The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Read Message in The Market Ticker - Cancelled
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie Logout
Page 2 of 5  First12345Last
 Covid-19 -- A White Paper - To @RealDonaldTrump and @CDC
Mannfm11 8k posts, incept 2009-02-28
2020-12-02 22:35:22

I'm sure this is posted somewhere, but it was revealing enough the CDC took it down. No real change in deaths, in age groups largely affected. THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-02 22:36:10

That wasn't the CDC it was Johns Hopkins, and the subject of my short 2 minute podcast. You see, Social Security doesn't pay dead people.


"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Erroldo 671 posts, incept 2013-09-12
2020-12-02 23:08:49

Mannfm11: so looking at the article in the link, we just have to look at total numbers, say for the last 5 yrs for total deaths in the us, removing accidents and homicides, etc. Look at 2020 so far, it looks like the total deaths remained about the same? Then it means from the data, a lot of natural causes of death have been labeled COVID19 and that is in our face everyday and so believe covid is killing a lot of people. But as the paper says, the usual top causes saw a large reduction in 2020. This means that to coroner just shift some of what would be heart attach and cancer to covid.
I would expect to see the usual death rate for the natural causes about the same from 2017, 2018, 2019 in 2020, but that is not the case.
So, when we truly look at the COVID death rate, it is much lower than what we see on the Worldometer site. I am expecting this to be same world wide.
Erroldo 671 posts, incept 2013-09-12
2020-12-02 23:26:49

I wonder if at some point they will start barring us from certain activities if we dont have proof we have the covid vaccine? I don't put it past the govt or corporations to do that. I know we say we have the constitution to prevent that, but they have already said const be damned. The society is such that it is easy to cut us off from that which sustain life because most of us are not self sufficient on a farm anymore. Kill the means if obtaining fiat money(employment for any length of time) and some of us starve... or take the covid shot just the j=get back in the system. Sound like 666 I learn in Sabbath school growing up(Seventh Day Adventist was in my upbringing).
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-02 23:27:12

@Erroldo - There's a lot of splodey-head in there when you start fucking with someone's ability to remain alive.

Yeah, it's 0.01% of the people. Well, out of how many millions do you want 0.01% going hunting? Because they just might, and once it starts then a whole lot of people who are VERY pissed off over things that have nothing to do with Covid may well join them.

That would be BAD.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."

Asimov 146k posts, incept 2007-08-26
2020-12-02 23:28:21

Erroldo: Pretty sure they already are. Ticketmaster (I believe it's them...) has already stated that they will require vaccine proof to attend their concerts.

It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-02 23:29:49

Ticketbastard is THINKING about it.

Lots of people are THINKING about it. Actually DOING IT is another matter, and there's a severe problem that comes with it in that while the vaccine manufacturer is immune from suit for injury from the vaccine there's a derivative action problem here that these folks will eventually have 'splained to them by corporate counsel.

There's also a potential ADA problem here, along with a bunch of others. The plaintiff's bar will eat them for breakfast the first time a cancer patient is told they can't buy a ticket or buys one and then is turned away at the door. I can come up with a half-dozen legal issues that I wouldn't go anywhere NEAR as any of them could flat-out ruin you and the plaintiff's bar will have every reason to chase those very deep pockets and see how far they can stuff their dicks in them to flush out money.

Just consider that it only takes one kid who wants to see some pop concert and is rendered permanently paralyzed by the shot which said cute girl got specifically because she had to do it to go see the band -- and Ticketbastard is fucked.

NATIONS can do it as an entry requirement, but that gets sticky too because the usual way that's done for various vaccinations (said requirements DO exist with some nations) is with visa issuance needed to enter. No-visa-required nations may find themselves with permanently crippled tourism industries. Visa-required ones won't have any problem at all; they'll just add that to the list, and there you are. No big deal for them.

But private firms are an entirely different kettle of fish.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."

Asimov 146k posts, incept 2007-08-26
2020-12-02 23:44:29

I wouldn't be even a tiny bit surprised if you sign away the right to sue anybody, when you get the vaccine.

If we're aware of the liabilities, I'm sure enough big money is as well. They'll make sure something absolves them.

It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-02 23:47:06

Contracts of adhesion, especially when forced at gunpoint, have a good probability of being tossed.

I wouldn't take the bet on them getting away with it if adverse reactions start showing up -- especially serious ones.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Zappafan 6k posts, incept 2007-11-30
2020-12-03 08:14:47

Remember this is an "emergency authorization" which means the usual safety protocols and length of time to collect data were cut short. And no pregnant women, children can take the vaccine as it is completely untested in those sub-groups. So you start demanding a vaccine for things and you are immediately discriminating on the basis of age and sex (given the mixed up world we live in, someone with a dick is gonna try to put on a dress and high heels and claim they're pregnant.)

And don't forget about HIPAA either. Ticket bastards will likely try to use some sort of tech to claim they don't actually see your immunization record, like a third party verification service, but that is just sleight of hand as obviously anyone who works for ticket bastard in a capacity where they have access to see why someone couldn't buy a ticket can infer that you did not get yours. What are they going to do, not even give you a call center to talk to a human to explain why you can't see some act? Hello, broken business model.

The airlines worry me the most - they have a history of rat-fucking people, and they're essentially state supported industries. Just try to get off the no fly list once you're on it - good luck. If I remember, there wasn't even an appeal process. But they are going to have a big problem as well, as they are trading one problem (nobody wants to fly because of quarantines) for another (nobody wants to fly because they have to take an experimental vaccine, and then even if they do they get on a plane full of kids and a pregnant lady who didn't have to take it.)
Mjvoet 5 posts, incept 2010-02-02
2020-12-03 08:15:07

I do not believe the CDC is making mistakes or "wrong", their actions are intentional. They are using invalid tests and pushing worthless masks to create fear, it is literally 21st century witchcraft. This is not about health, it's about control, and they know nothing motivates people to comply and obey as well as fear. The know their "vaccine" is not in fact a vaccine, instead just another flu shot (it shall not prevent infection and that infection will be contagious). The lock downs are designed to destroy small businesses. They lie about everything , the latest being that all these new (bogus) cases are covid19, when in fact they are seasonal flu. The public will believe anything reported consistently across MSM, this is why all dissent must be crushed, the message must be consistent. They want people to die, there shall be no inexpensive and effective remedies (as used with great success elsewhere). I am waiting for them to associate a danger with lost hair follicles and instruct the population to shave their head. I am convinced at least 80% of the population would comply immediately. The content and investigations posted here are outstanding, but energy is being wasted trying to persuade politicians and health authorities to recognize their mistakes. They are not mistakes.

Reason: add a helpful analogy
Blanca 574 posts, incept 2020-07-25
2020-12-03 08:15:22

Excellent paper. Thanks!
Mangobanana 5 posts, incept 2020-11-11
2020-12-03 08:36:03

Please, somebody help me with my maths here:

The Pfizer vaccine trial included nearly 44,000 people. Half getting their vaccine, half getting a placebo. In total, from the 44,000 people, 170 were later recorded as having become infected with Covid19. 162 of them were in the placebo group, 8 of them in the vaccine group.

The vaccine is therefore credited with preventing 162 cases of Covid19or 95%.

Suppose they used a vaccine that did nothing. You would expect that 50% would be in the vaccine group and 50% in the placebo group. Would they then claim their vaccine was 50% effective?
Zappafan 6k posts, incept 2007-11-30
2020-12-03 09:11:24

With such a large number of people and so few infections, there is a question of statistical significance. I seriously doubt the vaccine will be anywhere close to 95% effective, in practice.
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-03 09:09:05

They report the "skew"; basically, the reduction.

n/n1, essentially.

85/85 = 1.0, does nothing.

The problem is that this is a wildly-insufficient statistic to actually know anything for the following reasons:

1. "Infected" means "symptomatic and confirmed by PCR test." And? How many were ACTUALLY infected in each group? We do not know; they most-certainly DID NOT finger-stick everyone in the 44,000 test sample every 2 weeks to check for IgG antibodies! Yet you HAVE TO in order to know how many people ACTUALLY got infected. The problem with doing that is if you finger-stick EVERYONE you immediately violate the blinding, as EVERYONE in the shot group will be positive in 2-4 weeks. Now I know if I got the shot or placebo which alters my behavior and voids the rest of the test. This is why you cannot assess a Phase 3 study on titer; you ASSUME it works after Phase 1 and 2 studies demonstrate that in a very small number of people the expected antibody response is provoked. Incidentally this is yet another reason you can't buy an IgG antibody test OTC; if you could for $2 then anyone who was in the trial could un-blind it for themselves at nearly zero cost. Note also that given the wildly high false-positive PCR rates even symptomatic cases are not necessarily Covid unless confirmed by antibody presence 2 weeks later, and NOBODY is doing that either in these studies or the general population. So you may well have called many of these 170 infections "Covid" when they were a rhinovirus!

2. Were the infections in the vaccinated group a result of failure to produce antibodies in response to the jab or did they get infected irrespective of having them? That's quite-important information since if the "vaccinated" infections had antibodies prior the infection occurring then it STRONGLY SUGGESTS that the "match" between what the vaccine produces and what they were exposed to is insufficient. Note that the MMR vaccine is 97% effective against measles. For mumps it's only about 88% effective and there is evidence that one wears off too. The latter took decades to figure out. Beware people who tell you a vaccine is the answer to something based on a 3 month study; they are by definition full of crap.

3. 170 infections is statistically powerful enough to produce a few serious or even fatal outcomes in people over 70 (really, among those with serious underlying health issues.) But NONE of the most-at-risk were in the trials. Among healthy people it is expected to produce ZERO such outcomes. Therefore if there are ANY severe or fatal cases it strongly implicates that the vaccine is HARMFUL -- but does not prove so. That's a problem since nobody gives a wet shit if you run a fever for 24 hours and are PCR positive. They only care if you choke or die. But there is WILDLY insufficient power in the test protocol to detect that.

4. 170 infections is also wildly insufficient to demonstrate SAFETY, especially in heavily-at-risk people. To assess ADE for example you need viral exposure to a material percentage to the common viral agents people come in contact with among both the vaccinated and placebo cohorts. This will take several years before sufficient statistical power is generated. You MIGHT get a safety signal in a few months but you are virtually GUARANTEED not to get one that is statistically significant so you cannot make ANY statement about whether or not there is a problem in that regard. This, more than anything else, is why vaccine trials take years to complete.

5. Auto-immune problems are even worse; they tend to occur, WHEN they occur, in a fraction of a percent of the people vaccinated -- and nobody typically knows exactly why. It is likely that these happen via a process similar to leukemia, which we now believe has two components -- genetic susceptibility AND infection by some agent. The exception is Guillain-Barre, which WHEN it happens usually does quite quickly, typically within weeks. But frankly, these trials over this sort of a period of time are really only demonstrating that there is no specific and outsized risk of that syndrome. If we vaccinate tens of millions of people you can bet there WILL be cases that will occur. Some of them are mild but if you get hammered by it you're REALLY fucked, and frequently permanently so. This was why I refused to allow them to stick my kid with HPV vaccine; SHE can choose that but since contracting that bug is a function of either violence against her or lifestyle decisions she chooses as an adult because if you get stuck and get hammered your ordinary life is OVER, and that's simply NOT something that I, as a parent, have a right to do.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."

Mangobanana 5 posts, incept 2020-11-11
2020-12-03 10:12:43

@Tickerguy- Ah I get it, its a ratio. That really helped thanks.

So all they proved is their vaccine is 5% INEFFECTIVE, and they are assuming the other 95% is credited to their vaccine. That is a ridiculous leap of faith as they don`t know anything at all about the "unknown" 95%, for all the reasons you gave.
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-03 10:15:44

Correct @Mangobanana -- that's how vaccine studies work.

The problem is that all you will ever get out of a short one is this relative ratio. All the rest of the information takes many years to develop.

The amount of time it requires to get the other information is inversely proportional to how deadly and serious the infections are. For something that kills 30% of the people who get it (e.g. SARS) you find out REAL FAST, because death is a huge part of the outcome for everyone who contracts it. But for something like Chicken Pox or Covid, which kills healthy people almost never, and by the way, THAT IS NOT AGE DEPENDENT EITHER as is proved in the white paper, it will take a decade or more before you know if the vaccine prevents DYING.

The problem is that nobody CARES about anything other than dying when you get down to it. If it does not prevent people from getting into the state where they will die then it's functionally worthless.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Riceday 1k posts, incept 2009-10-30
2020-12-03 10:38:03

author wrote..
There's also a potential ADA problem here, along with a bunch of others...

I think they're working on ways around this.

11/20 Georgia executive order - "Ordered that any requirement of the laws or regulations of this state including but not limited to Code Section 31-12-3.1(e), which prohibits the release of individually identifiable vaccination information, is hereby suspended to the extent it prevents the disclosure of COVID-19 vaccination records to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to support the response to COVID-19. Such records may include, but are not limited to, individually identifiable COVID-19 vaccination information."
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-03 10:40:05

Again a government can (and will!) shield itself. Private industry can't and diversity of jurisdiction will prevent this from being effective.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Jwjw 116 posts, incept 2019-07-13
2020-12-03 12:47:45

@Zappafan, Congress shielded airlines from liability for failure to secure the flights decks on 9/11, so Congress can shield the airlines again. The narrative will be that non-vaccine people put everyone else on the plane at risk, therefore it is a health requirement and Congress can try to shield the airlines because it will be a govt mandate. Like the vaccine damage fund, Congress can add a tax to every airline ticket to have money in the injury fund.

"someone with a dick is gonna try to put on a dress and high heels and claim they're pregnant."

I was going to dress normally. High heels look impractical.
Tristan 738 posts, incept 2009-04-08
2020-12-03 12:53:10

Very good paper. It's organized into digestible sections that can be referenced in discussion and seems to hit on all relevant sub-topics of COVID-19 where control and fear have taken root mainstream. I suppose it won't convince anyone against his or her will, but the consistent focus on showing what is scientifically strong evidence and what is weak--and with color coding!--is really an excellent approach in teaching those interested why some pieces of information are more important than others, how to recognize them, and what they mean when taken collectively.

People are unsettled by the whole situation, but they don't understand why and are shamed (as a matter of public policy?) for expressing it. I think this paper very much gives understanding to what they are feeling, arming those who feel discontent with effective weapons against the cycle of shame, fear, and control that is churning around us. I sure appreciate that, at its foundation, it is a love and concern for others that fuels this stand against deception, no matter who the enemy turns out to be.


When reading, I came across this paragraph on page 27 that took me a couple of passes:
This is not to indict these candidate vaccines for absence of evidence that requires time to develop cannot do that. But it is to point out that the record when one takes short-cuts has a number of very bad historical events in the record, all of which should give anyone pause and all of which were preventable had normal scientific scrutiny and the processes involved not been rushed.

I understood this as:
This is not to indict candidate vaccines for the absence of evidence that requires time to develop, but it is to point out a number of very bad historical events that have occurred as a consequence of taking similar short-cuts in the past. These events should give anyone pause, as all of them could have been prevented by normal scientific scrutiny, had the standard processes involved not been rushed or bypassed.
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2020-12-03 12:53:48

@Tristan - I edited that for clarity; deemed typographical so no tracking on that specifically, but also added data on the recent discovery of antibodies in banked blood.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Zappafan 6k posts, incept 2007-11-30
2020-12-03 13:15:21

Flying commercial is a voluntary activity. Any airline that requires a vaccine for me, but not the kid sitting right next to me sniffling and not covering his mouth when he coughs can perform an obscene act on themselves, preferably with an aluminum baseball bat.

And someone with better legal skills than me will probably sue on the basis of discrimination. They can shield the airlines from liability but discrimination is a different set of legal issues and includes civil rights. What if it turns out that African-Americans are at higher risk of deadly side effects from the vaccine? Or gays? (That will take years to determine ...)

The last thing the bankrupt debt zombies known as airlines need right now is more bad publicity.
Pavolley 138 posts, incept 2016-05-25
2020-12-03 13:39:55

This video from David Martin may help some understand the "vaccines" being produced. The '90%' Mythical Pfizer/Moderna Unicorns:
Tristan 738 posts, incept 2009-04-08
2020-12-03 13:40:25

One more tiny typographical thing in that paragraph could help others. I kept reading it wrong over and over, and was confused that you didn't address this sentence, but adding a comma after vaccines fixed it for me. I was thinking it was saying "the above is not to indict vaccines for absence of evidence..." and that "cannot do that" was a leftover fragment from earlier edits. Now I finally got it:
The above is not to indict candidate vaccines, for absence of evidence that requires time to develop cannot do that.

Antibodies in banked blood... wow, I've heard from people insisting that this virus has been around prior to what is claimed by the official narrative. Now there's proof positive for anyone interested in truth. Yet another sub-topic of discussion covered.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 2 of 5  First12345Last