The Market Ticker - Canceled
What 'They' Don't Want Published- Category [Covid-19]
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.

2021-09-17 13:32 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 8530 references
[Comments enabled]  

It is time to respond to this outrage:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBRC) - The increase in usage of monoclonal antibodies has caused federal officials to place new limits on how much of them Alabama will get.

We’ve learned that state health officials and legislators are fighting to make sure the state gets as much as it needs.

The interesting twist is that there is no shortage of monoclonal antibodies of any kind nationwide.

As of this week, the more than 200 providers offering monoclonal antibodies will see a roughly 30 percent reduction in what they requested.

Ok, fine.

Which one of you Governors would like to have a basically-zero Covid rate?  Which one of you would like to be the State with the lowest rate of coronavirus disease, a collapsed health-care burden (to near-zero) and a collapsed rate of death too.

How would you like to see this start to happen within two weeks and be so apparent every news stations has to report on it within a month?

Here's how -- which, if you read when I put this forward, was something I promoted in early December of 2020.

It costs about $2 per person in a household.

It's simple: For anyone suspected (test results not back yet) you dispense to them five doses of Ivermectin to be taken every day if they are obese or otherwise morbid, and every second day if not along with one dose per every two days for everyone in the household, calibrated by their weight.  Everyone in the household also gets ten days of a 1,000mg Vitamin C tablet and ten days of 30mg of Zinc, both dietary supplements.  The exception is anyone on a blood thinner; you simply ask and, if they are, they don't get the drug (but do get the supplements.)

The State buys the drug in bulk, from India if you have to (fly a charter over there to pick it up; **** the Feds) and dispenses it.

Why?

Read the linked article.  This is is not just about treatment; it is also about cutting off forward transmission of the virus.  It will not work every time but it doesn't have to work every time -- just often enough to suppress Rt below 1.0 and the virus dies out.

The risk of someone having a serious adverse event from this is 1 in 600,000.  If Florida has ten percent of their population that gets infected (or suspected to be) or is in a household with someone who is over the next three months (improbably high, but let's go with it) that would be a cost of about $5 million.  For Alabama it would cost about a million.  That's it.

Who's got the stones to do this?

Whoever does it first and collapses their Covid-19 case, hospitalization and death rate is President in 2024 -- that is, if the other 49 States don't have their residents lay siege to DC and their State governments as soon as they see the first State's results.

It won't work?  Yes it will -- it did in a State in India too with over 200 million people.

Grow a set, governors.  The Federal Government cannot prevent you from doing this.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-09-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 3233 references
[Comments enabled]  

There are times that the "F" word is absolutely appropriate.  For example on August 6th, 1945, by the Mayor of Hiroshima in the instant of time just before he was BBQ'd: What the **** was that?

This is one of those and so I'll use it without reservation: ****.

A drive-by parade outside of Methodist Mansfield Medical Center last April was supposed to be Corey Ripe's happy ending. The 47-year-old was headed home after a week on a ventilator battling COVID-19.

Ok, he got Covid, he got it bad in March/April 2020 before we knew what we were doing -- but he lived.

Then, January.

Three days later, they got confirmation that, in addition to pneumonia, Ripe had once again contracted the virus that had already nearly claimed his life.

Really?  What was the Ct on that test?  You see, I read that linked article and it describes symptoms that don't make a lot of sense for Covid-19.  Certainly anything's possible but the article does make sense for a whole bunch of other infections particularly if he had secondary bacterial pneumonia.  What did the hospital give him?  Nobody has said.  There wasn't an antibiotic in there by chance, was there?

He then gets vaccinated post-recovery.  Remember, the vaccine prevents severe disease and death, we're currently told.  We were previously told it prevented getting the virus (that was a lie), that it prevented symptoms (that was a lie), that it prevented giving the virus to others (that was a wild-eyed, entirely-unscientific claim with zero evidence and proved to be a crazy-faced lie as is now showing up everywhere including at all-vaccinated colleges) and now it's "you won't go to the hospital or die."

OH REALLY?  WHERE IS THIS GUY RIGHT NOW?

Still, Saturday night, though he’d shown no prior symptoms, Parris knew it had to be COVID-19 again when she heard the fluid in his lungs.

She rushed him to the ER. And an hour later, Parris got a familiar call.

Ripe was intubated and waiting for an available ICU bed.

I see.

So here are my questions, since this is so wildly improbable that I find it impossible to believe unless something really, really ugly is going on with these jabs.

  • At his second alleged infection did the hospital check for both "S" and "N" antibodies at admission?  They should have been present.  You know they didn't look.  But let's assume, for the sake of argument, the first infection really was Covid (it's entirely plausible) and not the flu with a secondary bacterial infection that got him.  I'm not sold on this because H1N1 was going around at that time, I got what I presume was that in January 2020, it did get into my lungs and it flattened me for a week with serious hanging-on symptoms, notably a nasty non-productive cough, that kept hanging on for a month and material cardio impairment for several more (it was worse than Covid-19 which I got first days of August of this year.)  It was bad and I thought, after Covid-19 became known to be a "thing", I might have had it.  But it was not Covid-19; I know scientifically it was not because a few months later I sourced IgG antibody tests and I was negative.

  • After the second alleged infection but before he got vaccinated did anyone check for both "S" and "N" antibodies?  You know the answer to that one too.  Of course not.  "If you're recovered you should still get vaccinated" is what every ******* in the medical and political field has said even though there is zero evidence you get any benefit from doing so and, post-infection, the data is that your protection is many times (13x or more, to be exact) better than getting jabbed.

  • In any event being an alleged "two-time winner" of the Covid-19 sweepstakes, a statistically unlikely thing to the extreme unless one of the two wasn't actually Covid, he takes the (bad) advice and gets vaccinated.  Ok, so now he should have both "N" antibodies (from previous infection) and a bunch of "S" ones.

  • Now a few months later he gets hammered.  Again they say "Covid-19."  Did they look at admission time for those antibodies this time?  You know damn well they did not and, much worse, this time was extremely rapid onset which strongly implies that VEI may be in the game here.  Yet I'll bet $1,000 they did not pull antibody titers for both "S" and "N" proteins on admission and given the history I'll argue that's not only personal malpractice it's public-health malpractice and gross negligence.

Here's why those antibody titers are important especially this time around.

Natural infection provides a higher (by quite a lot) "N" protein titer than "S".  Why is that?  Because coronaviruses have evolved so their "S" proteins can evade the immune system.  If this was not the case they couldn't infect you, but obviously they do.  Thus natural infection will produce both but the "N" titer will be higher.

Vaccination produces NO "N" antibodies at all because they're not encoded in the vaccine.  That's intentional; the hypothesis that all the vaccine makers in the US used (and in Europe and many other places) operated under was informed by work that was done when SARS was going around.  Vaccines were attempted and they all failed due to ADE-style problems during animal trials.  The belief was that they failed because of the "N" protein in the vaccine.  This was supported by mechanistic (not in-body) work and sounds plausible (I've read the work) but the problem is that many times what appears to be "correct" on a mechanistic or test-tube basis doesn't work that way in the human body.  Since SARS disappeared we never tested this theory on people before Covid-19 showed up because we couldn't; there was no virus against which to risk natural infections and challenge trials with something like SARS are flat-out nutso given its fatality rate.  The short trials we did do this time around before EUAs issued accounted only for the wild strain that was in circulation at the time; all these other "letters and numbers" mutations were not known as they didn't exist and thus couldn't be tested against.  All looked ok, and away we went without any long-term data to back up the claims.  Then we licensed one of them with less than a year's worth of data to back up the belief that enhancement was off the table.

If this guy has a significant "S" titer, particularly if he has one that is higher than his "N" titer then when he was injected he did produce the expected antibody response.  In other words the expectation is that he had "protection."  If he has no titer then he is the one dude out of millions that both got nothing in the way of immunity from either infection or vaccination.

But assuming he does have antibodies given his extremely-rapid deterioration this time -- from no symptoms to insane deterioration to the point of requiring intubation within a day this time around that implicates VEI in an extremely serious way and in fact until disproved that has to be the presumed reason he got hit that hard, that fast.

This is exactly what VEI (ADE is a subset of VEI, "Vaccine Enhanced Infection") looks like when it happens folks.  People go from being asymptomatic or only mildly ill to crashing within hours.  The presumption when someone who is vaccinated and has an antibody titer has this sort of thing happen is that is, until conclusively excluded, what you're dealing with is VEI and it's a pull the damned alarm right now because the risk of people being imminently ****ed en-masse is on the table sort of event.

If that is what happened then the odds are extremely high that a mutational strain that can tear through the vaccinated population like a wrecking ball is here in the United States -- right here, right now.

No bull**** folks.

The only "out" from this scenario if that's what happened to this individual is that whatever strain he has is disadvantaged on an evolutionary basis and thus will not widely spread and become a material part of the mix.  That is not and cannot be brought under our control.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-09-06 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 3226 references
[Comments enabled]  

I hate being right, and it's even nastier when a peer-reviewed medical journal publishes proof without realizing what they're doing, and thus doesn't make a recommendation based on the data they present.

Findings  In this repeated cross-sectional study that included 1 443 519 blood donation specimens from a catchment area representing 74% of the US population, estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence weighted for differences between the study sample and general population increased from 3.5% in July 2020 to 20.2% for infection-induced antibodies and 83.3% for combined infection- and vaccine-induced antibodies in May 2021. 

Remember the basic rule of epidemics: Herd suppression begins to bend the curve of infection at about 1/2 of the actual suppression number and widespread epidemic spread is mathematically impossible when you reach that number.

That doesn't mean a light switch is thrown and nobody gets sick.  It means the outbreaks are spotty and of no major consequence because they don't go beyond the concentrated places where immunity does not exist.

The basic formula for herd suppression is 1 - 1/R0.

Therefore at 83.3% total immunity as of May 2021 a virus with a given R0 can be computed.

.83 = 1 - (1/R0)

In other words a virus with an R0 of 5.88 or less is suppressed.

That's well beyond the necessary level to suppress Covid-19.

But it didn't, did it?  Since May we've seen a serious outbreak and screaming from everyone.

We know natural immunity works because every study of persons previously infected, where said previous infection was documented by more than PCR test, that is, medical certainty and not a BS, flawed test has shown that an effective zero persons get re-infected and, there is no evidence said persons can spread the disease either.

Non-sterilizing vaccines do not suppress anything; if you can still get and spread the virus, and we now know that is true despite the claims of the lying media, the CDC, NIH, Fauci and everyone else originally back to December and January when those false claims were used to CON people into taking jabs then until and unless you actually acquire an infection and build natural protection spread does not stop because you are not part of the herd that suppresses spread.

The JAMA study now proves that:

  • The jabs are worthless to inhibit the spread of Covid-19.  The legal, ethical and moral arguments for "forced vaccination" are now dust.  The anecdotal evidence from places like Cornell, which is taking a case rate five times that of last year despite near 100% vaccination rates, are now converted into hard, irrefutable science.  The debate on "passports", "digital certificates" and demands by employers and others to get jabbed is over.  JAMA has proved that the jabs do exactly nothing to prevent the spread of disease.

  • If you are jabbed you are just as likely, if not more-likely, to give the virus to others.  This is particularly important if the "others" are seriously medically-compromised (e.g. elderly and morbid, immune-suppressed, etc.) and take no precautions because they believe they're safe around you.  The reason you may be more-likely to spread the virus to others is that if the jab suppresses your symptoms you will not know you're sick, and thus you will have no reason to limit contact with others.  This makes the jabbed literal Typhoid Marys; an un-jabbed person who feels ill will (unless they're psychotic) self-isolate to the extent it is practical, even without a quarantine order.

  • The insistence of jabs in medical settings is now, on the science, converted from "will protect patients" to will, with scientific certainty, screw unvaccinated patients, some of whom cannot be vaccinated and thus now constitutes gross negligence and depraved indifference to human life.  Since we know that prior infection in fact confers sterilizing immunity the only rational act for health care providers dealing with high-risk patients who either cannot be vaccinated or show no sufficient immune response is to only allow convalescent, recovered health-care workers to care for them because they are the only sterile immune individuals.  To do anything else, when there is a sizeable reservoir of said persons in the community (one in five, and almost-certainly much higher as medical personnel were exposed preferentially for the last 18 months) is voluntary manslaughter or even Murder 2.

In addition the JAMA data suggests (but does not prove) that VEI (vaccine-enhanced infection) is occurring.  That is, the symptomatic and serious infections in vaccinated people may be cases where the vaccine made the infection more-serious.  That, by the way, is exactly what every other coronavirus vaccine attempt has ended in over the decades.  We, in our arrogance, believed that foregoing the several years required to make sure that ordinary mutational patterns would not lead to the same result didn't need to take place and a short, four month trial was sufficient.  We're now finding out that it wasn't after putting that risk in the arms of roughly 200 million Americans.  That was stupid.

The data is what it is.  You cannot argue with mathematics folks, and while JAMA apparently does not realize what they published and proved, they nonetheless did exactly that.  Not only did they do so the number of samples involved (nearly 1.5 million) gives excellent statistical power and a very narrow confidence band that spans less than 1% of those with said resistance.

Yet despite that fact and data, and after the cut-off date for this study's data in May the spike we took this summer did happen which, unfortunately for all the madhouse screamers at the CDC, State Departments of Health, the NIH and the Biden Administration proves, with scientific certainty, that the vaccines are worthless in interdicting both the acquisition and transmission of Covid-19, as otherwise given this prevalence as of May of 2021 the spike in infections this summer could not have occurred.

The debate is over folks.

The slaughter must end and end now; the data from JAMA is irrefutable.

smiley

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-08-27 10:48 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 4064 references
[Comments enabled]  

If you recall early on before the jabs were "released" under EUA I pointed out that some of the early study work had odd results that I could not reasonably explain a purpose to, and they bothered me a lot.

One of the most-glaring was the wildly higher antibody titers produced by them as opposed to natural infection.  I mused at the time that this could easily be explained by the truncation (or simply ignorance of) the usual dose-ranging studies that are done on all drugs; those require time, of course, and when you're after Warp Speed time is something you don't have.

But now it appears that Pfizer may have known there was a problem -- they may not have known how serious it was, but they may well have known it existed and may have deliberately set the dosing to try to hide it.

And, as it turns out, that wasn't the only problem.

In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month. Six months after BNT162b2 vaccination 16.1% subjects had antibody levels below the seropositivity threshold of <50 AU/mL, while only 10.8% of convalescent patients were below <50 AU/mL threshold after 9 months from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In other words the dosing they used, and the original titers, concealed the decay below effective levels which was not being tested for but would have shown up in infections among vaccinated people had the original level been lower.

That's bad; the question now becomes did Pfizer know this and do it deliberately, and if not, what is the logical explanation for the dosing used?  Why not set dosing roughly identical to natural infection?  Simple: If they did that before the four months of the study ran a crap-ton of people would have gotten infected since the antibody titer would have worn off.

It gets worse:

In our study, we show that following vaccination, the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies decrease rapidly, indicating that BMPCs may not be created adequately and therefore anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity might be transient (Ibarrondo et al., 2020; Seow et al., 2020). 

If there is little or no B-cell recall then the vaccine is a failure as it cannot stimulate durable immunity at all.  That is, the jabs are basically the same (via a different mechanism) to receiving monoclonal antibodies if you get infected; yes, you have an antibody titer but the jabs fail to train your immune system to recognize the infection in the future.  As that titer wanes the protection becomes increasingly worthless and, since we know mutational binding changes are occurring the potential for vaccine-caused harm by potentiating infections remains a distinct possibility as that occurs.

In addition, and perhaps most-damning of all, we also know that the vaccines have a very high significant adverse event rate -- much, much higher than any other commonly-used vaccine (such as MMR, varicella or the flu shot.)  The really awful part of this is that most of the serious adverse events happened after the second jab, not the first one, implying that there is an accelerating risk with each successive injection.  Whether that accelerating risk "bleeds off" over the next six months or so is a complete unknown since it was never tested for, but if it does not then attempting to buy successive six month periods of protection will, inevitably in everyone, cross over into being more likely to harm you than the virus itself and might even cross over to the point of inevitable harm or death if repeated enough times.

Any of this, standing alone, if identified before release would have almost-certainly caused these jabs to be scrapped.  But that's not what happened and now we have the FDA that has actually passed on "licensing" the very same one that is the subject of this study.

Folks, I believe in vaccination on a general basis.  I never believe in truncating the scientific work necessary to prove that something is both safe and effective when you cannot take it back, as is the case here.  We have shoved needles in 200 million American arms and countless more throughout the world without having that evidence and now, as this study demonstrates, the dosing may have been set where it was on purpose to conceal what the manufacturers knew was declining effectiveness and a likely failure of the original immune stimulation to produce a response that had the capacity to be durable.

Never mind the safety issues raised by repeated "boosters" when we already know the risks of serious adverse events are potentially compounding rather than one-shot or linear risks.

This demands immediate investigation and, if it is found that the dosing was set intentionally with knowledge of the decay dynamics everyone involved in that and its concealment had better hang for it -- for starters.  That is not a mistake, it is active fraud.

In addition figuring out how we back out of what is increasingly looking to be a nightmare scenario on our doorstep had better be determined -- and fast.

This much is certain: Given the data on the table at this point in time no part of the "answer" can be more shots in arms.

No matter what you believe about "Warp Speed" I will say this again: You better figure out how to deal with an infection when, not if, you get it, because on this data you are going to get Covid-19 if you have not already had it.  Chicken soup is not the correct answer.  If you rely on said chicken soup you may well wind up flat on your back with a tube down your throat as you gasp your last.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-08-23 10:14 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 8505 references
[Comments enabled]  

So the FDA has "fully approved" the Pfizer jab for Covid.

In doing so standing alone they have broken the law and thus have irrevocably destroyed their authority and any reason for anyone to ever do anything based on them ever again.

Let me explain.

Under black letter law an EUA is illegal if there is an alternative that is considered safe, effective and available.  This was the reason the FDA did not (for 18 months!) run the studies and evaluate them on other early-intervention drugs for Covid-19.  We all know what they are.  I'm living proof they work too, as are millions of others worldwide.

But, more-importantly, this "full approval" voids all other vaccine EUAs for Covid-19.  That is, under the law the Moderna and J&J instantly became illegal to offer or use within the United States.

The makers can apply for full authorization, of course, but the EUAs are void as of this morning and under black letter law cannot be administered to anyone in the United States as they are now unlicensed and unlawful products in human beings until and unless they are given full approval themselves.  No medical provider can offer or administer any other than the Pfizer Covid-19 shot in the United States as of the moment of that approval.

You can bet the law will be ignored; note MRNAs stock price this morning.  It should have instantly been cut in half.

In addition the FDA broke the law itself when it issued the "approval."  The law requires a full hearing and the data from the full set of trials; the trials are not capable of being completed until early 2022 by the original submissions and they deliberately did not hold the hearing.  This is a black letter violation of the law as well, but nobody cares.

As for me, I don't give a crap.

I've been infected, 98% certain it was Delta (because that's all that's circulating right now in the US where the index case I got infected by came from, and I know who it was) and am recovered.  I hit it with meds immediately and I'm fine.  I know, scientifically, it was Covid-19 and not some other virus as I now have IgG antibodies and did not for the previous 18 months which I know factually as I repeatedly tested myself.

There is thus exactly zero medical benefit I can derive from the jabs.

I will walk without fear into a Covid-19 ICU unit right now without any PPE on whatsoever.  I have no fear of this virus because as with every other viral infection of note including those that are much more-dangerous than Covid, such as measles, prior infection and recovery produces durable and stable immunity in essentially everyone who has a competent immune system, and I do.  Those of you who trust the jabs to be equally effective to an active infection and recovery are free to come with me.  I will bet my life that I'm sterile immune to the virus as a result of said infection and recovery.  Are you willing to place the same bet, given the many known failures to protect by the shot, including Jesse Jackson and his wife, both of whom are in the hospital with Covid-19 despite being vaccinated in a very public spectacle in January of this year?

There you have it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)