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.


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.

2021-06-04 12:49 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 4810 references
[Comments enabled]  

That'll be the game, set and match folks.

A Chinese Communist Party military scientist who got funding from the National Institutes of Health filed a patent for a COVID-19 vaccine in February last year — raising fears the shot was being studied even before the pandemic became public, according to a new report.

Zhou Yusen, a decorated military scientist for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) who worked alongside the Wuhan Institute of Virology as well as US scientists, filed a patent on Feb. 24 2020, according to documents obtained by The Australian.

So what do we now know?

  • China's military was in fact involved at the Wuhan lab.  It was not just a civilian operation.  This, by the way, has been repeatedly denied over the last year and change.

  • The lab's scientists knew not only the sequencing of the virus but in addition had a patentable way to create an alleged vaccine before the pandemic was public.  It takes time to draft patents and figure them out.  Quite a lot of time, in fact -- not a couple weeks or months.

  • The PLA, China's military, did file said patent with Zhou's name on it.

  • It takes time to prove up patent material, including in the case of a vaccine.  To patent something you must be able to demonstrate it; you cannot patent ideas, only embodiments of ideas.  In that case you would have to prove immunogenicity which isn't instantaneous; it takes weeks or even months to get through original science on this with animals and then humans, which means the date of knowledge was not February 24th it was months or even further before that.

  • That means they were working on this even before that time because to work on a vaccine you have to know you must or would want to work on it in the first place.  This in turn means they knew damn well there was a virulent virus in the wild prior to that date, or they released it or intended to release it into the wild on purpose.  Nobody comes up with a vaccine for a virus you intend to and have confined entirely within a laboratory in animal or cell culture testing; that's worthless.  Without an isolate to create a vaccine for and a virus outside of a lab environment where vaccination becomes a "thing" that might be required and thus have value why would you do the work to create one?

What's the timeline on all this?  Many, many months or even a couple of years.

That means either the virus was "out" for many months to a couple of years before February of 2020 (not a month or two) or the Chinese intended to release it in the fall of 2019.  In either case the evidence is now overwhelming that this was not a virus that "magically appeared" one fine day in late December having come naturally from bats and perhaps pangolins. That is not just improbable anymore -- it is now, on the manifest weight of the evidence, impossible.

Further, the person who filed the patent died under "mysterious circumstances."  Gee, I wonder why?

Let me guess -- did he shoot himself in the back of the head twice?

Next up is exactly what sort of vaccine patent we're talking about here?

Specifically how is it that the "stiffened" areas in the viral vector and mRNA shots we're using in the US came to be known and proved up?  How did Moderna and Pfizer know they needed to do that?  That sort of study takes months if not years too, not days or weeks, to both come up with it and then prove it actually works as expected.

Remember that Covid-19 has a rather-unique site on the spike called the "furin-cleavage" area which it uses to "fold" and get into the cell; the S1 unit attaches, the cleavage area "folds" and then the second part penetrates the cell wall like a spear.  SARS and MERS both lack this structure so there was no "prior art" to use and in the first couple of months the characterizing of all of this was pretty darn new.

Yet the "official story" is that these folks had a proposed candidate configuration, including the replacement of encodings to "stiffen" that area within days of the publication of the viral RNA sequence for Covid-19.

Is the completed work in that area what the Chinese "gave" us complete with that part of the work already done?  That would explain how it happened that quickly, wouldn't it?  I'd sure like to understand how someone -- anyone -- does that sort of work complete with the lab verification in cell cultures and animals, reachig those conclusions in days.

What are the connections there?  I'd like a full explanation of that please.

Oh wait -- the manufacturers didn't bother with all of making sure it worked as expected, did they?  Nope!  It sort of works as expected.  Yes, the shots produce antibodies -- lots of them.  But they also cluster in multiple organs where we were told it would not; we were told it would remain in the deltoid muscle where the injection was delivered.  That it remained in the muscle was false; the science was not done and it appears we were just told it would do so without evidence.  Now, due to a leaked document out of Japan we know the shots do not stay where intended and they bioaccumulate in other places, including the ovaries and spleen and yet this, which was a direct contravention of the predicate upon which the EUAs issued did not lead to immediate revocation.  Oh no, the FDA doesn't care when claims about where it is contained to in the body turn out to be false!

We further know the spike protein itself is pathogenic via multiple studies despite the CDC claiming otherwise and that said spike also shows up all over the body after vaccination.  We were also told that didn't happen; quite clearly that science was not done either as the first hint of trouble was in September of 2020 and then from December forward -- the claim was thus either a lie by omission (heh, "Warp Speed!") and lack of work or it was an intentional and malicious, knowing lie.  Again the FDA relied on that representation, we now know it was false and yet the EUAs, once again, were not withdrawn.

Which is it folks -- haste or fraud?  And from a standpoint of yanking the EUAs -- does it matter?  False is false; why only goes to the issue of punishment for the falsehood, not the required corrective action when discovered.  I'm entirely willing to believe haste as opposed to deliberate deception but it doesn't matter in terms of leaving the damned things out there without going back and forcing proof that the contradictions do not turn into harms!


And further, we now have clinical evidence that the significant adverse event rate (SAR) is wildly higher than being stated, and may be as high as a few percent, or few per hundred, not the few per hundred thousand being claimed.  Exactly what is the REAL serious adverse event rate?  We do not know because VAERS is a voluntary system and there is no systematic surveillance on people who get jabbed.  Without either mandatory reporting or systematic surveillance there is no way to get an accurate number; all you generate is a hypothesis, and boy, has VAERS done that with over 4,000 reports of associated death against 20-odd for the flu vaccine over the last 12 months.

Fauci either knew or should have known that the CCP and his "trusted colleagues" were lying.

Then again lying is all he's done since this started, as his emails have now proved.  Hell, he even said directly what I've pointed out for months -- viruses are simply too small to be caught by common masks; they go right through.

Do you believe anything else the CDC, NIH or your state health departments tell you?

Every one of the persons, individually, promulgating these lies must be held to both civil and criminal account.

Even if you have health insurance if you get one of those significant adverse events you are on the hook for your deductible and out-of-pocket maximum, and if the problem continues across more than a year you get to pay it again and again, perhaps forevermore.

This assumes, of course, that the damage isn't permanent -- and it might be.

Once someone lies to your face about something important you're nuts to believe anything else they tell you.

Oh by the way, did Fauxi (sic) know any or all of this?  If he did, is that treason?  You know, actual treason?

PS: IMHO, a good start -- Revoke China's MFN status and freeze all of the CUSIPs for US Treasuries and all US firms and other US entities owned by any Chinese national, firm or the government.  Revoke all student and non-resident visas.  Impose full currency, wage and environmental parity tariffs on all products and services coming from China, directly or indirectly.  Contemplate derivative sanctions on nations that refuse to follow suit.  Do it now and mean it.  Whether this was intentional in release is no longer the gating factor; that it was intentionally concealed and the Chinese military was involved is now conclusively demonstrated by that patent filing.  That's enough, standing alone.  War can be declared in multiple ways; shooting is not always involved and China has done so.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-06-03 09:08 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 1051 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ok, so now we got it.

All the BS that happened at the start of the pandemic is now clear as to cause and why Fauci went bat****.

He knew he was in this up to his neck due to the NIH grants to Ecohealth.  And he had estimates coming out to him, not being disseminated to the public, of fatality rates in the 2-4% range.  That would mean two hundred million dead worldwide and somewhere around 4-8 million in the United States before the virus burned itself out.

There is also, in that email trove, a claim of exactly how the virus was generated in the Wuhan lab.  I cannot verify that as I don't have the chops, nor can I prove the provenance of the person who sent it to him -- never mind that unless that person had inside knowledge it may be a guess rather than proved fact.

If that CFR had been anywhere near accurate (it wasn't by the way; the IFR is actually around 0.15%, which is very close to a bad seasonal flu, but with a wild skew in risk toward older and more-morbid people) Fauci also had to know that anyone that had anything to do with the Wuhan lab and how it got funded was going to be lucky to get a decent burial; they might be hanged and left for buzzards to eat.

You can't argue with the provenance of the emails as they were officially produced under an FOIA, so the usual screaming of Russia-Russia-Russia and claims of tampered evidence won't work.  It is what it is, and what it shows is a man who was trapped and tried to "mitigate" his way out of a disaster his fingers were all over, and which he knew would be discovered since the grants to Ecohealth produced reported studies with the grant numbers on them.  There was utterly no way to prevent that from becoming public eventually.

This also fully explains the international fear porn game.  Virology is not a uniquely American or Chinese thing.  Research is done all over the place, the researchers hold symposiums and conferences, trade ideas, and as with any other profession there is a close-knit community of experts in the field.  They all knew damn well within days -- in January of 2020, in fact -- that their entire field was about to have an asteroid land on it as it was that early that the whistle was blown on sequencing in the virus that was extraordinarily unlikely to have occurred by chance and thus the probability was that the best possible explanation was an accident in Wuhan and the possibility of a deliberate dissemination could not be ruled out.

As I have pointed out in a discussion in The Bar on my system, just before all this crazy started -- right in front of Christmas, in fact, I witnessed Asian people, likely Chinese, in three separate WalMart stores across two states running their hands all over the laptop computers on display.  At the time I thought it was likely an organized ring attempting to figure out whether the security plugs (that set an alarm off if you try to steal them) were active or if someone had missed one, or if the lockdown bars were all secured.  After all these are high-value things and even in NW FL and TN in December it gets pretty chilly so concealing one under a coat is not hard.  Once this all started I had to wonder -- were those people attempting to deliberately spread virus around and sent over here by the Chinese government?  We'll never know, but it was enough of an oddity that it stuck in my head at the time.  Given the number of cameras in the typical WalMart I'm willing to bet that pattern was noted internally but likely thought of as a loss-prevention issue.  How's that theory looking now folks and gee, you've been awful quiet haven't you WalMart?  Where does a lot of your crap come from?  Uh huh.

But what we do also know from those emails is that Fauci tried to cover up what had apparently happened and he was thanked for "debunking" the lab leak hypothesis on television -- by EcoHealth which was doing work in the Wuhan Lab and thus was aligned with the CCP.  There is also a very odd coincidence between the furin cleavage portion of the virus (without which it would not be very infectious in humans at all) and a patent several years ago taken out by Moderna.  Moderna, for its part, has some interesting ownership connection "coincidences" reported that I cannot easily verify -- right back into China's CCP.  And finally there's the matter of said sequences being extremely unlikely to be random chance simply because they're in a conformation that is very unlikely in other than humans.

As I've said all the way back to the beginning of this thing when I noted those sequences my working hypothesis is that they were attempting to make a viral-vector vaccine of some sort, perhaps against SARS, and it got out "half-baked."  That's a reasonable explanation for the original event but not the cover-up, other than the fact that since this work was shut down by Obama due to this exact risk if it happened and was confirmed the entire profession was likely to get nuked from orbit, and all the people involved worldwide knew it.

The so-called "MSM" isn't even debating these parts of the email dump -- they're playing Ostrich instead, hoping they can bury it by "touting" all the "pressure" that was seen in the trove while ignoring that the archive damns not one man but entire professions including the vaccine/pharma connection.  Yes, there is even evidence that the intentional refusal to look at and use existing drugs and the "decision" on how they were going to deal with this goes back that far, before the first American died.  Bluntly put these people didn't just ignore the evidence that accumulated by the summer months they literally ignored it all the way back to the start and thus it can be reasonably argued they are personally responsible for all of the deaths.

If you want to know how you generate international hysteria you don't need some cabal pulling a puppet string.

All you need is for an entire profession involved in some very dangerous research to realize that they ****ed up and believe that through their ****up one percent or more of the population in their nation is about to die with nothing they can do about it, and if it gets pinned on them as it should since they caused it every one of them deserves to be swinging from a rope.

Oh, incidentally, Fauci also knew that masks in the general population were worthless.  He pointed this out directly; that the virus was too small and would go right though it.  His own words folks, as I've repeatedly pointed out but cannot say as "it's against the consensus of experts", according to Google, Facebook, Twitter and others, without being de-monetized, having videos pulled and risking being banhammered.  Now we know factually that Fauci stated this himself, so now the media and other "tech companies" are enforcing a position that the so-called "expert" generated with an intentional lie and they've maintained and forced that intentional lie for a year and are continuing to do so to this day.

Now you know how the hysteria, cover-ups and outright lying happened.

Now contaminate that with pharma money and you get what we're doing now.

Oh, you think this is not simply explained by fear (on their part) and corruption?

Do you believe they're telling the truth now about jabs when we now know, factually, they were lying all the way back to January of 2020?

Sorry folks, Occam's Razor says you're wrong if you buy into their bull****.  You were wrong then and you're wrong now; there is zero reason to believe they told the truth about anything, including early treatment, masks, distancing and the origin of the virus.

Put the so-called "research and public heath" institutions on this list too.  Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, Mayo, all of them.  They're all in this up to their necks as they are all "feeders" into the CDC, NIH and FDA, they all run on grant money and all three of them and more knew damn well what was going on.  Every one of these institutions must be held criminally accountable, along with all the corporate "health" organizations that banned the use of early therapeutics and heavily-pushed both population level constraints (e.g. lockdowns, capacity restrictions, business closures and similar) along with known useless masks and now stabs.  That Fauci was involved in that up to his neck with regard to therapeutics was known originally; he himself was involved in a paper stating that chloroquine was a "near cure" for the original SARS!

There was no "evolution" in the thinking as time went on; these emails evidence an intentional coverup and the number of people he corresponded with make clear it was organized and intentionally spread through both public health and the entire virology and infectious disease line of work and were not the act of one man alone.

The real question is whether you will demand justice, and if the governments of the world will not organize and provide said justice ala Nuremberg up and down the line for everyone involved from so-called "scientists" to private-sector actors to government stooges then will you sit for that or not?

If not, and your loved one died as a result, where are your nuts?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-06-01 09:06 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 1308 references
[Comments enabled]  

On 12/7/2020 I put forward that we had scientific evidence on how to slam the door on Covid-19's transmission.

We knew in October from the study I cited that there was a simple and near-zero cost way to do it.

In mid-October the death count in the US stood at about 200,000.

We did nothing.

Why did we do nothing?

Because if we admitted to the existence of this study, which was registered formally on the government's clinical trial site, and followed what it told us to do, there would be no EUAs for vaccines.

They would have been illegal.

The FDA knew this, the NIH knew this and the CDC knew this since the trial database in question is run by the US Government.  All three were fully-aware that there was a cheap, easy and immediate way to slam the door on transmission of Covid-19 and had been tested in a health-care setting -- that is, where people are around folks who are known infectious all the time.

Our government, medical and political systems deliberately ignored the scientific evidence and a formal clinical trial which our government had registered and for which results posted in October of 2020.  We did this and as a direct result more than 300,000 additional people died.

We now know they died and the virus spread as a direct result of that willful and intentional act.

We know this because now there is a further study that proves not only did the drug work to cut fatalities it also cuts off viral transmission dramatically and almost-immediately when used, which means had we used it the case rate would have never surged in the winter at all and a huge percentage of the people who died would have never got the virus at all.

In a multivariable logistic regression model, the odds of a negative test at day 6 was 2.62 time higher in the ivermectin group (95% CI: 1.06 to 6.45). Cultures at days 2 to 6 were positive in 3/23 (13.0%) of ivermectin samples vs. 14/29 (48.2%) in the placebo group (p=0.008). 

If the culture is negative you cannot transmit the virus to someone else because whatever you have in your body cannot grow in that person or any other person.  Forward transmission capability within two days of administration of this cheap drug went from 48% -> 13%, a 73% reduction.

Cutting off transmission within 48 hours of administering the drug would have stopped the winter spike from occurring.  Offering Ivermectin to all who tested positive and everyone in their household would have slammed the door instantly on forward transmission and ended the pandemic in the United States before the winter surge occurred.

We now know this at a scientific level of certainty.

Leaving aside the fact that this same 73% reduction means that those people are not "eligible" to have the disease progress and thus land them in the hospital or a coffin the forward transmission cut-off means there's no epidemic at all.

If the infected individual is not able to produce culturable virus there is no next infected person.

We now know this has also happened in India in multiple provinces within six days of starting to use Ivermectin at the first sign of infection.

We knew this would work in October on the scientific evidence as a study so-demonstrating was formally reported in.

Everyone who suppressed it then and continues to now is simply covering up a mass-manslaughter of more than 300,000 people in America alone; this is a drug that is safer than aspirin and has an insane amount of science behind it showing its effectiveness at this point.

We killed 300,000 Americans for the express purpose of getting EUAs issued for vaccines.  Leaving aside whether the vaccines are safe, and giving them full credit for being effective the fact still remains that our government and health care system killed 300,000 people by refusing to follow the science, that refusal was intentional and undertaken for financial reasons, and as a direct result a genocide-level manslaughter took place.

Every single individual and organization responsible for that suppression which continues to this day must be held to full account, prosecuted and brought to justice for the people they caused to die.  Those who lost loved ones are fully-justified in demanding blood for what was done to their loved ones.  It was not an accident and it was scientifically known before the winter surge.

There was never a need for vaccines at all and we knew it before the winter surge.

This is now conclusively proved, by the science.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-30 11:45 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 3574 references
[Comments enabled]  

Folks, you need to understand the basic problem with all so-called "nanoparticle" technology that has bedeviled every firm that has tried to use it before, and once you do, you won't go anywhere near any such "therapy" no matter what the so-called "reason" for it is -- unless you're literally dying, in which case anything is worth the attempt since the inevitable outcome of "do nothing" is death.

It's simply this: The "uptake" of the thing, whether it be a vector (e.g. adrenovirus) or nanoparticle (e.g. mRNA) in the places you want it to be taken up is relatively poor compared against the rest of the body.  Nobody has ever figured out how to make something only be taken up, once injected, in just one place with the rest of the body ignoring it.

That has never been done in medical history.  Ever. 

What has worked is chemical therapy of this sort; for example, in the event of nuclear accident some people will take iodine to try to "load" the thyroid and prevent the radioactive I-131 from being taken up there, which will destroy your thyroid.  Likewise, if you have thyroid cancer since the gland is basically the place it goes in the body you may be given it as a means of treatment.

Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope produced in operating reactors and one of the isotopes of most-serious concern in an accident; Strontium-89 which is artificially produced is used in medicine.  Strontium, being a close analog chemically of calcium, is almost-all absorbed by the bones.  This is what makes it dangerous in a nuclear accident in that it will be taken up by the body and wind up in the bones, where it can cause cancer, and Sr-90 has a very long half-life so the odds of it getting you, if you ingest it, are pretty good (on the bad side.)  Sr-89, which has a much shorter half-life can be given and will be taken up by the bones if you have bone cancer; it then will kill some of the cancer cells before it decays out.  Since it decays much faster the odds of it giving you cancer are lower and if you already have cancer then the risk of doing nothing is death, so anything you can try irrespective of the odds of success beats nothing.

This sort of chemical affinity at the atomic level, many have proposed, also applies in the general sense to much larger things such as nanoparticles, viral vectors and similar.

The problem with the theory is that in the past it has never worked that way.

Moderna, for example, is not a new company.  They have repeatedly tried to get their mRNA technology to be taken up preferentially by parts of the body that have some disease or disorder and thus attempt to treat that.  It has never worked, because while some preference can be expressed for the particular particles injected too much of it winds up in other places where it's not wanted and causes problems.

Let me repeat this for emphasis: Nobody has managed to come up with an injected, complex substance such as "nanoparticles" that are only taken up by the tissues desired and not by any of the others.  This in turn means you must use very large amounts of the substance in order to get enough of it where you want it and the unwanted part can and does cause problems in other parts of the body.

This is why Moderna, despite ten years of trying, has never before had a successful therapy licensed anywhere.

We were told that this sort of thing does not happen with these shots.  But there was zero proof of this; in fact, quite to the contrary, there was ten years of evidence by this company's trials itself that said it was the exact opposite; specificity simply could not be guaranteed and too much would spill over into other places.

We now know it happens with the mRNA shots as well, both directly and indirectly.

The second pillar of the development of these vaccines was the claim, which the CDC still makes by the way, that the spike protein alone is harmless.  Thus, even if some of the material was taken up in the wrong place (not the muscle and the lymph system) it was ok because it wouldn't hurt you.  Unfortunately we now know that's false as the spike alone is not inert and harmless; the first indications of that in scientific papers came in September of 2020 and development was not halted until the risk could be characterized.

The CDC is knowingly lying in their public statements; that the spike portion of the virus is "harmless" is simply not subject to reasonable scientific support at this point in time.

Yes, inducing antibodies in the circulation is what you want to happen.  Causing spike protein components and the intact spike protein to be found in the circulation, however, you definitely do not want to happen because we now know, on the body of evidence, that both S1 standing alone and the whole spike are pathogenic -- that is, they cause disorders in the body.

Indeed the evidence is quite strong that when you get hammered by Covid the reason you get hammered is that the infection becomes systemic and the part of the virus that causes the systemic problem is the spike when it gets into the circulation and then is disseminated through the body's systems.  We now know that the spike protein alone is capable of producing abnormal clotting absent the rest of the virus -- that is, the entire virus isn't necessary to do it and it's not the virus infecting cells and replicating in them that causes it; it is the spike alone that induces the body to inappropriately produce blood clots where they do not belong.

Specifically, this paper lays out that just S1, one of the sub-units of the spike protein, is pathogenic on its own in the absence of the rest of the virus.

And a plethora of papers lay out that the full spike protein is pathogenic as well, including here, here and here.  We do not (yet) know if S2, the other major part, is also pathogenic on its own.  It might be that it is harmful as well by itself, or it might be harmless.

Salk, one of the best groups of thought on vaccination and viral pathology in the world, put out a paper confirming this but tried to downplay the connection to the shots with the claim that the modifications to the protein in the furin cleavage area coded by the vaccines, which were made so that the spike would be "intact" on the surface of the cell and thus be identified by the body as the "thing" to produce immunity to, meant that the other papers didn't indicate trouble.

What they either didn't know or deliberately ignored (probably the former; I'll give them the benefit of the doubt given the timeline of the production of the various papers involved) is that the S1 spike subunit, which is now also known pathogenic standing alone and is identical to that in the live virus, is now known to wind up in the circulation after vaccination with the mRNA shots.  It is reasonable to believe the viral vector shots have the same outcome because the cells that produce the spike and induce the immunity are attacked and broken down by the body; when that occurs some of what was on their surface inevitably winds up in the circulation even if none of the original vaccine material gets taken up in the wrong place, which we know must occur as there is absolutely no way to keep the entirety of an injection into a muscle from immediately winding up in the blood and thus being disseminated everywhere throughout the body.

I can excuse Salk from at the time of publication believing that the differences would matter.  What I cannot excuse is their failure to go back and raise hell now that we know both the intact spike and S1 alone, which we know is pathogenic, wind up in the circulation after vaccination and that the vaccine was conclusively proved responsible (and not a co-infection or prior infection with wild Covid) because there was no evidence of nucleocapsid presence or antibodies to it.

Further, the CDC's statements at this point are flat-out maliciously false; they have every reason to believe that what is encoded in these vaccinations is dangerous standing alone.  There was never any science documenting that the spike was inert, and now there are multiple papers documenting that it is dangerous on its own.  This was reasonable to suspect as early as September of 2020 and at this point, without solid scientific refutation of what has already been found it's wildly irresponsible to state otherwise.

It is, on the weight of the scientific evidence at this time, profoundly unsafe to produce, distribute or administer any vaccine that causes production of the spike protein in the human body where it can and does enter the circulation, whether directly or indirectly, because the protein itself and its S1 sub-unit are believed pathogenic standing alone.  This has now been known for months, indeed the first papers demonstrating this were out before any material number of jabs went into arms and have been deliberately ignored.

Incidentally this sort of accidental discovery is, in nearly every case, how science actually progresses.  If you run an experiment and find what you expect you've learned nothing.  You already knew whatever you tried to replicate; all you've done is reinforce what you already believed.  While confirming expected things is important no progress to the body of scientific knowledge is made by doing so.

It's when you find the opposite of what you expect that you make scientific progress.

The problems for society come when you try to deny what you found, add footnotes to excuse what you found, or simply ignore it rather than acting on what you find and raising hell in an attempt to stop potential or in-process severe harms.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 862 references
[Comments enabled]  

This isn't "Call of Duty" where you get another life when the other dude fills you full of lead or blows you up.  When you go around the wrong corner, and bad things happen, you don't get to go back and try the other corridor.

Yes, I know, you live in an Instagram world.  Everything you do is about peer groups, social media and oh look at me, how pretty I am.

I know what you probably think of me too.  I raised a daughter on my own and about at your age we butted heads.  Bigtime.  I was told I ruined her life more than once, and maybe I did.

Or maybe I saved it.

We'll never know, because I didn't let her walk down that road.  It might have been ok and a wonderful additional memory.  There also might have been a fatal car wreck, a drug OD or some other similar and really nasty, early demise down that road too.  Or even worse, perhaps: Permanent, life-altering disability.

There is a young lady in my orbit close to my daughter's age who was very nearly killed in a horrible car wreck.  She's ok, but that's due to pure luck.  She should have been dead and spent a long time with a plate in her skull and learning to be herself again.  We're the best in the world when it comes to trauma; if you get in a really nasty car accident or are shot there's nowhere in the world I'd rather have it happen than right here in America.

At basically everything else, when it comes to medicine, we suck.  We have repeatedly approved drugs that are later proved dangerous and even kill people, having to be pulled off the market.  Vioxx is just one example; it killed 1.5% of those who took it, about 60,000 in America, by doubling your risk of a heart attack.  The drug went through full FDA approval and it was five years before the FDA forced its "voluntary" withdrawal.  This sort of thing happens for many reasons; sometimes there is corruption and too much money involved, sometimes people are sloppy and sometimes the bad side effects just don't show up until later.  It is for this reason that anything "new" when it comes to medicine is always -- I repeat always -- dangerous.

Risk is unavoidable in life.  Part of growing up is learning that, along with calibrating the risks of different choices.  If you get in a car driven by someone who has been drinking you probably won't die, but you're a lot more likely to die, maybe 100 times or more likely, than if the driver isn't drunk.  If you smoke cigarettes you almost-certainly won't die right away and you might not die from smoking them at all; my Aunt Marguerite was born in 1906 and chain-smoked her entire life.  She lived to nearly 100; renal (kidney) failure and Type II diabetes finally got her, both from ridiculous old age and it was mere months from her being up and about, doing her own thing, to being dead when the time came.  The cigarettes never gave her lung cancer but basing your decision to smoke on her outcome is dumb.

Now let's talk about underlying facts.

Most young people -- healthy people under the age of 30 -- have no symptoms of significance associated with getting infected with Covid-19.  They either get a mild head cold that could be mistaken for anything else or no symptoms at all.  Obviously, if you don't know you are sick or think it's allergies, asthma or whatever because you never run a fever or really are significantly ill you have no reason to get tested, no reason to believe you had it, and no doctor sees you.  You do not show up in the data but you did indeed have Covid-19.  Some young people get what seems like a flu and very, very few get really sick or die.

If you had Covid, whether you were tested positive or not, you are presumably protected.  The science is that the minimum protection is about 84%.  This is a minimum number because not everyone who got it and seroconverted silently was known.  This study was among health-care workers who obviously have very high risk as they're around actively sick people all the time, and they were tested regularly so many "silent" infections were caught, where yours probably wouldn't have been.  Further recent study funded by Fauci's NIH showed that most people pick up memory of the infection in their bone marrow (incidentally, getting people to volunteer for that had to be quite a trick; the operation to get the marrow to test is quite painful, which is why the size was very small) which means that protection from at least moderate disease is likely to last decades if not your entire remaining life.

In short there is no science that says you should take the shot if you've already Covid.  There are plenty of people saying that but they cannot point to any scientific study that shows you actually lose protection from prior infection any faster than you do from the shots themselves. This is why someone who had the measles does not take a measles shot; you're presumably protected by fighting off the infection.

But what if you haven't had Covid-19?

What do you decide if you're in that 0-25 age group and someone is trying to demand you get the jab, or all your friends are doing it?

Isn't the first question to be asked "how dangerous is it if I say no and get infected, assuming I haven't been already?"

It should be.

Let's look at NYC because unlike many places they publish the data and have since this outbreak began.  In addition it's a huge city so the data quality is very good, almost 8.5 million people live there.  About 21% are under 18, or 1.8 million.  There's about another half-million in the 18-24 group.  And it was an absolute screaming disaster for Covid-19 deaths, as we were all told and saw both early on and in the winter.

So how many of your age group, among that 2.3 million from birth to age 24, and who were healthy, have died of Covid?


I'm not kidding.  Six.  Or about one for every 500,000 healthy children and young adults.  To put some perspective on this that risk is almost identical to the risk of being struck by lightning.  In other words if you're healthy, in that group of people and scared you're nuts and whoever told you to be scared is lying to you on purpose to scare you.  While it is true that young, healthy people can die from Covid-19 the risk that you will is very-nearly zero.

This is not my data and it's not made up -- it's official from the NYC coroner's office -- the people who investigate each and every death that occurs in the city.  There is no monster under the bed and anyone who has told you otherwise is lying to you.

But what if you're sort of sick?  Well, then the odds are a little worse.  There are 49 poor souls in the birth to age 24 group in NYC who had some sort of serious underlying illness -- and when they got Covid they died.  That's about 1 in 50,000.  To put a comparison on this you're roughly ten times more likely to be killed in a car crash.  These people with an underlying illness are typically those few, but statistically significant, poor kids who get leukemia, some other sort of cancer or have another rare but very serious condition.  Yes, Covid killed them about 10x as often as it killed everyone else in your age group, which, if you know anyone who had leukemia, should not be a surprise.  I had a nephew that suffered with it, we thought he beat it and then it came back a few years later and killed him.  That sucked.

So what are the odds of the shot?  We don't know.

What we do know is that a very serious side effect, inflammation of the heart (myocarditis), is happening at a rate that suggests it is at least ten times more likely to get you than Covid will kill you if you have a serious illness.  If you're young and don't have a serious illness then the risk of myocarditis is over 100 times greater.  The data from the EU shows approximately the same risk -- about 1 in 5,000 young people who get the shots develop this condition.

The CDC and others are attempting to claim that this is "not out of the ordinary" in that about 20 out of 100,000 (that's 1/5,000) people in your age group get this condition every year.  That's true.  What's dangerously false is that in your age group at large they are spread through the entire year where all these reactions are happening right after the shot is given, typically 3-4 days after the second one.  It ought to be obvious that when they all happen at once that's not an accident and is connected to what you did.

We have no idea how many of those victims of that condition will fully recover.  While it is reasonable to expect most of them will some may not and the damage may be permanent.  This is a condition that does kill young people or force them to have a heart transplant and, if there is no suitable donor heart and you need one, you will die.  If you do need and get a transplant you are looking at millions of dollars in medical care and anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life.  If you get hit by this condition you may not know for several years if you're truly ok or not.

Note that the so-called "trial" in younger people (down to age 12) that was just run and reported in the media only had about 1,500 kids in it.  Since this bad reaction appears to get young people about 1 in 5,000 times it probably would not have gotten anyone in the trial but that does not mean it's safe since the trial was not large enough to know.  Again, we have data in larger groups of millions out of both the EU and the United States that say this is a real possibility.

To be fair Covid-19 may cause myocarditis as well.  Early scary reports on this possibility, however, have not proved up but some cases have been reported, and whether they've done permanent damage isn't known for those people either; it's too early.   It's important to note that the flu also causes this condition; depending on the strain somewhere from a bit less than 1% to about 3.5% of people who get the flu develop it; those who have run a fear campaign about heart trouble linked to Covid for the last year did so fully-aware of that and tried to scare you by implying that it was unique to Covid, which is a bald lie. 

The flu vaccine, from all the scientific literature, does not cause this disease while the Covid shots certainly appear to.

Remember: You're not guaranteed to get Covid, and you might have already had it without knowing it in which case whatever that risk was, you already have taken it.

Whether you previously had Covid or not you are guaranteed to take the risk from the shots as soon as you accept them.

There are many other potential side effects.  Most of them, it is true, are relatively mild and you hear about them all the time -- feeling a bit under the weather, a brief fever, a sore arm.  None of those are of much concern.

The most-serious indications of trouble we know of and can document at this point are related to blood clotting -- this is never mild and not always immediately obvious to the victim either.  In many cases the only indication you'll get is a headache, but headache can come from ordinary fever too, so having one doesn't mean you got hit.  Blood clots can cause heart attacks, blindness and strokes among other things, all of them bad, and frequently wind up with you having to take medication for lifeMost people who get a stroke do not fully recover; there is almost-always some permanent injury.  Whatever life you are planning in front of you, if any of those events happen it is likely to change your life in ways you cannot imagine, none of them good.  We have no accurate way to estimate that risk over time as although we know it happens in a few people immediately, some of which have been in the papers and media, whether it's a one-time risk and then gone or whether it can lurk and then get you a year down the road is not known and won't be for years.  There have been multiple reports in the media of people who have clearly died from this condition as well including a known-healthy middle-age physician in Florida.  Neither I or anyone else can give you an honest guess on this risk, nor whether it is higher or lower in young people .vs. those who are older and, potentially, sicker.  The CDC disclaims a connection between these events and the shots; whether you believe them or not is up to you.

There are multiple other concerns but we do not have any way to know how likely they are, since all take years to show up.  Some of the absolute worst possibilities are autoimmune problems such as Lupus, a damnable disease that strikes people without apparent warning.  For men the highest risk is from 15-44 and for women from 20-39; the disorder is much more common in women than men.  In addition most men tend to get Lupus around age 65 where most women get it between 20-25 years of age.  Autoimmune conditions are no joke; if you get hit by one whatever you thought you were going to do before with your life will almost-certainly not be the case.

The reason we usually take 10 years or more to qualify a vaccine is found in the long-term effects like this which nobody can predict until that time has passed.  It is entirely possible that none of these things will happen but we do not know and if you take the shot today you are the one who is going to find out.  There is a scientific paper out with more than a half-dozen potential concerns, none of which have been eliminated simply because it takes years to do so.  Anyone who tells you that these risks don't exist is lying for that reason, just as I cannot tell you that they will happen.  Nobody can give you an honest assessment of the odds no matter their level of expertise.  In ten years medical experts will be able to give you an  assessment of these risks you can believe.  Today nobody can do so -- period.

Chicken Pox, which you likely did get a shot for if you were born after the early 1990s, is about as dangerous to children as is Covid-19.  I got chicken pox the old-fashioned way as there was no vaccine.  The problem, as with Covid-19, is that when you get old the risk goes up a lot -- as an adult you're roughly 25 times more likely to be killed by Chicken Pox as if you are a child.  It took nearly 20 years from the time the vaccine was invented until we had enough data to be sure it was safe and start giving it to kids for exactly this reason; if we had done so and gotten it wrong we could have easily seriously harmed millions of children who were, in fact, better off just getting the Chicken Pox.

The varicella (Chicken Pox) vaccine was approved and my daughter was given it, along with the other ordinary childhood vaccines for measles, diphtheria and more.  Why?  Because they were proved safe over ten to twenty years each before they were recommended and approved, and thus we know what both the immediate and longer-term safety risks are.  Those risk are acceptable compared with the risks of serious harm or death if you get the disease.  But measles is much more dangerous than Covid-19; it kills 1 or 2 per 1,000 people who get it and sends about a quarter of all who get it to the hospital.  Diphtheria kills 5-10% of the people who get that.  Mumps frequently causes permanent sterility if you have reached puberty before you get it, and so on.

Covid-19 is at least 100 times less dangerous than these diseases in a healthy young person and for that reason alone the vaccine should be 100 times safer than the measles shot for you to take it.  The data is that it is not; it is in fact more dangerous than the other shots you were given as a child -- and that's without counting the risks we have no way to put numbers on now and won't for years.

One final point: There is a common chestnut that is half-true and used to mislead: If you get the shot you're less-likely to kill your grandmother, your teacher or some other random person.

Here is why that claim is based on facts but unproved as it is not controlled for those things that may in fact make it more likely for you to give someone else the virus.  As such it's propaganda and without actual scientific basis.  Specifically:

  • It is true that you are significantly less-likely to get Covid-19 symptomatically -- that is, physically sick -- if you're vaccinated.  That rate of risk reduction looks very good, somewhere around 90% give or take a bit depending on which vaccine you get.

  • However, asymptomatic infection reduction is not known because none of the trials and none of the current testing is being done without symptoms in vaccinated people.  In other words during the trials they deliberately did not test those who had the shots unless they got notably sick, where in the population at large if you were near someone in a school who had it you got a swab stuffed up your nose and, if "positive" you were told to stay home even if you had no symptoms but you were still called a "case."  There is data in the original trials that strongly suggests that these asymptomatic cases were not caught at all and were common.  We do not know because we did not look and are not testing those who got the shots on a systematic basis today to see whether or not they're being silently infected; you have to get sick to be counted where this is not true if you haven't been vaccinated.

  • Current data over the last few months confirms that indeed symptomatic cases are materially less, across a much larger population, if you get vaccinated.  The current results appear to be somewhere around an 80-90% reduction of symptomatic cases in Israel, which has a very large percentage of their population that took the shots.  That sounds awesome and is, for you, if you're at high risk.  But the problem with not knowing you're infected is that if you get infected and don't know you have it then you're much more-likely to hug someone, be around them, etc.

  • There is additionally other data which suggest that the risk of transmitting the virus, if you get it and are vaccinated, is reduced by about half; that is, you emit less virus.  The data on this is far less-convincing so far simply because there hasn't been enough time to study this well, but that's what the data appears to show.  The problem is that a greater percentage of the infections will be asymptomatic, they are intentionally not being tested for and thus will not be known to the person who has it.  How much greater of a percentage of the time does someone thus emit the virus without knowing they have it and does this cancel out the benefit to the population at large?  We don't know.

  • Finally virtually all of the yelling over the last year about masks, distancing and similar has been due to the mistaken belief that this virus is often transmitted by people without symptoms and that it is transmitted by drops that can be filtered by a mask.  There is no science behind that claim, only computer models.  The best science we have is that the virus is actually in extremely fine particles that will go through virtually any mask, it is also in feces (so flushing a toilet or even farting could spread it) but that asymptomatic transmission if you are not in close, personal contact with someone (e.g. in a small room for an hour) is quite rare; perhaps 5-10% of the risk you would take with someone who is feeling ill simply because you don't emit nearly as much.  Nonetheless the possibility of transmitting the virus to someone without knowing you're sick must be considered and even if you are immune the science is that you could potentially get and transmit the virus without knowing it.

So Granny, whether you get vaccinated or not, has to rely on her immunity, not yours.  That you have a reduced risk of getting mildly sick, which is all that was ever likely to happen to you, really doesn't help her much if you get the virus and don't know you have it because while a 50% reduction in transmission sounds like a lot it could be the exact opposite if you think you're safe when you're not and thus do more-dangerous things that could give it to others.

Anyone who personally believes they want or need protection from being infected has to take the jab and accept the risk themselves; your doing so has little or no impact on the other person's risk.

The same is true for everyone else -- your teacher, your mother, your father and anyone else you know that is elderly or has serious health concerns.  But, like you, if they've had Covid, and a lot of people have over the last year, there is again no science that says they will get any further benefit from the shots.

For those who are at high risk and have not had Covid the apparent risk of getting a very serious reaction at 1 in 5,000 immediately, and an unknown risk of serious medical trouble five years down the line, are still probably good odds.  That's 0.02% plus whatever the unknown risk is which is much less than the risk of someone who is old and has a bunch of things wrong with them medically dying if they get sick.  The published data is that for an elderly, ill person about 5% of the time the virus will kill them without treatment.  Even if they use early treatment, which our doctors and hospitals often claim doesn't exist (that's false; if you have a couple hours click here and listen to a long interview with an expert on the matter), and that cuts the risk by 50-90% of going to the hospital and dying the shot is still probably a good risk because even an 80% reduction from early treatment leaves them with a 1% chance of being killed by the virus but the odds are 0.02% from the shot.  This is especially true for people older than their mid 70s as average life expectancy is about in that range and as such being concerned about something that might get them in five years as opposed to something that might get them right now is crazy.

But for a young person who has 50 or more years into the future that they expect to be here on this rock five years is a very short time and therefore the risk of those unknowns cannot be ignored.

Make your decision, but do it on an informed basis that applies to you.

Not because your friends are doing it, or because someone on the TV or social media told you to -- no matter who they are.

Remember: Those very same people on the TV and social media told you that there was nothing we could do to treat this disease until you were literally choking to death.  That has been known, all the way back to April of 2020, to be a lie.  500,000 Americans are dead in part because of that lie.  Whether those lies were told for money or for politics, and some of both is almost-certainly involved, does not matter to the people who are dead.

In addition they're still at it today.  Post this article on Facebook and they'll kill your account because it presents truthful information and does not advocate that you take the shot.  In other words only propaganda which by definition is designed to mislead either by outright lying or leaving out things you should know about on purpose is permitted when it comes to these shots on their platform.  Because this article advocates nothing but instead presents information and "best guess" odds, along with government-published facts on the risk of the virus itself, Facebook and others deem it "against community standards" because you might choose a course of action other than what they want you to do.

Finally, if you think you can speed things up when it comes to medicine and it'll be ok, that is, we don't really need to take the time, read this article.  It's about thalidomide, a drug that appeared safe, but was largely blocked in the US because an inspector at the FDA didn't have sufficient safety data, which takes time to obtain.  She was right; the drug caused horrible birth defects if taken by pregnant women and it is this legacy, which screwed a huge number of children in Europe in particular, that is why it typically takes between 8 - 12 years to approve drugs and should.

You cannot speed this process up without taking serious risks and, if you ignore those risks horrible things can and sometimes do happen.

Again: If you take these shots before that time has passed and the data is known you are the lab rat and will have no choice but to live with whatever those consequence may be, whether for good or bad.

If you, in your sole judgement, believe the risk of getting Covid (and you have not already had it) is greater than the risk of the shot then obviously you should take the shot.  That is the only question you should consider -- not whether your friends are doing it or whether someone is bribing you, whether with lottery entries of whatever else they may cook up.

Choose wisely.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)