By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker
This is what I’ve referenced repeatedly over the years, and many times with regard to Covid and multiple claims, whether it be masks, the PCR testing, other alleged mitigations and similar.
Too many of its findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis. … A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.
Think about the scope of this problem. It is by no means limited to the medical field; indeed environmental matters are some of the worst, especially in the so-called “global warming” field.
As just one example we all know the oceans are connected bodies of water. That is, unlike a lake which may be impounded and thus rise and fall with the amount of rain, water drawn for irrigation or used to produce electricity independent of another lake a few miles away the oceans all connect to each other and as anyone who has ever put water into two containers connected together knows it will flow through the connection until they are both at the same level.
Tidal forces and such are different in different places, but consistent in one location. Nonetheless you cannot dump a bunch of “extra” water into the Gulf of Mexico, for example, and have it remain there and not influence the level of water everywhere else in the oceans because all of them are connected.
So we were told back in the 1990s and early 2000 timeframe that over the next 100 years starting from 2000 the sea level would rise by more than five feet on a more-or-less linear basis. Ok., that’s a testable claim. Fortunately (or not so much for the screamers) I built a dock shortly after I bought my home right at the start of that time frame in Florida. I know exactly where the cross-members on the pilings and their bolts, which obviously do not move, were at both high and low tide in both winter and summer. While sand comes and goes, particularly with storms, the water level is independent of that unless the dock becomes “stranded” (no water at all.) I also put a ladder on the dock that, when in the “down” position allowed you to climb out of the water, and in the “up” position was clear of the water by under a foot at high tide in the summer. Why so little? Because you want it to extend down far enough to get on it when it’s down, of course but you do not want the lower end submerged when not in use or all manner of things (including oysters, which are very sharp and will slice through you like a razor blade when you break them with your foot!) will grow on the bottom rung.
Well, 20 years passed and…… the ladder still had the same clearance. The bolts were in the same place at high and low tides, winter and summer. If there was any change at all it was perhaps an inch — small enough that I cannot reliably state that there was any impact whatsoever. Yet I was promised……. a foot of increase, which would submerge the bottom of that ladder in the “up” position.
It didn’t happen.
Obviously those “models” were wrong. Where’s the apology? More to the point since the thesis was blown why are we taking any sort of “mitigating” steps today when the claimed reason for it was wrong?
It’s even worse in certain other areas. Cancer researchers have only been able to replicate ten percent of the studies. When you think about the implications there your hair ought to stand up. People with cancer and their doctors make decisions that, if wrong, wind up with the person being dead.
As the CEI points out there is inherent bias when people are paid to do something. The entire point of peer review and similar metrics is to try to remove that bias, which otherwise will wind up in the results. This is especially bad when we start talking about computer models .vs. empirical observations and data collection, as someone who started programming in machine code on various devices, including the PDP-8, PDP-10, a weird Burroughs bookkeeping machine and the Z-80 I think four decades of experience likely gives me a bit of credibility in this area. In short if you tell someone doing a computer model either by statement or implication by where the “study” comes from what you want and you’re writing the check you are nearly certain to get it.
But all that means when you get that result is that the check cleared.
Think about the problems we have now with Covid-19. We knew in March that ventilators were useless; this disease was not ARDS, and 95% of the people ventilated at Wuhan died. Nobody in their right mind would promote and focus on a “therapy” that kills you 95% of the time.
But we did — in fact Trump, Fauci, the CDC, Cuomo and others went so far as to use a wartime statute, the Defense Production Act, to produce many copies of a very expensive and clinically useless device. They did this despite knowing it was useless. I pointed this out in March.
We killed thousands this way.
But it didn’t end there.
We have various entities claiming masks work including the CDC in a very-recent MMWR report. Their claim is pure propaganda; they deliberately selected the time frame coming into the late spring and summer, stopping in middle October, timing same for the institution of mandates right into the hottest and highest insolation months in the United States and even worse they omitted those jurisdictions from consideration that had no mandates. As such they intentionally included confounding factors (like how much Vitamin D people get from being outside) and control groups that would identify those confounding factors by showing the same general shape of the curve (places without mandates.) That would be bad enough but to omit the last few months as the confounding factors disappeared but the mandates did not when all those places with mandates took enormous spikes in infections, hospitalization and death is unconscionable and intentionally fraudulent considering the publication date of 2/5/2021.
There is also the intentional willful refusal to follow the data on various prophylaxis and treatment options, including Vitamin D, HCQ and Ivermectin while at the same time trumpeting Remdesivir which has a much worse efficacy and safety profile than any of the others. Of course Remdesivir is on patent and expensive where Vitamin D costs either nothing or pennies and the others are long off-patent and cost under $20. Note that the others have decades-long safety records and thus very well-understood contraindications and side effect profiles, where Remdesivir, being a new drug, does not — but in the study used to get an EUA it demonstrated a roughly 30% risk of significant adverse event including both cardiac and liver damage.
Then there is the willful refusal to follow the data with regard to both aerosol and fecal transmission of Covid-19. We knew fecal spread was nearly certain in February and March of 2020 when there were multiple incidents in China and Hong Kong within apartment buildings with tenants who did not know each other and were separated by many floors and their apartments did not have “P” traps on the sinks. The only plausible mechanism of transmission was via fecal aerosols expelled out the sinks as the secondary cases were all on the same vertical drain stack. We even have multiple states and locales testing sewage to detect Covid-19 yet to this day the CDC maintains that the only means of transmission is via respiratory droplets. That’s flat-out nuts yet to admit that fecal transmission or aerosols are in play mean that masks are worthless or even harmful since you are more-likely to touch your face with a mask on after coming into contact with contamination.
If “just make a claim promoted by someone who paid you” was just centered around Covid-19 it would be one thing but it’s not, even within the medical field. Statins are another example; in persons who have not had a heart attack or occlusive stroke while they do lower blood cholesterol they don’t change all-cause mortality. We’ve known this for over 10 years and it should be obvious that if reducing cholesterol does not in fact stop people from dying then cholesterol was not the reason they were dying in the first place. The same is true for people with stable angina and stents: The insertion of stents in such persons does not change all-cause mortality.
Another example: While high blood pressure is indeed associated with all manner of bad things up to so-called “Stage 1” high blood pressure while drugs do lower blood pressure the data is that they do not change all-cause mortality just like statins don’t. In other words yes, your blood pressure goes down but dead is dead and the drugs do not stop you from being dead. At higher levels it’s a different story as there we do see lower risks of death and serious morbidity yet we put people on drugs for decades that, by the data, does not make them less-likely to die or have serious disorder occur in their body but does make the drug manufacturers money.
The problem is that all drugs and procedures have risk. Stents kill right around 1% of the people who get them at the time of the procedure or shortly thereafter and nearly 10% are readmitted to the hospital due to serious complications within the next 30 days. Does that sound “safe” to you? Cardiologists and hospitals with cath labs who make millions of dollars placing them in people will tell you it is but on the data that risk is only reasonable if you are having a heart attack. Yes, in that instance where the risk of death if the procedure is not done is nearly 100% it is clear that a 1% risk of dying from the procedure is far better.
But if you’re not having a heart attack taking a 1% risk of dying, and a 10% risk of being readmitted to the hospital within the next month due to complications, all of which you pay for never mind the procedure itself is crazy. You’re far better off to stop eating carbohydrates and drop 50 lbs instead. That has no discernable risk and a whole host of benefits.
Statins cause significant muscle damage (myopathy) in many people and limit their exercise performance. In a small percentage of people this does not just limit exercise tolerance it kills directlyvia rhabdomyolysis, a syndrome in which muscle tissue is destroyed (your heart is a muscle, remember) and the byproducts of same do severe damage to both the liver and kidneys. Again, if you’ve had a heart attack already then perhaps this risk is worth it — but for people who have not the computation is nowhere near as simple.
It would be nice to pin all of the Covid-19 insanity on some crazy outbreak of stupidity or even intentional action such as lacing the water with psychedelic drugs but the facts are that this sort of insanity has permeated all of what is called “science” for decades.
Again, as I’ve said before and will leave you with this is the the bottom line: If you cannot reliably repeat the results claimed and/or are not given sufficient information to be able to do so it is not science, it is a cult or worse, intentional fraud.