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

2021-07-30 21:37 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 4 references
[Comments enabled]  

2021-07-30 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 3685 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)

2021-07-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 390 references
[Comments enabled]  

The NPC parade was the worst-watched in decades.

There were a lot fewer people decades ago, if you remember, and they had a lot less to do -- no Internet, etc.

It was an NPC parade.  Everyone was masked.  They all looked like Star Trek Redshirts; no distinctiveness, no plot, no humanity.  Muses.  Mimes.  No individuality.  No representation.  Robots all.

I saw a small piece of it in the pub and stopped watching.  All the pageantry, the beauty -- all destroyed.

I hear there are people taking knees.  I haven't seen one, because I haven't watched a single minute of the events.  Nor will I.  There's no reason to.  There are no events with human athletic competition: They're all NPCs.

I didn't do this.

Japan did this.

The IOC did this.

They did it on purpose, playing screaming Karen with a group that, on-balance, is at zero risk.

They even went so far as to report that the beds in the Olympic Village are made out of cardboard so as to collapse if, as is common, the athletes decide that some extracurricular activity would be a good idea.  Someone forgot to tell them that a competitive gymnast is hardly limited to screwing while laying down.

The Olympics used to be an event that I looked forward to and, at least for certain competitive sports I found engaging, watched.  Not this time.

And maybe never again.

Being disgusted is like that; if you take a bite of something and it tastes like crap you're unlikely to give it a second attempt.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-07-27 07:50 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 9693 references
[Comments enabled]  

Time to decide folks.

There are plenty of reasons to both take and refuse the Covid jabs.

Among other things you're being lied to, deliberately on their effectiveness.  State governments, along with various "health agencies", are provably lying -- and trivially so.  You're being told, for example, that "99%", "98%" or "97%" (depending on where you are) of people that are getting seriously ill with Covid are "unvaccinated."

Let's take Tennessee.  Look at their "unified command" dashboard and set the date to June 22th, one month ago by their data's reports.  They show 22,432 ever hospitalized with Covid on that date.

Now set it to 7/22, the latest for which it is updated.  They show 22,737 ever hospitalized, a difference of 305.

They now say that almost 200 have been hospitalized recently as breakthrough -- that is, vaccinated -- cases (out of about 1,000 breakthroughs they claim in total.)

Well, when did the breakthroughs happen?  They don't say, exactly, but over the last month only 305 people, by them, were hospitalized with Covid in total.

That's about 10 a day across the entire state.

There's also roughly 3 deaths a day across the entire state.

But then, as now, we're still funny-gaming the numbers.  If you go into the hospital for any reason they test you.  Why?  Because if you're positive they want their magic $13,000 Biden Money (formerly Trump money) if you're on Medicare and Medicaid for treating a "Covid case."  Biden is still continuing this bull**** no matter why you're there.  Chest pain?  Covid!  Oh, never mind the heart attack.

So are the "hospitalized" actually hospitalized for Covid or is Tennessee counting anyone in the hospital who tested positive irrespective of the reason for their admission?  This particular game has been run since March of 2020 and nobody has put a stop to it because they're making money from it -- lots of money.

Never mind that these jabs are not behaving like a vaccine.  US Code: "The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases."

The data is that these jabs do not prevent disease.  They also do not prevent transmission of disease.  In fact they appear to, if you get a breakthrough case, make transmission more likely in that the Ct data from these miners shows equal or lower values on balance in the vaccinated cohort with one sample at Ct22!  Reminder: The lower the Ct the more virus you have in your body.

Now granted this is a small group -- very small.  But it is extremely concerning that the lowest Ct recorded among these cases was a fully-vaccinated person.  Where is the data from the state labs and CDC on these "breakthroughs" and their Ct numbers generally?  It's not being reported.  I bet you can guess why not without needing more than one guess.

This appears to be confirmed as something that does indeed happen by the reported "super-spreading" person who (1) was fully-vaccinated, (2) infected more than 60 other people and (3) most of those whom he gave it to were also vaccinated.  He obviously was an extremely-efficient emitter of virus!

The only remaining argument for the jabs is that they make a personal severe outcome less likely.  Here the data is somewhat more-reassuring but the adverse effect profile of the shots is not reassuring at all, it is being deliberately glossed over, and as a result the question as to whether or not to take them is a deeply personal decision that must be informed by your personal medical status coupled with intentional deception on those advocating for the jabs.  How in the hell do you make an informed decision under those circumstances?

Unfortunately the so-called "public health" authorities have destroyed -- not just damaged, but destroyed -- their own credibility.  Tennessee's Department of Health proved themselves liars with nothing more than public data.  So have others.  I have multiple reported sets of data from individual practices where the percentage of unvaccinated people presenting with Covid-19 symptoms is lower than the percentage of unvaccinated people in the population of that specific area.  In other words the data is that the jabs not only do not prevent you from getting the virus at all but in fact may ENHANCE the risk of infection and this, incidentally, voids the argument that the jabs are a vaccine from a LEGAL standpoint.

It may well be true that originally, over the first couple of months, you have some level of protection -- perhaps even very good protection.  But on the data that protection appears to rapidly wane and it appears that within six months it can turn into potentiating infection instead via OAS, ADE or both.  In other words the data suggests you get protection originally but then get screwed compared against where you were when you started, which would suit the makers of the jabs just fine, yes?  How will you like it if you wind up dependent on continuous "boosters" at whatever price they want to charge forever lest you be screwed instead of helped.

If you want to know why that would be hidden, other than the obvious -- that they simply will never admit they failed and you're being cajoled or coerced into taking a dangerous drug that in the intermediate term has damaged your immune system -- that should be obvious as it opens up a legal attack avenue against any such mandate, in health care or otherwise, that you can drive a truck through.  Oh, and the makers of said jabs were given legal immunity from this outcome too; if accepting the first of the jabs turns you into a junkie permanently dependent on repeated jabs to stave off disease which otherwise becomes more likely as a direct result of accepting the original shots you cannot sue Pfizer, Moderna or J&J.

Further, however, and far more importantly, is the fact that with the emerging evidence on Ct reports from so-called "breakthrough" cases it is becoming very clear that vaccinated people in health care settings are actively dangerous as if and when they get a breakthrough case they will be more likely to spread the virus to others as their infected state will not be known as rapidly and reliably as with someone who has not been vaccinated, and by the point of detection their viral load will be materially higher.

This is exactly what occurred in the early months where health care workers were the vector into vulnerable people and killed themWe knew this was a risk and refused to isolate health care workers from the general population.  It is now clear that this is very likely to happen again but this time is being "boosted" by the jabs.  Indeed there is a clean argument that being jabbed against this virus should be banned among those working in a health care environment since an infected person with a lower Ct number is much more-infectious than someone with a higher one.  The viral load and thus capacity to transmit the virus doubles with each lower Ct!  If the jabs make it more-likely that you will not develop symptoms until you have a lower Ct value then they make you more-dangerous to others irrespective of whether they prevent your mortality.

Among those who conclude that the balance of risks and benefits for them does not favor the jab, and who are being coerced, there is one final point to consider: You are not alone.  Further, we have an extremely tight labor market, so you have all the power in this debate.


If even 10%, say much less 20% of an organization refuses such a mandate and any "penalty" (e.g. "test daily or get jabbed") and your employer decides to fire you all for your refusal they collapse.  I don't care if this is the VA health system, a local hospital or other organization.  You may or may not, in the fullness of time, also be able to successfully sue but in the meantime if 1 in 5 employees is removed there is no way the firm survives that event without severe or even critical damage that collapses the enterprise.

Collective action -- that is, a strike -- is how gross abuses were dealt with in the past and is a non-violent and entirely-legal act.

Simply put: REFUSE.

Let them try to get your 20% of the output from the other 80% of the remaining staff.  They will fail; a decent percentage of the remainder will blow up medically due to stress and similar and suddenly they're not down 20% on their labor they're down by half.

WHEN they blow up and come crying to you to come back to work you demand double your previous pay -- permanently -- and no, you still will NOT take the jab nor be discriminated against on masks and tests.

Collapse all entities that attempt to enforce mandates.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-07-25 10:39 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1806 references
[Comments enabled]  

The pattern here is one you ought to pay very close attention to.

The Ct numbers being seen in vaccinated "breakthrough" cases are materially lower than that seen in unvaccinated.

This makes sense and it is pure mechanistic proof of why using non-sterilizing vaccines in an active outbreak is stupid, even leaving mutational pressure and evasion aside (which we also know happens.)

A person who has a low Ct (higher infectiveness) without becoming symptomatic is a super-spreader because they have no idea they're infected.  If a non-sterilizing vaccine causes you to delay becoming symptomatic by as little as one Ct point you are twice as infective to others before you know you're dangerous and thus decide to stay home.

If "on average" you would become symptomatic at Ct30 but if vaccinated you get to Ct25 now you will be 32 times as infectious before you know you're sick.

The person who took the shot needs a label on them because they are far more dangerous to others if they become infected -- vaccinated or not.  In point of fact using a non-sterilizing vaccine during an outbreak, or accepting one, is criminal negligence for which those who are jabbed, if an infection is traced to them, should be prosecuted because they have deliberately made themselves unable to distinguish that they are dangerous until they are far more likely to infect others.

hospital or other medical facility that employs jabbed people thus is committing gross malpractice in that the institution is deliberately causing their employees to be unaware of an infection they contract until they are far more-dangerous in terms of viral spread to others.  This, standing alone, is depraved indifference to human life since these institutions are allegedly professionals and thus should be held to a professional standard of conduct.

Just as with the original outbreak last spring in which I was able to trivially identify medical workers as the largest single vector and, I remind you, successfully predicted a huge explosion of civilian cases in Minnesota on that basis (which subsequently verified) I believe it is going to happen again and once again it will be the health care workers, who have all been "urged" or even "mandated" to take the jabs that will be the vectors into the general population and will end up killing people by the score.

If and when it does occur, and I bet it's evident within the next month or two, every single hospital administrator and public health official must be criminally charged with depraved homicide.

What's even worse is that we know the spike protein is the cause of basically all the pathology that this virus causes.  This in turn means that the lower the Ct you ultimately develop before you beat the virus, assuming you survive, the more-likely you are to have taken permanent damage from the infection.

In other words the vaccinated, if they a "breakthrough" case, not only are more-likely to infect others they're more-likely to wind up with long-term or even permanent physical harm, and since such people go much further down the Ct scale before becoming symptomatic they also have no idea they're dangerous nor that they should be hitting the infection with early treatment.

This explains why those who have had the stab often do not respond to said "early" treatment; it's not early anymore because it's now a couple of or even five or more days further onward in the infection process before you know you're sick and thus need to use said meds.

In another month or so all of this will be wildly-evident and I suspect by then the so-called "medical professionals" who were coerced into taking the jab, including those being threatened now are going to be in full-on spazz mode as instead of people presenting to the ER with Ct numbers around 28 or 30 they're going to be coming in with Ct numbers closer to or even below 20 at which point anyone within 50' of them will be infected simply by their breath -- vaccinated or not.

We ****ed up letting these ghouls get away with this for other than highly at-risk people and, if the patterns I'm seeing in the data verify, which look to be quite-likely, we're going to pay for it.

PS: Natural infection, assuming you do not attempt to "boost" it with a jab, still looks highly protective.  No guarantees, but the immunity you generate from that is much more-broad and harder for the virus to evade.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)