The Next Line Of Fraud AND DEATH: Covid Vaccine

By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker

No, the title is not to state that the vaccine is a fraud.  Nor does it state that the vaccine will kill you.  It is, however to state that the claims made for it are unsupported by science at this point and thus are frauds and that the process by which the EUA was issued was a prima-facia fraud and direct violation of existing law.

The very trial documents and endpoints say so themselves; all they demonstrated is alleged prevention of symptomatic disease. Unfortunately nobody cares if they cough; people care if they die.  The trials do not provide any scientifically-defensible evidence of preventing death because the samples and time frames involved are insufficient to do so.  In short we simply do not know and won’t know on a scientifically-defensible basis for a year or more.

Further the EUA was issued under fraudulent pretense by intentional and direct suppression of this document in consideration of said EUA and its adoption on a widespread basis along with the science behind it.

Why?

Because under the law an EUA can only be issued if there are no safe and effective treatments.  If there are safe and effective treatments then under the law an EUA cannot issue; you must instead go through the entire procedure to get regular approval.

Let me be perfectly clear: Donald J. Trump knows this, as does Fauci, Birx, Azar and everyone else.  They killed over 150,000 people by ignoring the manifest weight of the evidence on purpose in order to keep their “preferred” path — that of a vaccine for which they knew they could not hit the endpoints for regular order licensing for several years — on track.

That is both manslaughter and malpractice.

We knew by mid-summer, for example, that there was an association between Vitamin D deficiency and severe Covid19 outcomes  In fact 95% of those who die of Covid-19 are, by multiple studies, Vitamin D deficient.  That doesn’t prove that taking Vitamin D would stop you from dying as it’s an association (correlation does not prove causation) but it does very strongly suggest that locking people in their homes where they get no sun exposure may kill people and thus any form of “lockdown” or “urging” to stay in one’s home is likely to enhance rather than prevent death!

But when it comes to Ivermectin there is scientific evidence that is not mere association; it has been proved effective several months ago against all phases of Covid-19 including as prophylaxis.  Using a condom, I remind you, is a prophylaxis against pregnancy.  It is not 100% effective but it is safe and works most of the time.

The premise of a vaccine is prophylaxis; something you do or take to prevent another thing from happening.

Ditto for the use of Ivermectin and Covid-19.

Again, just in case you’re too ****ing stupid or brainwashed by *******s in white coats along with a fat men in a suit to understand this from the above I’ll put it in plain English, point-by-point:

  • You cannot get an EUA for anything in the United States if a safe and effective option for the same indication (treatment, prophylaxis, etc.) already exists.  You must go through regular order and procedure, proving your proposed new treatment is both safe and effective.  That is the law.
  • Ivermectin is known to be safe; nearly 4 billion doses have been dispensed worldwide over the last few decades and it is listed as an “essential medication” under WHO guidelines.  It has an astonishing safety record; far better, in fact, than OTC medications such as Aspirin or Tylenol.  There’s the “safe” component of the requirement.
  • We have known scientifically that it is effective against Covid-19 for months.  The first evidence emerged in the spring when it was first tested in Broward FL by one medical group.  That led to repeated studies with 24 trials having reported out at this point including 10 RCTs, and every one of them has found benefit in all stages of the disease — pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, early symptomatic disease, hospitalized but moderately ill and critically ill.  This is wildly more scientific evidence than many other drugs in common use today have required to be approved.  In fact many drugs get full approval today after only one random controlled trial with post-approval follow-up studies; Ivermectin has, at this point, ten all of which have returned statistically significant results.  The scientific evidence from these trials is that if used early it is nearly 100% effective in preventing progression of the disease and even if not used until late (critically ill) it is anywhere from 50-90% effective in preventing death.

THIS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE NIH OR FDA BECASUE IF IT HAD BEEN AND THEIR POSITION THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE USED OUTSIDE OF CONTROLLED TRIALS WAS REVERSED THEN ANY EUA FOR A VACCINE WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND “WARP SPEED” WOULD HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATELY SHUT DOWN WITH VACCINES GOING THROUGH THE REGULAR APPROVAL PROCESS.

I REMIND YOU THAT IVERMECTIN IS A CURRENTLY APPROVED DRUG WORLDWIDE, HAS BEEN IN USE FOR DECADES AND THUS DOES NOT REQUIRE “NEW” APPROVAL IN THE UNITED STATES.

The consideration of all other agents as safe and effective prophylaxis has been intentionally ignored despite the overwhelming scientific evidence because if any such agent exists then it is illegal to issue an EUA for a vaccine.

And oh, by the way, Ivermectin isn’t a “little effective” as prophylaxis either, which is where this can really make a difference by cutting off transmission.  An Egyptian study showed 80% effectiveness as prophylaxis and an Argentinian one showed 100% effectiveness.  The latter study report is on the NIH site so Fauci knows ******n well it’s there and that it works, and the latter, in particular, showed zero adverse (side) effects indicating against it’s use.

While I cannot get in someone’s head I can read the law and know what it says.  The FDA is prohibited from issuing an EUA for any indication if there are safe and effective alternative paths of therapy already in existence; you must go through the full process mandated for any new drug application.

So let’s be clear about this, shall we?  Since mid-summer we’ve known with scientific evidence behind it how to shut down this disease by interrupting the vectors of transmission.  Specifically, everyone at high risk of death is offered the drug as prophylaxis and it is offered to all health care workers that have not had the virus (who by definition can get it and transmit it to high-risk people) and anyone in the same household with an identified case.  The drug costs a couple of dollars; it is a generic and stupid-cheap.  You can get enough to treat a horse (1,200 lbs, natch) for under $5 at retail.

If this had only been 50% effective in preventing transmission (I remind you that the trials done on prophylaxis say it is anywhere from 80-100% effective) the Rt, that is the effective transmission rate, would have immediately gone under 1.0 and the case, hospitalization and death rate would have collapsed.

Were we to do it right now the same thing would happen within 5-10 days, one viral incubation period.

Virtually all of the people who have died since the summer, and who are dying now were intentionally sacrificed to protect the vaccine development path which would have been immediately and instantly rendered illegal by the use of the above protocol.

If you’re crazy enough to take a lightly-tested shot which may or may not prevent death and serious disease, and may or may not prevent transmission of the virus when something equally or more-effective, by the science, and with a proved safety record spanning decades is available for a couple of bucks as a pill you’re loony-bin level crazy.

Karl Denninger