The Market Ticker - Canceled
What 'They' Don't Want Published- Category [Covid-19]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

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.

2021-09-29 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 38241 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's over folks.

Seriously, there are now two -- and only two -- possible paths.

  • Sue, on the basis below.  You will win if the judiciary is competent and so is your counsel.  Competence is not in my wheelhouse; that is up to you.  If you file bull**** you will lose, and should.  But if your counsel is competent and your argument clear and concise you win because the CDC has documented that your position is correct -- the vaccines are in fact worthless from a public health perspective beyond a period of about four months and you win on the balance of harms in that circumstance for reasons I will explain below.

  • If the judiciary is no longer an arbiter of fact then you have to choose between slavery and revolt.  That's all that's left if you are in a position that this is impacting your ability to earn a living or otherwise do something necessary.  Yes, that gets ugly fast.  I would hope the judiciary understands exactly how ugly, and how fast and thus does its job.

The bottom line is right here, in this study:

 

A prison is highly analogous to a hospital or other health-care setting.  Both are "conjugal" living arrangements.  Both have a locked in component (the patients in one, the prisoners in the other) and a working and mingling in society component (the doctors, nurses, orderlies, janitors, etc. in one, the guards, cooks, janitors and similar in the other.)  In both cases the locked-in persons are not really free to leave; in both they typically leave only when allowed by the working component (yes, you can sign yourself out against medical advice in a hospital, but few actually do.)

Both confine people, typically two to a room but sometimes one, among the conjugal and locked-in persons.  Both therefore are highly-effective places to spread disease -- especially airborne pathogens.

But -- in the prison it is now documented that after four months the vaccine's effective rate of protection was statistically zero.

The argument for forcing vaccinations in these highly-confined environments, say much less those which have fewer constraints, such as colleges, secondary and primary schools and other workplaces is that people are put at "unreasonable" risk by unvaccinated individuals.

Yet the data is that four months post-vaccination there is no statistical difference between vaccinated and not when it comes to attack rates.  By the CDC's own data the vaccines are worthless to protect others after four months.

Let me point out a few other inconvenient facts.  First, the companies and CDC likely knew this prior to the jabs going into widespread use, since their effectiveness is basically zero compared against unvaccinated controls within four to six months.  The original EUA trials were about four months in duration, which means they, or the firms, had this data -- and with a high degree of certainty either ignored indications of it or deliberately concealed it.  That's fraud and upon proof retroactively voids liability protection back to the first EUA-administered jab, including that provided by the PREP Act as willful misconduct is outside of PREP Act and other applicable legal liability protection.

Second, the FDA standard for a vaccine, which they formally adopted for Covid-19 vaccines, requiring that they must be at least 50% effective in preventing the disease in question over the period of concern.  Since a seasonal respiratory virus is, as the name implies, an annual risk that would place the period of time at "one year."  None of these jabs, on the CDC's own evidence, are licensable under the FDA's standards and thus none can be mandated in any way.

We now know why the JAMA study, which found 83% population immunity as of May which is sufficient to suppress Covid-19 given its experimentally-determined R0, failed to do so.  63% of population was not immune by former infection; they were immune by vaccination and by June and July enough of those vaccinated people had their protection age off sufficiently to be worthless against infection and transmission.  This is why, on the facts, the summer surge happened.

Now, you might argue that this means the government can force jabs every four months.  Indeed Israel is attempting to do exactly that.

Nope.  That is neither lawful or Constitutional in the United States.

Remember the law on accommodations when it comes to those with a "disability" (who cannot choose and thus cannot consent): An accommodation is lawful if and only if it is not an unreasonable burden on the person forced to make the accommodation.  If the accommodation would be "unreasonably burdensome" it cannot be required.

Thus you can be forced, when remodeling your commercial building (or building a new one), to put in a ramp, an electric door opener and a button for someone in a wheelchair because it's not an unreasonable accommodation to do so.

You can't be forced, as an employer, to put in a completely separate air feed, a separate means of entrance and egress, and hermetic seals around a workspace so a person with a void immune system (aka "bubble boy") can be hired as an employee without immediately being exposed to a bacterial or viral agent that will kill him or her yet would be harmless or of minimal significance to someone with a functional immune system.

You also can't be forced, as a homeowner, to put in that same ramp because it is unreasonable to force you, who do not need such an accommodation, to suffer the expense because someone might come to your private residence (or may purchase same from you in the future) who does.

So can an employee ever be forced to be vaccinated on the premise of protecting others?  Maybe.  If all of the others can choose to protect themselves for no more risk than the employee is required to take then the answer is no.  In other words you can't make me wear a mask so you don't have to.  But you might be able to make me wear one if you can't wear one and you can prove there is less or equivalent risk to me from doing so than not.

And here we get into the next problem for the CDC, which is their own data once again:

 

Divide all those numbers by 10 to get "per-100,000" rates.

So for someone under 17 the risk of death from Covid-19, assuming you get infected, is 2/100,000 (or 0.002%)
For someone 18-49 it is 50/100,000 (or 0.05%)
For someone 50-64 it is 600/100,000 (or 0.6%)
And for someone 65+ it is 9,000/100,000 (or nine percent)

These are obviously too-broad ranges but they're the CDC's numbers.  We could take a stab at disentangling them using the NYC Coroner data, for example, and I have -- but we don't have to in this case because the CDC has provided enough data on their own, within the Federal government, to complete the analysis.

VAERS says the risk of death shortly following vaccination for Covid-19 is at least 15,386 / 200,000,000 (remember, this is "died with" not "died of" in both cases of vaccination and infection) or 7.69/100,000.  This, by the way, is wildly higher than that for the flu shot (about 20-30 deaths per year across 170 million shots delivered) and thus is very unlikely to be a coincidence.

Here's the problem -- this rate of risk is per vaccine delivered.  For someone under 17 the risk of the vaccine exceeds the risk of their dying from Covid-19.  For someone in 18-49 the math looks better -- if you only take one shot ever.  But that's not the paradigm, is it?  Nope.  So the risk of the vaccine over three shots a year is 21/100,000 and over six shots in total, or approximately 18 months, it is virtually the same as the disease.  Yet over the first 16 months or so -- most of which was during a time when there were no vaccines -- only 20% of the population was infected.  The risk is taken when you get jabbed (is certain), but the risk of infection is only taken if you get infected (is not certain.)

In other words since we now know from the CDC itself that the vaccines are not durable and must be repeated every four months for someone under 50 the cross-over of risk occurs in less than two years after which they are better off being infected.  For someone under 18 they are always better off being infected.

Remember that infection confers sterilizing immunity and, on the science, is durable.  How durable we do not know precisely but we do know that other coronaviruses, including OC43, were believed to cause a similar pandemic (specifically in the 1890s) and now cause colds and mild flus in most people.  In addition persons infected with the original SARS were shown to still have protection against reinfection seventeen years later.  In other words if you choose natural immunity and get infected the odds are you permanently protected against a severe (hospitalized) or fatal outcome, although at some point you will get it again, likely more than once in your lifetime.

Now here's the punchline: To argue that you must take the jab "for others" the argument is in fact that you must risk your own life to save other's lives because the common good, albeit diffuse and indistinguishable from person to person, mandates you place yourself at risk of permanent disability or fatal outcome and the risk of that disabling or fatal outcome is, over time, higher than that which would occur if you did nothing and risked a natural infection.

This is simply not supportable under our Constitution or law and in fact is a violation of your pre-political rights.

Contemplate this scenario which is exactly the same as those arguing for and imposing "mandates": We clearly need more children in the United States.  As of 2018 the birth rate is 1.73 live births per woman and it has fallen further in recent years, down 20% since 2007.  At a birth rate under approximately 2.1 per woman your nation and society eventually go extinct since that is the number required to maintain your population.

It is a clear societal yet diffuse "good" to have children born to at least replace those persons who die.  Without same over sufficient time there is quite literally nobody left! 

This outcome absent change is guaranteed to occur.  Long before you actually all go extinct, however, the government will fail due to lack of the ability to collect the taxes and fund itself necessary to operate.  In other words the destruction of your society doesn't happen when the last person dies -- as I'm sure you can realize it happens long before then when there are insufficient people to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep a modern way of life operating.

This is identical to the "risk" posed by Covid-19.  It is diffuse and uncertain, yet statistically it will do harm.  That it will harm some specific person cannot be determined in advance; indeed, among my close associates I had an older married couple, both with serious morbidities.  One was killed by this virus in early 2020, the other untouched despite sleeping in the same bed.  Similarly, who will get harmed as the population dwindles cannot be determined in advance either, but that it will happen is a mathematical certainty.

Therefore the government and private businesses have the right to forcibly impregnate women who do not otherwise get pregnant and force them in each case to carry the fetus to term so as to prevent that from happening -- right?

Uh, of course not.

Why not?

Because the personal risk of harm -- physical, medical, psychological and financial -- to any given woman may, at some time and indeed most of the time over time, exceeds the diffuse societal benefit from her giving birth to said child.  Therefore even though it is clearly not only in the interest of the public as a whole for the rate of child-bearing to be at least replacement it is not lawful to intrude into a person's body to cause it to be so.

The exact same analysis applies here.  Yes, protection of the public health is a proper function of government since public health is diffuse yet personal health is, by definition, personal and thus not diffuse.  When the two align mandates are supportable.  A cost of personal health (or risk thereto) that is de minimis or is literally zero of course argues for the public interest.

For example quarantining someone known infectious with reasonable scientific certainty with an infectious disease is reasonable because the public benefit is clear and the personal cost limited in time and impact, with a zero risk of mortality due to temporary constraint on personal movement.  In the context of mandated vaccinations the USSC has been clear as well; for a disease (e.g. smallpox) where the fatality rate was 30% and the vaccine killed you one or two times in a million the argument held for this reason.  You had a tiny risk of dying from the vaccination (personal harm) but the public benefit with a disease that killed 30% of the time was immense.  Further, for all persons not previously infected the personal risk .vs. reward odds were always positive by utterly ridiculous ratios.  When your personal risk of the smallpox vaccine killing you was 1/500,000 (0.0002%) yet the disease killed 30% of the time in non-vaccinated persons there's little argument to be had.

This is clearly not the case here; in those under 50 repeated vaccination is, on balance, more-dangerous than the virus and in those under 18 it is always more-dangerous even from the first use.  Never mind that the jabs contribute nothing to population immunity (a public good) since you can still be infected and become contagious while infection and recovery does.

Biden's position, and that of the Federal Government, is unsupportable on both the facts and the law.

There is no debate on the facts when those arguing for mandates prove with their own claims and data that their argument is unsupportable both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.  A viable disagreement to be submitted to a court requires that a trier of fact have some set of facts in dispute.  The CDC, an organ of the government itself, has admitted there are no facts in dispute; the vaccines are ineffective and are, on their own data, more harmful than the infection in a large percentage of the population.  The public health argument thus fails on its first premise.

We are either a nation bound by law or we are not.  If we are not, and the government and judiciary so-declare they must understand that this declaration means exactly what you think it might.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-09-24 05:03 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 11934 references
[Comments enabled]  

... in a not-so-tiny nation called Spain, a nursing home had a nasty virus get into it.

It was March of 2020.  The nasty virus was called Covid-19.  And this nursing home, like so many others all over the world, was full of elderly, morbid people.  The mean age of residents was 85 and 48% were over 80 years old.  It was a killing field, like so many others.....

Within three months 100% of the residents had caught the virus.  Not presumed to have -- proved to have.

How do we know this?  Because almost every one of them seroconverted.  All but three out of 84 of them, to be precise.

Think about that last sentence for a second.

Almost every one of them seroconverted.

How's that possible?  Many of them died, right?  You can't seroconvert if you're dead.

No.  Not only did nearly none die none went to the hospital either because they rapidly figured out how to stop the virus from killing people -- and did exactly that.

You would have thought this would have been all over the news.  In point of fact not one mention of it was made.  Further, not one write-up was made in medical journals either until January of 2021, which I missed.  My bad -- out of the several hundred medical journal pieces, I missed this one.  It was brought to my attention on my forum and my jaw immediately hit the floor.

The jab train must continue, you see.  So must the ventilator train.  So must the money train, the mask train and the rest of the BS we have endured for the last 18+ months.

So must the slaughter for money, the fear, and the lies.

So what did these few nursing homes do that nobody has done since and nobody reported out at the time?

1. Early start of treatment, regardless of the severity of patient symptoms.
  - Antihistamines every 12 h: dexchlorpheniramine 2 mg, cetirizine 10 mg or loratadine 10 mg.

2. Patients with mild or recent-onset symptoms (cough, fever, general malaise, anosmia, polymyalgia):   
   - Azithromycin 500 mg orally every 24 h for 3 days if there is rapid improvement, and for 6 days if the duration of symptoms is prolonged.
   - If pain or fever, acetaminophen 650 mg/6–8 h.
   - Nasal washing and gargling with sodium bicarbonate water (half a glass of warm water with half a teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate).

3. If symptoms of severity (dyspnea, breathing difficulty, mild or moderate chest pain, with SpO2 <80%, heart rate >100 beats per minute at any time of the process):
   - Antihistamines + Azithromycin (see mild treatment management)
   - Levofloxacin 500 mg/12 h, up to 14 days of antibiotic treatment from diagnosis.
   - Mepifilin solution, 50 mg/8 h as a bronchodilator, until subjective improvement. Patients with previous lung disease (asthma or COPD) used their usual bronchodilators.
   - If the patient experienced increased breathing difficulty, prednisone 1 mg/kg/day divided into two doses until clinical improvement, and then it was slowly tapered down.
 
4. Prophylactic treatment for close contacts, including all asymptomatic residents:
  - Antihistamines at the same dose as symptomatic patients.

Ed 9/25 11:30 - Reformatted the cut section; it got mangled by the forum.  Still not what I'd like in terms of formatting, but at least it's readable now... and one typo corrected.

Look at that top line.

Cetrizine is otherwise known as Zyrtec.  Loratadine is otherwise known as Claritin.  Dexchlorpheniramine is not often-used in the US anymore, but it used to be.  The other two core drugs were Azithromycin and Levofloxacin, both common antibiotics with the first being the infamous "Zpak" from the HCQ+Zinc+Zpak combination that a fraudulent study was used to discredit.

Both of the first two antihistamines are available over the counter in most nations including the United States.  The dosing they used is twice that on the label.  The two antibiotics are both available anywhere for little money.

Before they started treating people three residents died.  The entire group of them had the common maladies of old age -- hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease.  Most were using a huge range of existing drugs for their conditions (5 or more.)  

As soon as they started treating people the following happened:

All of our patients evolved satisfactorily and were recovered at the beginning of June. No adverse effects were recorded in any patient and no one required hospital admission. At the end of June, 100% of the residents and almost half of the workers had positive serology for COVID-19, most of them with past infection.

Not one adverse event occurred among these residents and staff and no hospitalizations were necessary either.

In pooled data 28% of the residents in similar nursing homes over the same time period died.  In these two, once they started treating with cheap drugs, leading with those available over the counter in the US, ZERO -- I repeat -- ZERO had a bad reaction to the protocol, ZERO died and ZERO were admitted to a hospital for treatment.

ZERO.

It was one hundred percent effective.

Yes, it's a small sample.  Go do the statistical math on the CI for that size sample and results if you insist.

According to the mechanisms of action described, these drugs would act synergistically in the early stages of the disease, which is why we consider it essential to start the treatment as soon as possible. Once the virus has colonized the respiratory system, the effectiveness is probably more limited, and hence the failure of these treatments in more advanced stages of the disease, when hospital admission is necessary. In our experience, early double antibiotics were effective to control the process in cases with moderate symptoms.

Nobody cared.

Nobody reported on this.

Nobody duplicated it either.

I didn't even realize this study existed; had I known of it guess what I would have added to my protocol when I got Covid-19 the first week of August of this year, since it happens to be in my medicine cabinet already for seasonal allergies?  Uh huh.  Two 60ct bottles of generic Claritin equivalent costs about $12 at WalMart.

Folks, think about this long and hard: In the worst-case scenario for those who this virus should have killed -- it killed nobody.  It should be killing statistically nobody today -- right here, right now.  How to prevent it from doing so was discovered in March and April of 2020 and intentionally ignored worldwide.

It is still being ignored today.

With these numbers there is no reason to fear a Covid-19 infection.  There is no reason to take a vaccine.  There was never a reason to develop a vaccine, especially the ones we have today; infection that does not produce severe disease is sterilizing and thus wildly superior to vaccinated immunity which is now proved to be failing worldwide.  There is no reason to wear a mask.

Every single one of these residents seroconverted and became immune with mild or moderate symptoms consistent with seasonal colds and flus and not one of them was put into the hospital or killed. The treatment is so ******ned cheap and available there's no excuse to not use it instantly on suspicion of infection and prophylactically among everyone else in your household at first sign of trouble.

You think the entire load of BS around HCQ and Ivermectin is bad?  This is a thousand times worse.

Those who died did not do so due to a "novel coronavirus"; we knew how to treat that infection successfully for pennies in March and April of 2020.  Yes, in the first month or two people died because we did not know.

Beyond April of 2020 people died because we let the medical system and governments murder them for profit and they're still doing it today.  We, the people, have allowed this.  We have failed and refused to rise up and hold accountable, personally, every single hospital, doctor, so-called "hero" nurse and every single politician across the globe.  They willfully and intentionally slaughtered millions on a global basis.

The answer to the problem -- to Covid-19 -- was known in March and April of 2020 and yet not published until January of this year, and even then not one single bit of media attention nor a single mention from Fauci, the CDC, the NIH or FDA has been made, all in the interest of Moderna and Pfizer's stock prices and the power-mad jackasses on an international basis -- at the cost of your loved ones' lives.

That wasn't an accident and it still isn't one.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-08-21 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 3137 references
[Comments enabled]  

Now the CDC wants everyone to line up for a third round of clot-shot lottery.

Note carefully: The Israel data says this will fail and kill lots of people.

Aran’s message for the United States and other wealthier nations considering boosters is stark: “Do not think that the boosters are the solution.”

That's right.  They're not.

Delta may be more-transmissible but if you're immune it does not matter how transmissible a virus is.  You either can or cannot be infected.  It's binary.  If you're immune then you're immune.  If you're not then you're not.  If you have had Chicken Pox (I have) you'd look at anyone telling you to take a chicken pox shot as if they had six heads because such a suggestion is flat-out bat****-crazy-level insanity.

The idea that somehow Delta "can" break through immunity because it is more transmissible is flat-out scientific fraud and everyone who says that and has any knowledge of viruses and immunity knows it.  They're lying, on purpose, and every one of them deserves to be locked up in GITMO as a ****ing terrorist and waterboarded to within an inch of their lives.

The reason Delta is "breaking through" is either due to OAS or the fact that the vaccines never did work worth a crap in the first place to prevent you from getting infected.  Their "efficacy" was a lie but whether its due to mutational reality or the fact that we claimed "effectiveness" simply due to herd effects with the existing circulating strains at the time does not matter.

My suspicion is that there is a blend of both going on here and there is science to back that up; the mutational pattern that we have seen and the science behind it says that evasion is happening.  The "wild coding" used originally and to this day for the jabs is long-extinct; there is basically zero of that circulating anymore in the population.  It has all been subsumed by ordinary mutational process and we had every reason to believe this would happen when Covid-19 first showed up because it has happened with every other coronavirus we have studied through history -- including the closest analog SARS-1 which mutated itself out of transmission and being a threat to people.

This is much like what happens with the flu shot every year: They have to guess which specific flu strains and mutations will show up in advance.  They're never right.  Their match varies in effectiveness but is basically never 100%.  Get it (sort of) right, you get decent protection.  Get it wrong you get little or nothing.

Except: Every coronavirus in history has mutated at a high rate in the spike domain.  All of them.  We knew this and we ALSO knew before the first shot went into the first arm the strain against which the vaccines were developed -- all of them -- was extinct in the wild, having been out-competed by said mutations.

We lied about the effectiveness by taking advantage of a peak in infections for the circulating strains last winter that was already in the past.  It was a knowing, intentional lie used to get 150+ million Americans to do something with waning toward worthless effectiveness but with 100x higher risk than the ordinary flu shot or, for that matter, any other vaccine in history.

The match has continued to degrade; it is biologically impossible to win that "arms race" as the virus will continue to change, and attempting to jab people with repeat inoculations as the match gets worse and worse over time simply adds to the risk of serious adverse events including clotting, strokes and heart damage.   Note that despite knowing this there has been no change made to the formulations.  What are you going to do -- throw all the existing doses and pipeline for them in the trash every time a new mutation shows up?

What we did was fight a war that cannot be won by the means employed and any honest person knows it.  The entire ****ing government and medical apparatus knew this, lied about it and continues to lie today.  All of them.

They KNOW they're full of ****.

Rather than accept this fact and focus our attention on determining the most-effective ways to interdict infections early in people with a goal of allowing the infection to course its way through the population while not killing the victims or sending them to the hospital we instead took an utterly insane approach that focused on the idea that we could prevent people from getting the virus at all.  Whether that was masks (worthless since the virus is a tiny fraction of the size of the filter media and goes right through it), lockdowns (pointless; all you do is delay the inevitable) and now vaccines we keep being beaten around the head and shoulders by the virus which follows the laws of physics and undergoes natural mutation whether we like it or not.

I believed I might have had Covid-19 in January of 2020, even though I tested negative for antibodies several months later.  As it turns out my later antibody testing (negative) was correct and not a defective test; whatever I had in January of 2020 it was not Covid-19.

But now having had Covid-19 (almost-certainly Delta too) and knowing damn well it was Covid-19, and surviving it, it is a clearly-distinct infection that I could not possibly mistake for anything else.  That I was infected with Covid-19 is known scientific fact as I was previously IgG negative as of a couple months ago but now, following recovery from said suspected infection, am IgG positive.

Having had the infection and now having found IgG antibodies by test I am now known robustly immune to any and all variants; the immunity built from natural infection is conserved across the various epitopes of the virus in all cases because the "N" portion of the virus, which has to remain more-or-less intact for it to be able to be a virus, forms the backbone and bulk of the immune response built following natural infection.

I am not afraid of Covid-19 at any level any longer.  I am the exact person you want to employ to work in a hospital or nursing home full of very high-risk persons for severe Covid-19 because I am sterile to the virus; I can neither get it or give it to anyone.  Of course we would have to negotiate terms; money is not, I suspect, among the ones hospitals and nursing homes would have trouble with.

This is not true for any of the vaccines, it was a critical error in what we did and it is why we are now seeing escape.  It is not breakthrough folks, it is escape due to mismatch between the coded antibodies and circulating virus and it will both continue and accelerate as the match inexorably continues to degrade between what circulates and the original "wild type" out of Wuhan, which is what's coded in ALL the jabs and which is long extinct.  What's worse is that if OAS or ADE really come out to play on top of it then if you have not been naturally infected and have been jabbed you are in for a world of **** if you get challenged by the virus in the wild.  Even very, very small enhancement percentages from ADE-style reactions can completely overwhelm any sort of treatment possibility at all.

We do not yet know if this is happening as we are deliberately not autopsying and investigating cases where someone was vaccinated, got infected anyway and then rapidly crashed going from being moderately ill to in an ICU or dead within 72 hours.  There are multiple reports of this happening already.  If this was someone who had a defective immune response then that's very unfortunate but it does happen.  We had damned well better prove that, however, and we're not going the pathology work to do so.  If it turns out that said person did in fact build a proper immune response then these cases are either OAS or ADE-enhanced disease and while this outcome is clearly not universal in those who got jabbed if it is happening even once in a while we had better figure it out right ****ing now or there is going to be a pile of dead bodies this fall and winter and it will be the direct responsibility of those who advocated for and in fact are trying to, in many cases, FORCE mass-jabbing of the population that caused it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-08-02 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 42214 references
[Comments enabled]  

I warned everyone.

Now even CNN is on it, although they (like SAGE) think we're smarter than nature -- and evolution.

They write that some variants that have emerged over the past few months "show a reduced susceptibility to vaccine-acquired immunity, though none appears to escape entirely."

But they caution that these variants emerged "before vaccination was widespread," and that "as vaccines become more widespread, the transmission advantage gained by a virus that can evade vaccine-acquired immunity will increase."

In a word: Duh.

I know I've been banging on this drum since Covid-19 started but it is no-less important today, especially in the context of holding people accountable for killing several hundred thousand Americans and the economic destruction they brought upon the nation.

To be sterilizing a vaccine must prevent infection.  Since you never get infected you never replicate the virus and thus do not shed it.  If you do not shed it the potential path of the viral life-cycle for that particular infection ends with you and thus you cannot pass on or cause a mutation. You are sterile against that disease; from the point of view of the virus you are a lifeless rock.  Among commonly-used sterilizing vaccines are MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Varicella (chicken pox), OPV (oral polio) and others.  The only time that such a vaccine fails is when you do not build immunity (such as due to immune compromise.)  This is extremely rare and the protection from such vaccines tends to be either decades-long or lifetime.

A vaccine that is not sterilizing permits the virus to infect you and replicate and as a result you can infect others.  Technically it is not a vaccine at all (which by definition prevents infection); it is a prophylactic therapy.  Such a "vaccine" instead acts to reduce or eliminate symptomatic disease.  You don't know you're sick and you don't get sick.  You don't go to the hospital and you don't die.  Unfortunately since you don't know you're sick but are infected and the virus is both replicating in you and shedding you are more-likely to spread the infection to others.  All of the current Covid jabs are in this category and so is, for that matter IPV (injected polio vaccine -- the original Salk discovery.)

During the original vaccine trials in the summer and fall of 2020 they deliberately did not test any of the recipients for asymptomatic infections.  Only a person who developed a significant illness was tested.  This has continued post roll-out with the CDC specifying that a close contact of a known case who was vaccinated did not need to quarantine or be tested until and unless they became symptomatic.  They knew damn well, in other words, that the jabs were not sterilizing but did not want that data up for public debate because then those who have read history would be likely to make the connection to the present day and thus they did their level best to hide it.  That has now blown up in their face with it being conclusively known that jabbed people in fact not only get infected but spread the virus to others.

The problem with non-sterilizing vaccines is simply this: There is no safe means of mass-use of non-sterilizing vaccines so long as transmission within the community does or is likely to exist.

Ever.

There are no exceptions.

This was known to public health officials and virologists seventy years ago and is why the United States used both IPV (injected polio vaccine) and OPV (oral polio vaccine) in sequence for polio until the 1990s.  OPV produced sterilizing immunity but IPV did not.  OPV had a very small (but non-zero, about 1 in a million) risk of causing polio because it was a codon-deoptimized live virus which, on rare occasion, would mutate back to its virulent form in the human body.  So to mitigate that risk you got IPV first in the US (to prevent systemic infection; this was non-sterilizing), then OPV which is sterilizing -- that is, it prevents not only getting sick from polio but also replicating and shedding the virus, thus giving it to others along with preventing the promotion of mutations that WILL eventually escape the vaccine.

Had we done with polio what we're doing now with Covid -- IPV (non-sterilizing) use only with virus circulating in the United States -- it is very likely the virus would have mutated, escaped the vaccine and killed millions in America.  Every single so-called expert knows damn well why we didn't do that with polio and how dangerous it is to attempt it.  Indeed where polio still circulates but money is scarce they use OPV only (which is sterilizing) and accept the risk of the rare but possible active case it can cause for this exact reason.

Again: This is not a "new idea"; it was in fact the only rational path of action and known decades ago, forming the very basis of our polio vaccination strategy.  This combination strategy was necessary for polio but not for measles, for example, as the measles vaccine is sterilizing.

ONLY A STERILIZING VACCINE IS SAFE TO USE ON A MASS POPULATION BASIS WHEN A PARTICULAR PATHOGEN IS CIRCULATING IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

THIS IS NOT THEORY -- IT IS DECADES-OLD KNOWN MEDICAL FACT.

In addition natural infection with Covid-19 is sterilizing.  Being infected and recovering conserves the nasal and respiratory mucosal response which is where the virus enters the body.  Natural infection also conveys both "N" (nucleocapsid) and "S" (spike) antibody knowledge and T-cell recognition but the "N" knowledge is much stronger as coronaviruses have evolved to evade the immune system with the "S" portion through millions of years.  This is why they can infect you in the first place.  The "S" portion undergoes mutation at a quite-rapid rate while the "N" portion is conserved.  It was thus expected that prior infection would lead to durable (years to decades) of resistance and indeed that's exactly what we have found thus far.  Indeed in a small study it was found that this recognition extended to the bone marrow in a large percentage of cases and in those people is likely to confer decades-long if not lifetime protection.  This is not true for "S" induced immunity as it wanes rapidly and, far worse that is where the mutation is taking place and thus where escape risk lies.

It was acceptable to issue EUAs for potentially non-sterilizing jabs to be used only by very high-risk individuals -- such as those in nursing homes -- with the understanding that they will fail to provide anywhere close to complete protection and might, over time potentiate worse outcomes.  But with actual informed consent and on a limited, not population-wide basis, that was defensible.  This, of course, leaves aside the adverse event risk -- which we also know is much higher in these jabs, by a factor of 100x or more, than we have ever tolerated in any mass-use shot before.

It was ridiculously and grossly negligent entering into the territory of depraved indifference to mass-vaccinate the population with non-sterilizing jabs.  We knew very early on that eradicating Covid-19 was impossible; there are animal reservoirs, specifically felines (of all sorts), ferrets and likely others (now believed to include deer.)  We have never eradicated rabies and never will for this reason; as long as there are animal reservoirs you cannot eradicate a virus as it always has a host and a means of transmission outside of human control.

As such there was never, and will never be, a safe means to use non-sterilizing vaccines against this virus or any other coronavirus and the more jabs we deliver and attempt to compel the use of the worse the problem will get.

Eventually we are very likely to get a mutation that entirely evades the jabs.  That mutation will be caused by those who are jabbed since they are the only ones placing such mutational pressure on the virus.  An unvaccinated person who gets infected places no such mutational pressure on the virus where a vaccinated person not only does they provide the exact pathway that virologists use to intentionally select for more-transmissible, virile or both mutations -- serial passage through cells that does not kill the host.

What is potentially worse is that there is a developing body of evidence that those who previously had Covid and then get vaccinated may destroy their "N" protein recognition by doing so, ruining their previous nearly-perfect immunity.  That we did not specifically prove that this did not happen before giving these shots to anyone with prior infection is outrageous.  While the data on this is quite thin at present that there is a higher breakthrough rate in persons with prior infection than those who were infected but did not get vaccinated is what the data currently shows, which strongly implies that vaccination after infection actually screws you.

The people who did all of this did so intentionally either by willful blindness or worse, with actual knowledge -- and the so-called "public health" authorities who continue to push this instead of banning it are intentionally doing so as well.  Vander**** is just one example of this insanity but hardly alone -- Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Mayo, Cleveland -- they all know this is true, never mind the researchers at Ft. Detrick, the CDC and NIH.

Until and unless we prove a vaccine against Covid (or anything else that is circulating) is sterilizing it cannot be safely used on a mass-population basis.  That's the beginning and end of the discussion.  There are no exceptions, ever, period.  This was not even attempted to be demonstrated in the summer and fall 2020 Covid vaccine trials as the time period was too short to do so.  We now know, factually that in fact there are zero sterilizing and effective options among the vaccines in use -- whether here in the US or otherwise.

The only means to combat a pathogen absent sterilizing vaccination is to hit infections early and hard with whatever you have for the purpose of reducing viral load so as to produce durable, sterilizing immunity via infection.  If you reduce viral load you reduce both the risk of pathology seriously injuring or killing the infected person and also reduce the forward transmission rate, Rt, of said virus. 

Only sterilizing immunity cuts off mutation and exerting mutational pressure via non-sterilizing vaccines not only promotes mutation by removing the signal an infected person has to self-isolate and reduce transmission risk (since you don't feel ill) it nudges the virus toward codons that will escape the protection in whole or part.

In small groups of particularly high risk a non-sterilizing vaccine may be worth it but any use of one raises the risk of mutational escape and thus while attempting to protect that small group you may screw others.  Attempting to accurately determine who "deserves" to get protected while someone else gets screwed is a discussion that damn well ought to take place out in public as it is the public at large that is the recipient of the screwing if it occurs!

There remains a risk that drug resistance may arise which is why multi-drug regimes are important.  As an example HCQ+Ivermectin which was formally registered as a trial and then never actually run, is (among other options) one such potential approach.

When it comes to respiratory viruses as was the case with polio you need immunity via whatever source to take hold at the point of both entry and emission by an infected person.  This is why OPV worked on a sterilizing basis for polio where IPV did not.  IPV was injected; OPV was consumed.  As a result OPV produced mucosal immunity in the gut and thus prevented both colonization and forward transmission.  IPV, on the other hand, prevented symptomatic disease in the person immunized but did not express sufficiently in the gut mucosa to prevent infection, shedding and transmission.

THE SAME APPLIES HERE WITH THE COVID JABS AND FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE DANGEROUS, PROMOTING MUTATION AND ULTIMATELY VIRAL ESCAPE.

If you get Covid and beat it since the point of entry is your respiratory mucosa you have strong and broad resistance focused there.  That's sterilizing in more than 9 out of 10 persons and far more-durable than jab-based immunity as well.  That is what the data tells us. 

It is wildly superior to a non-sterilizing vaccine because you are not only very unlikely to get the virus again you are also nearly-certain to be unable to infect anyone else if you do.  This and only this is what cuts off mutational pressure.

It's too late now; we're stuck with the stupid, particularly all the screaming harpies who went out and got jabbed despite being at very low risk of serious outcomes themselves, turning themselves into literal gain-of-function labs for the virus.  If you took the jab, in short, unless you were at very high risk and thus it was justified on a personal mitigation basis you are, in fact, part of the body of individuals that are placing evolutionary pressure on the virus to evolve and ultimately evade the protection and screw not just others but you as well.

Those who are claiming "well, I got jabbed, I got infected, but it would have been much worse if I didn't get jabbed" are the worst of the psychotics.  First, the majority of Covid-19 infections are asymptomatic according to the CDC itself.  Indeed they claim at least six people get infected for each detected infection.  You may well have moved yourself from "I sneezed" to "I got pretty damned sick" by taking the shot.  You don't know.  But worse is that by taking the jab and then getting infected anyway you have now not just become a potential mutational factory you are one of the people causing what will ultimately become viral escape and the screwing of yourself and others because by definition if you got sick after vaccination the virus got into your system, it has now proved whatever occurred in you evaded the protection you had and then was emitted back out where others can catch it from you after that evasion took place.

You were either the mutational factory or an intermediate host that screws the next person you share the love with!

Not only did your protection against fail but, much worse, it's possible that said screwing will be enhanced by whatever residual antibody titer you may have since binding antibodies, if present (and which you intentionally put into your system) will still be present.  Even more-seriously you put the spike protein and thus the antibody response not in your nose and throat but in your blood vessels and other organs where they can cause the exact disease progression that occurs when Covid-19 kills people.  If you get a "break though" infection I hope you have your d-Dimer levels immediately checked because if not you may be a walking heart attack or stroke somewhere in the not-so-distant future with no other warning as a direct result of intentionally loading your body full of "protection" in the wrong place.

This, and only this, is why I will not consent to such a jab under any circumstances until and unless there is hard science showing that a sterilizing option exists.  That one, assuming the risk profile is reasonable, is one I might consider.  Said jab today does not exist anywhere in the United States and I'm unaware of any scientific work showing that any of the current jabs are sterilizing irrespective of where they are manufactured and sold.

Without sterilizing immunization against this disease the only sane approach is to attempt to interdict the progress of disease at first suspicion and evidence of infection instead.

I am capable of reading both history and scientific papers, I know I'm right, the CDC, NIH, Vander****, Mayo, Cleveland and Johns Hopkins also knew for decades that I'm right and they have either all turned what formerly were scientific organizations into politically-driven soy-boy pieces of worthless and even harmful crap or, much worse, they're deliberately lying.

If you were among the conned the only remaining question is what are you going to do with and to those who conned you?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of "You're ****ed, fool."

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-07-22 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 5880 references
[Comments enabled]  

I hate it when I'm right.

This is about it when it comes to the jabs for me, since we're now at the point that you can pull a Hillary Clinton: "At this point, what difference does it make?"

For those who took it out of stupidity, coercion, to belong or whatever: Too bad, so sad.

To those who used their heads and deduced that between the lack of long-term longitudinal data (zero) and known, documented risks along with deliberate sandbagging by the our government and media of all sorts in reporting the bad effects that rapidly showed up, including deaths, they've made up their minds.  All we have left there is whether, if attempted to be coerced instead of cajoled, they will consider that attempted murder and destroy not only the person coercing them but everything that individual loves as well, living or not.

You can only die once and only be damned once too.  Once either happens its a very liberating thing; you now are simply evaluating whether you're going to let some SOB get away with it or whether he or she is going to Hell in front of you, even if only by a few minutes.

I am not linking source papers in this treatise, so don't ask -- go do the looking yourself this time.  I've done it for a year and a half and, frankly, you still let these ghouls mask your kids, demand you stay home and then con you into taking jabs they lied about, let them lie about "no effective treatments" and deliberately not make reasonable inquiry as regard adverse effects of the jabs despite there being plenty of scientific evidence published before they were rolled out.  I'm laying out facts here; the science is, at this point, old enough and visible enough that if you gave a crap there would have been a revolt months ago.

A real one, not some LARPers crap.  If 500,000 corpses aren't enough what is?

If you remember very early on we knew that ventilators didn't work.  In fact we knew before Trump's HHS issued their order that paid (and still pays; the Biden administration just extended the "emergency" authorizing it) hospitals nearly $40,000 to shove a tube down your throat.  Trump then upped the ante by ordering tens of thousands of them under the DPA, despite the data being on the table that they were worthless.  That was a deliberate act that was all about the money -- damn those who were killed.  This nation sat back and allowed that to happen, and still is allowing it 18 months later.

Not long after, when the first few dead were autopsied, we found out why: Covid-19, when it goes badly, is not just a viral, inflammatory disease.  It causes thrombosis (clotting) in various organs, most-particularly the lungs.  That's what kills you most of the time.

The "spike unit" that the jabs are all constructed around, it has developed, something known to the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies before Covid-19 was claimed to exist in January of 2020.  There is a transfer agreement from the NIH to a university dated prior to that time, and some evidence that the exact spike configuration found in Covid-19 was being discussed in scientific papers long before that.  How can you have a scientific discussion, write papers on and transfer technology related to something that isn't known to exist yet?  Fauci was grilled on this the other day by Congress, asked directly if the spike in Covid-19 was identical to that in said paper, and refused to answer with a yes or no.  He knows damn well what the answer is and if he lied that would be proved perjury and a criminal offense.  If he tells the truth then the etiology of Covid-19 is conclusively known to wildly pre-date the so-called "discovery" and now we must start asking all sorts of other questions; said questions degenerate very rapidly into criminal culpability on the part of many including a whole bunch of people right here in the US.  Fauci looked very nervous in that hearing -- exactly like a man who has been caught bull****ting since the start, there's a half-million bodies piled up as a result and his neck is itching.

When the jab trials started, in short, we knew that severe disease from Covid-19 was primarily a thrombotic event.  We also knew that roughly 80% of the population had decent if not excellent resistance and would get nothing more than a mild or moderate cold or flu from it.  That proof goes all the way back to Diamond Princess.  Hell, a couple reasonably well-known to me got hit by the 'Ro in the early months, both elderly and quite morbid.  He was dead in five days while she never even sneezed, a flat impossibility for two people who are married and sleeping with each other if everyone is susceptible as we were told.  We investigated and learned why that has repeatedly happened; the science was published in June, peer-reviewed by September and published in Nature -- long before the first jab went into the first arm.  These are facts.

We also knew, from decades of trying, that coronavirus vaccines had always failed in the past.

We deliberately did not look at the thrombotic profile of the trial participants in the vaccines; specifically, we did not pull d-Dimer and troponin tests (both cheap) on the participants before the jab, and then sequentially on intervals (e.g. 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks) to detect whether we were in fact inducing damage similar to the disease.  The drugmakers did not look because quite-obviously they did not want to know; if that showed up in the trials in any sort of statistically relevant percentage of the enrollees it would have instantly shut down the trials and freaked out the thousands in said trials who put themselves at riskI remind you that in September of 2020 the first scientific paper was published indicating that the "Spike" was quite possibly the direct cause of the serious damage and virtually all Covid-19 deaths.  Several papers followed starting in December of 2020, prior to mass-distribution of the jabs, confirming that the spike was directly capable of causing pathology -- that is, severe damage -- without the rest of the virus being present at all.

Failing to halt the roll-out to prove that the vaccines, which all cause production of said spike in your body, would not cause the same effects was criminally insane and grossly negligent given the science at the time.  This was not an "accident" since the studies were published and known -- it was deliberate blindness undertaken in the interest of speed and money before human safety and indeed human life.

We also were told that the jabs produced a "robust" antibody response, which, on the data, is true.  What either wasn't looked at, or was known and intentionally not discussed is that the sequencing of IgA/IgM/IgG in a vaccinated person was wrong for someone who had no immune system knowledge prior to vaccination.  This is now out in the public, at least on a preliminary basis, and it shows that the jab adverse effects may in fact be a form of ADE!  If so that's extremely bad.  The original studies either developed this information and it was hidden or they deliberately did not look; what we do know is that it was not run down.

Now there's potentially worse evidence showing up that the jabs may be destroying existing coronavirus T-cell recognition.  That, if confirmed, is profound because natural infection preferentially builds "N" protein T-cell reactivity.  The spike on a coronavirus evades immune recognition; that's how you get infected in the first place.  That more-severe infections had higher IgG antibody titers to the spike would appear counter-intuitive (after all, you'd think the more-severe the infection the less your immune system was able to respond) but it makes sense once you realize what's going on with a severe infection; you are in fact having a thrombotic problem caused by the spike, and thus you get the higher titer.

That should have raised all sorts of eyebrows and alarms in that it strongly implies that all the vaccine formulations were at best backward and at worst directly harmful but, again, it didn't.

So what we have at this point appears to be the following:

  • The jabs are quite worthless in preventing either infection or transmission.  We knew that after Diamond Princess 80% of the population, approximately, was resistant before Covid showed up and either couldn't get infected at all or if they did had almost no ill effects.  There were multiple instances of couples where one person got a symptomatic case and the other did not get infected at all despite being quarantined together in a 10x10 room for a month.  That means if you have 10% of a vaccinated population that gets symptomatically infected when the base risk of symptomatic infection is 20% at best the jabs are 50% effective in preventing infection and transmission, and perhaps less than that.  So much for the "95%+" claims; that was always bull**** and now we have widely-diverse proof from all over the world that the jabs are non-sterilizing and thus effectively worthless in preventing infection and transmission of Covid.  The entire premise of "protecting others" by getting vaccinated against Covid-19 is now scientifically known to be complete and utter bull****.

  • There is now emerging evidence of another mutation against which the jabs are almost entirely worthless.  Expect the fear porn to get cranked on that soon even though for infected and recovered persons who are not vaccinated they remain almost entirely immune to that mutation just like all the others.  Even worse is that the data includes some people who recovered and then were stupid enough to take the jab anyway and it increased their risk of symptomatic disease over the other cohort which recovered and did not get vaccinated.  In other words they didn't get more protection by taking the shot after recovery they destroyed a large part of their existing protection, specifically, existing nucleocapsid recognition.  I have warned people repeatedly of this exact risk; there was never any scientific evidence that the jabs were useful if you had previously been infected and now we factually know they're harmful.  This is a very strong marker of what is called "OAS" ("Original Antigenic Sin") or ADE as described scientifically above as to mechanism.  It looks to be very real and accelerating as mutation continues.  The "vaccinated" symptomatic case line should be expected to cross over the "unvaccinated" line soon as mutation never stops and if it does all Hell will break loose as the shots will actually make symptomatic infection and thus transmission more likely compared against unvaccinated persons.

  • The jabs may continue to provide some protection against severe and fatal disease from Covid-19 specifically but the duration of that protection is unknown.  If you're at severe risk then on this basis they may be a good bargain.  I say may rather than "is" for the below reasons which, if they turn out to be true in your case means on balance you got ****ed more than protected, and now they're a bad deal for basically everyone.  We do not yet know the answers to the other questions but they are on the table and were deliberately not investigated before we jabbed 150 million Americans.  Some if not all of this was discoverable if anyone cared to look during the summer and fall 2020 trials, but nobody looked on purpose.

  • There is evidence that roughly half of all persons jabbed may show evidence of clotting disorders caused by the jabs.  Whether this is temporary or does permanent damage is not known.  It explains, however, the heart attacks, cardiomylitis, strokes and cognitive changes (e.g. microclotting in the brain) shortly after being jabbed.  I remind you that the "associated but not proved cause" death rate from these jabs is running roughly four hundred times on a per-million-persons jabbed that of the flu shot -- and climbing.  The bad news is that endothelial damage of this sort may well be permanent.  It also raises the very real risk of PAH if some of that damage is in the lungs; there is no non-invasive way to know and by the time you become symptomatic for that your heart has been critically damaged.  To be fair some small percentage of people naturally infected get the same sort of damage but to risk same from infection which is not certain is different than taking that risk on a certain basis from being jabbed.  This could have been quantified before the EUAs were granted as a trivial test would have disclosed the problem in the Phase 1 and 2 trials and was not done or explored.  Given that by summer of 2020 we knew how Covid killed people that failure is only reasonably characterized as intentional.

  • There is now evidence that the jabs destroy some part of your existing immune system T-cell recognition, replacing it with "spike" recognition.  The scope and impact of that is not yet known but the potential impact is horrifying.  The induced spike recognition is Covid-19 specific and, we now know, mutationally specific at least in part.  What is destroyed is not specific to either Covid or mutation and therefore what you destroyed was almost-certainly worth more than what you gained.  This looks very much like "OAS" and the bad news is that it may well impact across other coronaviruses such as OC43.  If that proves up then the increase in susceptibility to severe disease on balance and in whole from circulating viruses has been increased rather than decreased by getting jabbed.

All of this has come to light in about a year from the first trials of these vaccines.

I remind you that it usually takes 10 years or so to qualify a vaccine.  These sort of risks are why it takes 10 years and, let us not forget, coronavirus vaccines have been tried in the past and have universally failed, either due to adverse effects (including OAS and ADE) or they simply proved to be worthless over time with the virus evading them.  That was the history against which these jabs were developed and that we had the arrogance to believe we had magically overcome that which nature had previously thwarted without multi-year evidence may well wind up proving to be one of the most stupid undertakings ever in medicine and public health.

Yet even with this data now on the table the manufacturers are demanding "expedited" full approval reviews!

Oh, and don't start with "well, its knocking down the incidence of infections."  Is it really?

How is it that India has seen a 90% collapse in case rates with only 6% of their population vaccinated?

It clearly wasn't the vaccine over there, was it?  Gee, maybe its Farr's Law that caused that.  Just like the infection rate here in the US peaked and was falling before we had any meaningful vaccinated immunity.  That which happens before you do something cannot have been caused by the something.

This also bears on the current case rate.  Look at last summer; seasonality is real.

We'll see how bad #JabbersRemorse gets in the coming months, and whether the 150 million Americans who took the jab thus far decide they made a good decision or a critically bad one that winds up blowing up in their face -- and if the latter, what those who get screwed, which is about half the adult population at this point, decide to do about it when it comes to those who deliberately failed to investigate what we knew were serious risks that needed to be excluded.

Those who are true believers cannot be reached at this point since they've already committed to their course of action.  As a result I see no further point in writing on this in the general sense, and thus probably won't.

Right up until I wave the "Told You So" flag sometime around late fall, assuming the pattern holds.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)