcting it would change outcomes.  Nonetheless there is nearly zero risk to that path forward and, for Ivermectin, the data is that the serious adverse event risk is 1 in 600,000 people.  That's tiny and less than the risk from Tylenol, to name just one OTC drug in question.  Again, the goal here is for infections to happen as they will but not result in serious outcomes as that is the path out of every pandemic through history and there is no evidence this one will be different.

  • Those who are at statistically-zero risk of serious harm or death (e.g. healthy children) should be encouraged to live normally and expect to get the virus.  Their natural immunity provides a "free of cost" firewall for everyone else.  We are criminally insane to do anything that limits or otherwise attempts to prevent that.

  • If you are going to close the border to "non-essential" travel, that is to other than essential trade activities, then mean it or shut the **** up and drop the constraints.  If you actually believe that there is a crazy transmission risk from ordinary people doing ordinary things then you have an obligation to place the military on our border with orders to shoot anyone who crosses illegally.  No exceptions.  We now know Biden's administration is in fact releasing known-Covid infected migrants into the population.  If this is a "dangerous disease" then such an action is manslaughter.  If it is not manslaughter then no constraint on a Covid-positive person is legal.

In short enough of the bull**** folks.  I've been on this since the first impeachment trial of Trump and due to the fact that the media and social/advertising folks "don't like" any sort of debate, discussion or reporting that is anything other than their preferred narrative have been basically forced to choose between no advertising of any sort, ever, or moving everything related to Covid, no matter how indirectly related, to its own area where no advertising is present.

Even that's often declared "not enough"; for example, this page on my main blog is declared by Google's AdSense to contain "misinformation." On a non-signed on account (if you're logged in you can change the articles-per-page, thus might see something different) a person (or their robot) will see (1) an article about Yang's failed Presidential bid, (2) my satirical declaration of running for President, (3) an article criticizing Greta and her "green" advocacy, (4) an article pointing out the MMT BS often run and finally (5) a response to one of the many screamers about Democrats prior to the 2020 elections. The latest article on that page is from September of 2019, more than three months prior to Covid being admitted to exist.  I asked for a review after moving any potentially controversial and related material, which was only tangentially-so, into the non-advertised area and they confirmed their decision after the redactions -- but refuse to tell me what they objected to -- either in the first place or now.  They claim "Derogatory or dangerous content."  If someone won't tell you what they object to how do you avoid offending their alleged "sensibilities"?  If the argument is that I have been "mean" to a public figure, all of whom that are identified are, by their own hand, then what sort of actual debate can one have when they call you a murderous bastard by implication if you decide to drive a combustion-engine powered vehicle?

In short what could reasonably be considered "misinformation or unreliable medical claims", or "derogatory or dangerous content" on that page?

Nothing.  None of it has anything to do with Covid whatsoever because all of it was written before Covid was known in the media to exist.

Are you still going to swallow the BS coming out of Washington DC and the States or are you going to force local, state and federal officials to stop doing things that keep be proved as dangerous, critically so, while intentionally refusing to protect the public?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)