Masks Are AZT, and FAUCI Knew It
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
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.

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.

2020-11-18 10:20 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 886 references Ignore this thread
Masks Are AZT, and FAUCI Knew It
[Comments enabled]

Oops.... the Danish Study was published.

 

This is the best sort of science -- a random controlled trial.  It is trumped only by a meta-analysis of multiple random controlled trials.

Dr. Fauci repeatedly stated that he would not fund or allow random controlled trials for masks because that would be "unethical."  This is exactly the sort of bull**** he ran during the original AIDS years in the 1980s and early 1990s when he actively worked to deny Bactrim to AIDS patients who had a high risk of PCP, which routinely killed said patients.  We knew Bactrim worked to stop PCP in immune-compromised people because we had been using it for more than five years at that point in Leukemia patients, and in fact it is one of the major factors that caused leukemia to become a much more-survivable disease.

Over 30,000 Americans were shoved in the hole as a result of that denial -- until it was eventually reversed when Fauci's "recommendation" was overridden and ultimately dropped.  At the same time AZT, which was a failed cancer drug that failed safety trials -- that is, Phase 1 -- was pushed hard by the same Dr. Fauci.  AZT was later shown to be a direct DNA poison.  In the meantime, however, it was tremendously profitable since it was an on-patent drug while Bactrim was off-patent and thus cheap.

Well, now we have the same thing here.  Annals published the study despite other journals refusing to do so.  It is not hard to see why the others refused; the confidence interval shows that there is a very real possibility that masks might increase infection rates by as much as 23%.

Post-hoc computation (which attempts to draw inferences and conclusions by sub-segregating the control and trial groups) was even worse:

In the first, which included only participants reporting wearing face masks “exactly as instructed,” infection (the primary outcome) occurred in 22 participants (2.0%) in the face mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 0.9 percentage point]; P = 0.82) (OR, 0.93 [CI, 0.56 to 1.54]; P = 0.78). 

If you don't know how to read that I'll do it for you -- there was no statistical improvement whatsoever between those who reported wearing face masks exactly as instructed and the control group.  The confidence interval was extraordinarily wide and statistically centered on 1.0, or no effect, with a possible range of from ~44% improvement to a 54% increase in risk.  

This was worse than the trial group overall, which strongly implies that the group which was most-compliant with the conditions had the worst results.  That is, while everyone in the trial group was told to wear masks and supplied them, among those who reported they did exactly as instructed had the worst results out of all.

On the face of the scientific evidence masks are not only worthless the post-hoc analysis implies (but does not prove) they do harm.

Not that we needed this study to know.  Masks failed in 1918, a fact that the Washington Post mentioned in April from the historical record and in fact there is 40 years of hard science that says they do not work, as I've noted, even in operating rooms where everyone is presumed to follow protocol as they are all trained medical professionals and the surrounding area is sterile, eliminating confounding factors.

But the reason this study was blackballed by a number of journals is actually in the data itself; it is a plaintiff's bar wet dream.  Having the confidence interval cross 1.0 simply proves statistical worthlessness.  Having it do so to such a large degree means employers who have mandated masks are suddenly open to massive lawsuits from employees who got Covid while under an employer mandate and there is a decent chance the employers will lose.

In addition the study authors in this case prevented the potential pollution of the results by false PCR tests, defining the endpoint as detection of Sars-CoV2 antibodies where they were previously absent.  This was one of my concerns and remains so given the hard evidence over the last couple of months that false positive results have made computing suppression prevalence in the various states worthless; PCR testing has become nothing more than a tool of fear and panic porn over the last six months as CT40 (or higher) tests return many positives that have no culturable virus found, as has been disclosed by other studies.  If you have no culturable (live) virus then you either had the bug some time in the past and what is being picked up are viral debris, not actual virus or you were immune, inoculated, and your body fought it off successfully without becoming infected.  Indeed someone who ultimately is vaccinated will likely be able to test positive on a PCR test if challenged yet they do not become infected either.  In any such case you can neither transmit the virus to others nor will you become ill.  The added filter of testing for the absence of antibodies when the study began and then again to prove actual infection in those in which the challenge failed means that those false positive indications are conclusively excluded.

Bottom line: Mask orders are bull**** and thus must be immediately removed.  They do nothing on the strength of the scientific evidence, which we knew for the last 40 years but intentionally ignored and lied to the American people.  We must thus conclude that such orders are not actually in furtherance of public health but rather are mechanisms of submission imposed without cause or any scientific justification whatsoever.

The bull**** has been exposed and should be immediately shoved down the throats of those who attempt to maintain same.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 3  First123Last
User Info Masks Are AZT, and FAUCI Knew It in forum [Market-Ticker]
Greenrebellion
Posts: 710
Incept: 2009-01-03

Michigan
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Right...but this study looks at personal protection, not as a means of source control which is the primary reason that people push this mask nonsense.

Interesting results, but doesn't refute the primary contention from maskholes.
Poorsaver
Posts: 411
Incept: 2008-05-20

Sunshine Tax State
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Faucet even says to wear masks after youre vaccinated! WTF?

----------
"I'm going to need a hacksaw"----Jack Bauer
"You can get killed walking your doggie!"----Vincent Hanna
Whossane
Posts: 129
Incept: 2018-01-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Interesting that 2% of the participants in this study contracted the virus back in April/May. That's six months ago and the virus spreads exponentially...Hmmm...
Jack_crabb
Posts: 9532
Incept: 2010-06-25

Peoples' Republik of Maryland
Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley or smiley

When, I ask? When?

----------
Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
How many are willing to pledge this? We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor
Smooth
Posts: 53
Incept: 2020-03-26

USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
TG, I showed this to a doctor and he said the study failed to show a difference because the masks don't prevent infection in the wearer, only in the people around the wearer, who weren't part of the study.

I personally don't think these studies are necessary. There are virtually no masks in Sweden and their incidence rates are lower than some countries requiring mask use by "law." Negative correlation rules out causation!
Tickerguy
Posts: 169066
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Smooth -- Neil Orr -- source control, 1981. Proved masks worthless as source control.

Now you got the other half.

They neither protect you or anyone else.

Game over.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Jtmo3
Posts: 738
Incept: 2009-07-31

Missouri
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
100% agree with you. But as you saw in front of the commission, it's not going to stop anytime soon unless we push back. Protesting works but normal people have no idea how to get a protest started. We usually go to work every day and raise a family, not a banner. Most people I know realize that the mask crap is bs, but it's easier for them to just go along rather than rock the boat. I just about lost my employment because the other day, the company decided it was going to get strict on masks and make you wear them all the time. I have a kid to feed. As much as I want, it's not right to starve him. Now, that was to make a point on why this is not going to stop anytime soon. I do have those issues and I did raise a stink about it, quite a one. Like I said, almost fired.

Anyway, if anyone thinks this bs is going away anytime soon with us pushing back similar to blm/antifa, you're dreaming.
Emg
Posts: 598
Incept: 2012-11-20

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Also the recent study in Nature which showed that cloth masks are probably better spreaders than not wearing a mask because they shed lots of tiny particles which would carry away any virus material which collected on the mask.

Telling the Karens 'masks don't protect you, they protect others' was clever propaganda. Evil, but clever.

We've been told we now have to wear masks when we're not at our desks at work. End result, I keep having to put the thing on and take it off and get my fingers on my face and near my nose, whereas previously I'd been studiously avoiding doing so. And second end result, I haven't been into the office in two weeks.

I think next time I have to go in I may just wear my full-face N95 mask.
Tickerguy
Posts: 169066
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Emg - the reason this study was blackballed is that it is a wet dream for the plaintiff's bar. Employers who have mandated masks as "PPE" to "protect" their employees who got the virus anyway can pull this study out and point to the CI showing that it is reasonably probable that the masks actually increased infection risk.

Generally you can't sue a government but you sure as hell can sue the employer, and a LOT of people are going to do exactly that.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
615obo
Posts: 27
Incept: 2020-08-10

Nashvegas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Smooth

The USMC study suggests (but they used PCR tests IIRC, so there's that) that even if you're imposing a boot camp level of high level PPE use and all the other voodoo, you're still going to get no benefit. This study shows that wearing a mask is a rabbit's foot in terms of PPE for yourself. If they don't protect the wearer, by what magic do they protect other people? But they are technically correct, the study doesn't look at the impacts on others around you...bleh. I'm not sure how much more needs to be done to prove what we've all known since kindergarten that colds are going to find a way to get people sick that's their job, they're good at it, this one is so good at it they gave it a free upgrade and an all-inclusive stay in the Wuhan labs for even more pampering!

Meanwhile Fauchi et al are carefully defining their standards or proof so that they are impossible to test or prove. Because science, that's it.
Emg
Posts: 598
Incept: 2012-11-20

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Interesting. I hadn't considered the lawsuit angle.

You're right, by the end of this mess there could be a lot of lawsuits flying around.
Expat_tom
Posts: 123
Incept: 2020-07-06

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I have some questions about the 1981 study.

I remember it showed a lower infection rate of maskless operating theaters, my concern before we advocate a drop them entirely in a surgical context would be that it seems like we need a few more studies to control a few other factors.

1. It was opt in right? So were all surgeries equal or did people with lower risks of complications and lower risk surgery choose to opt in with the study?

2. I remember that the doctors involved self-reported if they were ill or had been ill and removed themselves from rotation, so I'm wondering if perhaps we have a problem of doctors currently over working and assuming that their masks and scrubbing procedures help them, while in that study they were being more careful than normal.

I seem to recall the IgNobel guys with the Annals of Improbable Research also studied this and found similar results but I couldn't find details of that study. Because the IgNobel is viewed as a joke by the community, when they come across really exciting **** it tends to get ignored.

It seems to me that having some custom airflow evacuation system would work better than masks in this context but we would need to design several more studies to compare.

I believe this also is supported by the lack of COVID infections on planes, from what I recall, the cabin spaces are positive pressure downward flow mostly piped in externally through the jets and what little air is recirculated is also reducted through high temperatures and filtration systems.

Once discounting surface containments, It is probably safer to do a surgery maskless on a Jumbo jet than masked in the best operating theaters in America.
Tickerguy
Posts: 169066
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Expat_tom -- IN order:

1. Nope. Random assignment. It was a controlled trial. If you drew that operating room there were no masks. You don't chose those, generally, in a hospital; if OR2 is open, you get OR2.

2. Of course you'd expect people to be more-careful than normal. And? That's the point -- the mask is a negative influence; WHY DOES NOT MATTER.

Note that there have been roughly a dozen attempts to refute this study over the intervening 40 years, and all have failed. They have either confirmed it or met the null hypothesis (CI crossed null.)

Oops.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Norkar
Posts: 11
Incept: 2019-03-05

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
from a tinfoil hat prospective:
we are at the threshold of the NWO.
the evil elite are following the hegelian dialectic.
problem>reaction>solution=covid>isolation, financial collapse, poverty>new world order with digital currency and george orwell 1984 total surveillance and control.

of course covid is bs. the powers that be know it.
all that is happening is being scripted.

my prophecy for the usa: a cashless financial system, a new unit of currency, and mandatory vaccines by 2030. if i am wrong, drag me out of town and stone me to death! (though, i am guessing i might very well be dead by then, or if not, life will be so bad that buying the farm would be seen as relief. i am not talking suicide, that is a cowards way out.
Rporth
Posts: 8
Incept: 2016-09-28

North Dakota
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
NE Journal of Medicine on the same topic.... Masks basically good for healthcare workers and potential for at risk population - basically useless for generic population:

https://www.nejm.org/action/cookieAbsent

Rporth
Posts: 8
Incept: 2016-09-28

North Dakota
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Sorry Tickerguy - Dang it Post above you cannot link to - it was to the pdf - here's to the article online:

NE Journal of Medicine on the same topic.... Masks basically good for healthcare workers and potential for at risk population - basically useless for generic population:
https://www.nejm.org/action/cookieAbsent

Jwjw
Posts: 62
Incept: 2019-07-13

Rocky Mountains
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
My experience has been workers in mines and the maintenance techs on the machines at dealers don't wear masks. My opinion is the masks are a distraction, limit visibility, and are a significant safety problem around heavy equipment.

Shipping/receiving/parts at dealers make non-employees wear a mask, if they are even allowed in the door. Techs in uniform from other dealers seem to be exempt from mask.

A tech in dealership going up to their parts desk (occasionally happens, not daily) doesn't wear a mask. Employees at parts desk typically don't wear a mask, though some do. So it's just customers not in dirty blue collar uniform who wear masks.

It's like there are two species walking around and interacting. Social media and news can't go in to these places, wouldn't want to associate with dirty blue collar species, and won't know about this.

This is so bizarre that I'm wondering how long they can run this story, and what the next worldwide emergency will be to distract everyone.

Also, and but, as full disclosure, at one mine (I see a lot of sites) I did the site-specific training while effectively isolated in the front entrance coat room and the glass door to the office was locked. I got my papers, radio, through the gate, and all the workers were business as usual. Apparently the front office was scared.

At this point, I think people are comfortable being in fear and are willing and allowing it to continue. We have to be at war with someone, so this invisible silent enemy is as good as fighting Eastasia. Either the debt money gets funneled to endless military wars or to endless medical wars.

BTW, the ignore user setting seems to have stopped working here.
Tickerguy
Posts: 169066
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It still works.... smiley

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Jacksparrow
Posts: 87
Incept: 2016-04-15

Olympia WA 98506
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Why does the danish study summary sound like masks work, but the data shows it doesn't? What am I missing?
Tickerguy
Posts: 169066
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Jacksparrow -- They wanted it to work. That was their premise, and what they expected.

This is actually how science happens, by the way. All persons have bias. Thus, conscious or not, you will slant things. When you get the OPPOSITE of your expected result that is the best science there is, for that reason.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Rporth
Posts: 8
Incept: 2016-09-28

North Dakota
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Slightly off topic, a fascinating take by a covid physician in the UK - lots of links in the article....

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-covid-physic....

Also - anybody hear of "The Great Barrington Declaration"? Many docs signing on worldwide stating basically to protect at risk populations, and let everybody live life normally.... interesting...

Jesjohn94
Posts: 209
Incept: 2019-05-07

Atlanta
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
TG might enjoy this if he didn't already see it.


More than 900 employees at Mayo Clinic, a top research hospital that is based in Rochester, Minnesota, have contracted Covid-19 in the last two weeks.

At a press briefing on Tuesday, Dr Amy Williams, dean of clinical practice at the hospital, said that the vast majority of staff who were infected 93% were not infected at work, according to the St Paul Pioneer Press. Most of those who were infected at work contracted the virus while eating without a mask during their breaks, Williams said.
Tickerguy
Posts: 169066
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
smiley

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Poorsaver
Posts: 411
Incept: 2008-05-20

Sunshine Tax State
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I just long for the good old days when masks were illegal to wear in public.

----------
"I'm going to need a hacksaw"----Jack Bauer
"You can get killed walking your doggie!"----Vincent Hanna
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 3  First123Last