The Depths To Which We’ve Descended

By Karl Deninger, The Market Ticker

I’ve had this article in the queue for a while and refused to publish it because these physicians have been telling the truth about science when it comes to Ivermectin and other treatments, including the steroid-responsive and timing-sensitive nature of Covid-19, since it started.

I’ve been following their and EVMS’ work since they first organized, and the first data out of Broward on Ivermectin was reported — and instantly buried and ignored by NIH and everyone else.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out when you have a “mad rush” sort of response to a pathogen that suddenly becomes relevant you have two basic choices: Repurposing existing drugs and methods and devising new ones.

The first is faster but has two problems — the “newest” possible therapies are on-patent, tend to be very expensive and thus by definition reserved for the most-ill simply because giving everyone in a nation a $3,000 shot is not going to happen.  In addition the most-likely “new” drugs are ones that were developed and failed for some other indication, which means there is grave risk in these.  Remdesivir is one of those examples; it carries a huge list of life-altering side effects and a stunning 30% risk of significance adverse events, one of which is cardiac damage.  It is obvious that not only is the $3,000 price tag a barrier but you’d have to be out of your mind to take that drug unless you’re at very high risk of dying to start with because otherwise the risk:reward radio is wildly out of whack with reason.

The others, all older drugs with very well-understood safety profiles simply due to their age, nobody in the drug company world will investigate.  Why?  There’s no money in it.  This is a function of how we do drug development in the “western world”; it is a problem that has been known for decades and yet our governments and so-called “public health” crooners have done exactly nothing about it.  The responsibility to do the basic lab work on such potential repurposed therapies and then follow the promising ones up with immediate trials falls on said so-called “public health” screamers such as Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, Mayo, the NIH, CDC and others for one simple reason: Since there is no profit in it and in fact if you find such an agent you destroy the profit motive for the drug firms the responsibility falls on those who claim to be public-interest institutions.  If they fail to do their job in this instance at minimum they should lose their public and non-profit status and I can make a clean argument every single person who works for any of them should be indicted, tried and imprisoned for manslaughter.

Consider the Pfizers and Modernas of the world: If Ivermectin was investigated by Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt or the NIH with a couple million dollar clinical trial covering 10,000 people as soon as the Broward County report of effectiveness had become known back in April then Pfizer, Moderna and more would have had only a routine, 5 year or so path forward for vaccines.  By June we would have known with more data than used for Remdesivir that Ivermectin was effective.  We already knew it was safe; Phase 1 and 2 trials were unnecessary because we had 30 years of data already on it.  Therefore one large-scale clinical, double-blinded trial for both prophylaxis and treatment would have answered the question with results in three months given the large spike in illness in March and April.  Ditto for HCQ.  For less than five million dollars we could have tested five such potentially promising drugs and found the effective ones.

There is literally zero purpose other than the self-aggrandizing panic-porn nonsense out of organizations like Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Oxford and IHME.  Not one of them ran such trials.  Not one.  Every single one of those organizations continues to run panic porn to this day and their best and highest use is for their structures and furniture to be consumed as heating fuel by those economically displaced this winter with all their employees and families being used as a food source by those who they impoverished and caused to starve on a world-wide basis with their lockdown and closure recommendations.  Their self-serving bull**** has resulted in the death of over a million people worldwide directly and tens of millions of people starving through the indirect effect of their proclamations.

They did much worse than nothing — they in fact promoted and made into policy known bankrupt strategies such as “universal masks” and travel restrictions which we knew factually were worthless.

I did not publish this article earlier, despite knowing they were also promoting the “mask” bull**** in their “I-MASK” protocol because it is clear the EVMS and FLCCC people in fact LARP’d folks in their own protocol, intentionally and on purpose, and left enough laying around for anyone with a brain (which obviously excludes politicians) to know they were ****ing with you — specifically, said stand on masks.

Read their statement on it.

Now start thinking, particularly about this third bullet point:

Note their commentary about the Marine study — with masks, as they state, you also needed a “magic” 4 “D”s for it to work.

Density (of people), Duration (of time spent in the room), Dimensions (size of the airspace) and Draft (air turnover)

They clearly state this:

If you violate any of the four D’s above in a significant way, you will get sick, even with a “standard” mask, and that is what the military recruit study showed given that, in the group wearing masks, nearly all transmission occurred between roommates or within platoons

Right?

OK, so now what?

They lie — but only once.

Hence the large amounts of data showing crowded restaurants and bars as the main source of spread – people are eating/drinking and thus not wearing masks for prolonged periods in indoor, crowded environments.

Except.  Nashville’s data, among others, says that’s not true; in Nashville they were only able to trace one percent of spread to those environments.  There is no data from anywhere that ties any material amount of spread of Covid-19 to bars and restaurants.  Zero.  Multiple jurisdictions have made this claim and in every case their own health departments, when the data is pried out of them, have shown that low single-digit — often as little as 1% — of cases can be tied to such environments.

Note also that draft is not possible in the winter — unless you have unlimited money for heating said open space, which nobody does.

Then they drop the truth bomb — N95s may well work if properly worn the entire time which nobody will do.  Such “properly worn” requirement precludes reuse, they have time limits in-use, and further, they’re expensive to start with at several dollars each.  You cannot have it both ways, you see — outside of a professional setting nobody is going to put up with N95s and you need everyone to do so, not just a few people.

His summary:

So, my recommendation: wear masks indoors. Always. 

Which translates into no dining, no bars, no clubs, no nothing ever.

That which you cannot actually do without destroying 20% or more of the economy you cannot do at all and is a complete waste of time to recommend or get behind.  These people are physicians and they know this.  They know that what they claim is required is impossible.  In other words they know damn well what I stated months ago; if you do not follow all the protocol requirements then you will either do nothing or worse, spread disease by transporting virus from a place where it is to a place where it is not.

Never mind that an aerosol is not blocked at all on exhale, and we know Covid-19 is in aerosols.  Just have a look here; you can prove this to yourself by doing nothing more than stepping outside when it’s cold.  Note that the “proponents” all themselves admit this, in that they speak of those people who wear glasses having fogging issues with the lenses when wearing a mask.  If the lenses fog then if you have Covid-19 you are spreading it – period.

In other words “source control” is garbage and does not work which we knew 40 years ago via the “Orr Study”  If you wish to protect yourself then wear something appropriate to do so, such as a valved N95, a P100 or a PAPR, all three of which provide no expiratory protection on purpose because doing so destroys their effectiveness of protection for the wearer.

But these physicians also know that to tell the truth; that it is impossible as the prescription cannot be followed in society as a whole and furthermore that source control does not work because on the physics it can’t is to get them immediately denounced as “science deniers” so instead they put forward an article that will shut up the screaming Karens who can’t read more than one paragraph and connect thoughts together into a logical whole.

Why did I now blow this up on them instead of as soon as it published?

I understand what they did and why — and the actual science they are putting forward, which has now been picked up by places like Mayo, one of the best medical groups on the planet, along with others and resulted in the NIH dropping their opposition to said actual effective drugs is the way forward when it comes to both prophylaxis and treatment as that path forward does not conflict with reality nor does it demand every single person be a skilled and trained professional, which is flat-out impossible.

Some day perhaps they will admit to what I wrote here, and that their deception on this topic was intentional and published to avoid being censored in promulgating something that was much more-important — the science behind actual working prophylaxis and treatment for Covid-19.

A treatment that, I remind you, is superior to a vaccine in that it has no latent waiting period before it becomes effective and could have been and still can be used while a full set of qualification data is collected on said vaccine candidates instead of stabbing people with partially tested drugs with an unknown and unproved set of risks and alleged benefits.

May I remind you that the data thus far says that the adverse event rate from said vaccines is running between ten and fifty times that of the flu shot — a shot that has limited effectiveness itself, and with the Covid vaccines we have no intermediate and longer-term risk data whatsoever since we simply did not run the trials for the required amount of time.

Indeed the CDC’s own web portal for vaccine adverse events, “Wonder“, says 232 people (thus far) have died from or closely associated with the Covid-19 vaccination shots.  This season’s flu vaccine produced only 14 associated deaths; the Covid-19 vaccines are killing people at a rate sixteen times that of the flu shot, and most if not all of the flu shots for this year have been given — the Covid-19 vaccinations are just starting, so this wildly understates the risk.  Indeed for the number of people stabbed compared with a known statistical comparison — Ivermectin, which has been used for 30 years and thus has very large post-approval surveillance studies on significant adverse events associated with its use the vaccines produce significant adverse events at a rate many times higher than the use of Ivermectin does and yet Ivermectin is both cheaper and has, by the data, approximately equal effectiveness in preventing transmission never mind that the evidence is that if prophylaxis fails it also treats the infection.

Why would you take something that carries a higher degree of risk when there is a cheaper and safer alternative?

Karl Denninger