This Is Why You Can't Get There From Here
The Market Ticker - Canceled - What 'They' Don't Want Published
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.

2021-08-09 09:58 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 1511 references Ignore this thread
This Is Why You Can't Get There From Here
[Comments enabled]

I'm stunned that CNN published this, to be honest.

Does it make sense that someone would want to avoid putting unknown chemicals in their body? Is it reasonable not to fully trust the pharmaceutical industry? It doesn’t take a lot of Googling to find lawsuits and settlements of billions of dollars involving harms, false claims and withheld information by drug companies. Isn’t it true that we have only short-term data on the effects and side effects of the vaccines, if only because the trials began less than two years ago?

Why yes, yes it does.  Vioxx, for one.  And not just once either.  There was a wee problem with the original IPV (Injected, Salk polio vaccine) too.  It was contaminated with a cancer-causing agent.  How many did it harm at the same time it helped?  We don't really know, but we do know it caused cancers -- including in kids.

Then there's the fact that IPV was rapidly followed by OPV, oral polio, which until the 1990s was still used in America.  Why?  Because IPV was non-sterilizing; that is, "leaky."  Guess what?  All the Covid vaccines are too.  That's bad.  It is, in fact, what promotes mutation.  We've known that for 70 years which is why we used both.  Every single so-called expert in the field knows this and that what they attempted to do this time was very likely to fail, as I pointed out before we began.

Now it has failed exactly as I expected.  The question becomes this: Why did those so-called "experts" go down a path that was known decades ago to be nearly-certain to not work?

And then, encourage them to talk. That’s where curiosity comes in. Ask questions, not to trap them in logical inconsistencies, but because you are truly curious about their answers. How do they compare the relative risks of vaccines and Covid? What data are they looking at? What makes them doubt the safety of the vaccine? What have they seen and heard?

That's the punch line, isn't it?

For those who are not morbid the data is clear: Covid is not very dangerous.  Sure, it can get you.  I can get run over by a car getting my mail too, but we must have perspective.  I operate a motor vehicle and accept a roughly 1 in 8,000 risk of dying every year that I do.  There's nothing I can do about it, other than not drive or ride in a car.

We keep hearing that we can take all these "measures" to stop Covid.  But those claims are lies.  How is it that Covid-19 managed to get transmitted to and among deer, for example?  Because it did.  I assure you as someone who has lived where deer are for a good part of my life they're not very interested in people.  They certainly don't get within six feet of you unless you just shot one, at which point whatever you gave it ends there since said deer is going in your freezer.  So how did 40% or more of them get infected over the last year, and what does this say about whether "social distancing" and "masks" can possibly work?  Deer, of course, are outdoors in high-airflow environments and do not interact with people.

That they're infected en-masse means this virus is all over the place and transmitted all over the place, indoors and out, no matter what you do.  All the so-called "mitigations" are worthlessThis is now established fact yet nobody is admitting it.

How many lies do the so-called "experts" get?

Well, how about when one of them tells the truth?

While data shows vaccination is reducing the rate of serious illness due to COVID-19 in Iceland, the country’s Chief Epidemiologist Þórólfur Guðnason says it has not led to the herd immunity that experts hoped for.

That's because it can't.

And further, note his language: Hoped for.  In other words they had no evidence it work work.  Hope is not a strategy, it is a religion.  Religion ahs no place in public health or medicine, which is supposed to be evidence-based.  This time it wasn't.

I warned of this, explicitly, before we started this nonsense.  Narrow immunity will be evaded and runs the risk of OAS, ADE or both.  What we attempted to do was futile and was not going to work.  I didn't need a degree in virology -- just the ability to read and not try to set aside decades of knowledge on viruses and how they, and vaccines for them, work (and, in the case of coronaviruses, not work.)

You simply have to accept that we all will get the virus.  It doesn't matter whether you like that or not.  You can't suppress Rt for a virus with an R0 of 7 to 9, which they claim Delta has, even with near-100% vaccination if the vaccines are not essentially 100% effective, and they aren't.  We injected hundreds of millions of Americans (and many more worldwide) without first proving durable and near-perfect immunity from said jabs.

We had exactly zero evidence of durable immunity because we didn't take the time, and there is no way to substitute for time.

That was criminally stupid.

We are now seeing the proof of our stupidity in that in Israel jab effectiveness is down to about 20% within six months.

Even without Delta that would make them worthless as a function of public health.  You'll never be able to accurately know when your "protection" level on an individual basis has waned enough that you either get infected or worse, get an enhanced infection.

This leaves us with individual risk reduction which is unknown as to its duration and strength.  It's also possible that vaccinating someone who has previously had Covid destroys their natural immunity; there is enough data out there at this point to be highly suspicious of this but not enough yet to conclude it.  For example we know natural infection is >95% effective beyond one year, because we have cases to document that.  But we also have jabbed people who were previously infected and now have gotten it again at a greatly accelerated rate; for example, three out of four among a small vaccinated but previously-infected cohort.  It is wildly improbable that if they had not taken the jabs three of the four would have had a second infection.(a little more than one chance in 10,000 on a random basis.)

Remember that whether some strain of a virus is more-transmissible virus (e.g. R0 of 5 or 9 .vs. 3) still doesn't get you if you're immune.  Immune is immune; the contagion level of the virus is immaterial.  It only matters if you're not immune.  Why you're not doesn't matter either.  Measles, with an R0 of somewhere around 13-15, does not scare me because I'm immunized and the data says it's very likely the protection I got from that vaccination remains good.  The Covid shots, on the other hand, appear to be good for perhaps six months and there is evidence that they destroy natural immunity if you were previously infected which means for the prior infected taking the vaccine is a net lose plus brings the risk of adverse effects!

Do you take the shot given these facts?

That depends.  If you've had Covid-19, hell no!  Why would you risk destruction of any of your natural immunity?  There is zero evidence that you get benefit from the published science and reason to believe you may get harm.  Doing that is stupid.

But what if you haven't had it as of now?  That's a more-difficult decision.  We do know of several potentially-useful drugs and supplements, most of them cheap, that work. Rather than sit at home and eat chicken soup until you are choking on your own spit you can choose to hit a suspected infection immediately.  If you get Covid, and beat it, you then have broad natural immunity that, thus far, none of the "variants" has demonstrated an ability to evade.

So which would you rather have?

Broad immunity that lasts for a long time and, at least thus far, is good against all the variants or narrow immunity that Delta (and, we must presume, future mutations) will evade and which fades off after six months forcing you to go get another stab with all of its adverse event risks such as heart inflammation, strokes and other clotting disorders?

The second choice is one that, if you make it, you're stuck with for life!

That's the choice and you should make it based on your particular medical situation.  For some people who are quite-likely to be laid waste by Covid, even with hitting the infection early with inexpensive drugs and supplements the jabs may be a good bargain despite the risks and probable requirement to keep taking them forevermore.  But for others, who are at very low base risk from Covid to begin with accepting that we will get infected and once we do we will have broad, strong natural immunity is clearly, on the math, the better choice.

Facts before fear folks and remember, it's your ass while CMS pays hospitals bounties for toe tags if you're on either Medicare or Medicaid provided they can show a PCR+ test.  As a result the hospitals have no interest in anything that keeps you out of them if you get Covid.

Are you going to continue to listen to people who have repeatedly gotten it wrong -- 2 weeks to flatten the curve, another 30 days and it'll be ok, don't wear masks, then do wear masks, masks are better than vaccines (after which a ****-ton of people died), we'll be ok after the high risk people get jabbed, we'll be ok when jab enough people to get herd immunity -- the last of which we now know is mathematically impossible as the vaccines wane in effectiveness and thus you will never get there no matter the level of compliance.....

Or are you going to start paying attention to the people who have consistently gotten it right for over a year and a half?

Finally, those who issuing mandates, especially now that we know the vaccines are failing within six months of administration in multiple nations, including Israel, Iceland and now the United States have absolutely zero justification for their actions.  They need to be blocked from being able to do same and if in political positions removed from power -- irrespective of how -- as the data is clear: Their claimed path forward does not and cannot, mathematically, work.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info This Is Why You Can't Get There From Here in forum [Market-Ticker-Nad] Item is pinned to the top of the forum
Posts: 7
Incept: 2021-08-19

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Hi, first time poster...can anyone summarize the belief among many that for those who have already had covid, the vaccine might essentially overwrite your superior, natural immune response and provide an inferior response?

This guy, Dr. Ohl, is a widely watched infectious disease expert at wake forest health in winston salem, nc, he puts out these weekly calls, in the one dated august 12th at about 27:43, he starts going on about how great the vaccine is versus natural immunity:

Can someone clarify and backup with any science or observational data that can disprove that? it's only if it's only theory. thanks!
Posts: 176905
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Bkleinhe - Natural immunity produces MOSTLY recognition against the "N" protein. That is not present in any of the vaccines.

The problem is that the "S" portion of the virus, and specifically the RBD of that portion, is where most mutation takes place. The "N" portion is conserved; it has to be, because it takes very little change in it for the virus to stop being a virus. Your body thus builds very broad, durable immunity due to infection that is almost-impossible for the virus to evade.

Unfortunately in-vitro studies have shown that Delta, in particular, has mutations that not only evade the antibodies produced by the vaccines but worse, may bind to them instead. Now that's in-vitro and may not translate, but if it does you're ****ed as that's ADE and it is very, very bad news. The GOOD news is that Delta ALSO has two codons MISSING from the original wild virus, and they were nasty ones that were implicated in the platelet disorder/collapse chain that hit a small percentage of people in Lombardi early on.

The basic issue with the jabs is that the "wild" virus from which they were allegedly constructed (remember, there is data showing that the sequencing used to produce them was being sent around including to labs in the us MONTHS BEFORE WE KNOW WHAT COVID WAS!) has been extinct in natural circulation for months. It got outcompeted and is GONE. So we now have a bunch of shots that are NOT a competent match against the circulating strains, and the drift continues to get worse as time goes on.

This is PROBABLY why the Israel data is what it is and shows that the jabs have failed. It means we went down the wrong road -- a road that could not succeed. The CORRECT road was to find and USE interdictions to infections immediately to blunt them, accepting that people WILL get infected and that the goal is for those infections to occur and build natural immunity.

Unfortunately what we've done NOW is potentially DAMAGE the immunity of those who had prior infections and then got jabbed. Right now that's theoretical but the reason it isn't proved or disproved is that we are deliberately not doing the labwork on those who are getting hit now to find out which it is.

What's CERTAIN, however, is that the jabs are basically WORTHLESS to stop transmission.

I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Posts: 222
Incept: 2021-05-31

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl, would like your thoughts on this. This morning I was thinking about how little difficulties Sweden is currently having even though I understood they had a high vaccination rate. I just looked it up and an article I found says about three-quarters of the adult population has been vaccinated. Yet, unlike Israel, Iceland and the UK, they're not seeing the big surge in cases this summer (so far?). The obvious difference between Sweden and the other countries mentioned is that Sweden infamously did not lock down. It occurred to me the reason Sweden isn't suffering like the other high-vaxxed countries has to be that Sweden had largely reached natural herd immunity in the first part of the pandemic. If this is the explanation and if Sweden does not later experience a big surge, it would seem that vaccination may not greatly impair natural immunity.

I know nothing about which vaccines are being deployed in Sweden and when people got vaccinated, so maybe Sweden's day will yet come. However, there seems to be something there to ponder and keep a watch on.
Posts: 14004
Incept: 2008-01-20

Metro Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The time difference between Israel and Sweden's vaccination matters.

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 176905
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Maddymaxx -- Correct, that's where hope lies in that Sweden may well have achieved herd suppression and thus have enough of a firebreak.

What people have to understand is that immune is immune. The relative ease-of-spread of a given strain is irrelevant. You can either be infected or not, period. If you're immune you can eat a ball of infected snot and nothing happens. If you're NOT immune, well.....

There was never any evidence that the jabs actually created immunity. Only suppression of symptoms, and even that was weak and predicated on a close match between epitopes, which was always subject to drift over time through natural mutation.

Well, here we are.

I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Posts: 7
Incept: 2021-08-19

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@tickerguy, thanks for the response! So the MSM are altering their narrative and moving away from the notion that the vax protects against infection and it's now more about the vax'd only getting a "covid cold"...and of course, the new rallying cry requiring the need for a booster.

Your primary concern I take it, is the possibility of ADE? Whereas in reading Geert Vanden Bossche, his primary premise is that introducing a non sterilizing vaccine in the middle of the pandemic will only most likely lead to a more highly virulent the vax'd continue to shed just as bad, perhaps worse, then a vax'd individual

And then there is the somewhat nebulous, issue of VAERS underreporting and all of the various post vax disorders which there seems to be no shortage of on social media...

Are those the three basic tenets that are being hashed out here? I am a board trustee for a local health system and am just trying to mount a credible argument to convince other board members to convince our system to publish the treatment protocols and to prescribe IVM, etc.. to our patients, of which in our surrounding counties roughly 60% remain unvaccinated...we don't even provide them with information on how to get regeneron, something even when used in our own ER is batting 100% in keeping patients out of the's just all very discouraging. I even tried to go so far as to get them to approve $100,000 to distribute vit D for free to everyone in the community as 90% of them are low on it.... almost no prophylactic or early treatment concern at all, yet they are pulling their hair out now that the ICU is full and there are no tertiary centers to divert as they are all full. Yet they had the last 6 months knowing full well this was coming...

Are health systems constrained to only following WHO, CDC and NHI guidelines? I just can't seem to understand why Remdevisir was our treatment of choice during the last surge, even though all along, every one pretty much knew there was no efficacy. What if as a board we told management to authorize all our practices to prescribe IVM and give out the MATH+ protocol? would mgmnt be somehow constrained and could not do that?

I can see why so many just get the shot, there are a lot of narratives competing for airtime and everyone who tries to give them any airtime is branded an antivaxer, trump supporter, uneducated hick, etc.. Yet none of the people I know are that, mostly the opposite.

Why can the CDC get so many facebook stories and new articles showing an unvaxed claiming they wish they had gotten the jab, yet we can't produce correlating testimonies from patients taking the MATH+ protocol and doing great! Do they exist? I see observational clinical data on occasion, Dr. ______ has treated 435 covid patients thus far with <1% being hospitalized, etc.. But not really many individuals coming forward, maybe that's because they followed the protocols, they never got sick and that was it, no story here?

sorry for all the questions, thanks all! You are doing a great service!

Posts: 129078
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List

It's not the country we were raised to believe it is. It's another country where it's leaders use propaganda and censorship to control the thoughts of the masses.

It's sickening, it's depressing and it's more than a little inciting.

I wish you the best of luck. Maybe your efforts will cause an outbreak of common sense and maybe, just maybe, word will get out that there is hope beyond the political narrative.

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

Festina lente.
Posts: 602
Incept: 2021-05-01

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Bkleinh. I wish you well in your efforts. Have you considered inviting Dr. Peter McCullough to speak with your board of directors and perhaps some of the physicians at the hospital? Search for some of his interviews. He is well regarded and widely published and probably has more experience in treating COVID patients than a good number of doctors. Also there are doctors from American Front Line Doctors that might be able to assist. Go to their website for additional information. Good luck.
Posts: 222
Incept: 2021-05-31

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Bkleinhe Both ADE and Vanden Bossche's concerns have be discussed here for some time. Two separate but serious concerns. As I understand it, on the latter, the vaxxed shedding virus is only part of it. When you use a non-sterilizing vaccine you open the avenue for more dangerous mutations to evolve as the natural selection process is averted.

Think of the saying "avoid it like the plague." If a virus gets too virulent it tends to run out of available hosts as it either kills the host, people avoid the infected person and strenuous quarantine measures are employed. Without new hosts, the virus will die out. When the vaccine doesn't kill the virus within the vaccinated but it does help to prevent the vaccinated from the full effect of the virus, and especially if it suppresses symptomology, the virus can mutate more readily into something more deadly without the usual evolutionary pitfalls a virus faces. If you look up this concept in medical journals and textbooks you'll find plenty that talk about this immunological principle as it's been known and uniformly accepted for a very long time. If I were you I'd get several of these and show it to the board members so maybe they will start to question why the whole world has been ignoring such a well-accepted principle. Then, you can find the articles and studies (pre-covid, so they can't be deemed biased) relating to efforts to produce a vaccine against corona viruses that failed and you can maybe get the board to wonder why everyone has been so convinced that these vaccines will work when they've always failed in the past.

Keep up the good work, it's important.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ