PROOF Of The Scam

By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker

Want proof?

Here it is.

NEW: Two plexiglass barriers – standing between the candidates’ lecterns on stage here in Nashville – will remain in place “at the recommendation of the commission’s medical advisors,” debate co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. tells me.

This is flat-out medical fraud folks.


Because President Trump has had, on a documented basis, Covid19.  He has antibodies.  He has a negative PCR test.  He thus cannot either transmit the virus nor is he at risk of the virus.

If there are exactly two people on a debate stage and one of them is immune then there is no reason for any physical barrier or other precautions whatsoever.  None.  Zip.  Zero.

In fact the way we used to treat various contagious diseases was a “sanitarium” model where the people working there had the bug and had recovered.  Why?  Because they could neither transmit or get the bug; they were therefore perfectly safe to work around infected people and help them; they would neither get sick themselves nor could they make anyone else sick.

What you are going to see tonight is hard, scientific proof of an all-out medical SCAM in Nashville.  Which, I remind you, is one of the current targets of the panic porn screamers Fauci and Birx, among many others, who got run out of the State of Florida by Ron DeSantis and, at about the same time they all got caught fraudulently coding death certificates by the Florida Legislature, which commissioned a study and found forty percent of the alleged “Covid” deaths were misclassified to a degree sufficient to make it impossible to disentangle whether Covid was actually involved in the person’s demise or not. Many of these included factually false statements such as “Covid19” listed as the only cause of death, which is medically impossible; the proximate cause of death is always something like ARDS, pneumonia, heart attack, etc.  The contributing causes can include Covid19 but it is medically impossible for Covid19 to be the proximate cause.

Public health and statistics requires accurate reporting.  To tamper with such reporting on a systematic degree to a point that forty percent of the statistics are not rationally truthful is an outrage.  But outrage is exactly what we get these days on a blanket basis.

It gets better.

Zero of the vaccine trials are evaluating whether or not the vaccines reduce hospital admissions, ICU requirements or death from Covid.  It is entirely possible, therefore, that one or more “vaccines” will be approved on an emergency basis when all they prevent is asymptomatic cases, which is an actual zero in terms of public health.  But it will be very profitable to the companies making them even if they do nothing to interrupt human suffering, death or even transmission of the disease to other people.  The reason these trials will not reach those endpoints is that they’re not designed to; you simply can’t get there from here in that short of an amount of time.  Further, the companies running these trials lied to the public:

Yet until vaccine manufacturers began to release their study protocols in mid-September, trial registries and other publicly released information did little to dispel the notion that it was severe covid-19 that the trials were assessing. Moderna, for example, called hospital admissions a “key secondary endpoint” in statements to the media.15 And a press release from the US National Institutes of Health reinforced this impression, stating that Moderna’s trial “aims to study whether the vaccine can prevent severe covid-19” and “seeks to answer if the vaccine can prevent death caused by covid-19.”16

Of course the NIH did.  How do you convince people to take a vaccine if it doesn’t actually stop you from getting seriously ill or dying?  You can’t.  So they lied, and the chief medical officer of the company that lied with the support of the NIH outed the firm’s and NIH’s own lie!

But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

Nor will there be evidence that the vaccine prevents you from giving the bug to others.

“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”

So in short they won’t be demonstrating that because it’s a pain in the ass to do it and besides, it requires time and they don’t want to spend the time.  As a result the vaccines will be approved with no evidence that they stop you from getting seriously ill, dying or giving the bug to other people.

But folks — who gives a wet crap if you get Covid19 and nothing bad happens.  If you get a mild cough or feel “off” for a couple of days who cares?  Nobody.  Only serious illness or death matters.  “Cases” are irrelevant if a case does not, with a high degree of reliably, lead to significant morbidity or mortality. 

Never mind severe adverse events.  You know, the sort that kill or seriously injure you?  Not the bug — the vaccine.  That’s underpowered too, and thus may not show up for years, which incidentally is why vaccine trials normally take years!

“Finding severe rare adverse events will require the study of tens of thousands of patients, but this requirement will not be met by early adoption of a product that has not completed its full trial evaluation,” Harvard drug policy researchers Jerry Avorn and Aaron Kesselheim recently wrote in JAMA.20

So they won’t be able to prove that any of these vaccines are safe either.

You don’t think that’s all do you?  Oh, I hope not.  Read this one.  Start with the abstract:

Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission. These masks similarly decreased the outward particle emission of a coughing superemitter, who for unclear reasons emitted up to two orders of magnitude more expiratory particles via coughing than average. In contrast, shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers in homemade cotton-fabric masks confounded explicit determination of their efficacy at reducing expiratory particle emission. 

This is being cited by the #MaskHole crowd as “evidence” for masking.

Uh, no it isn’t — not even in the abstract if you bother to actually read it.  Why?  Because all such masking orders include the option to use cloth masks of various sorts and you should read the last sentence of that paragraph very carefully.

It ought to make your hair stand up.  It did mine, having a decent background in physics.


Because micron-scale — and sub-micron — particles are exactly what viruses are.

Then we get into the body:

Much research has indicated that masks can provide significant protection to the wearer, although proper mask fitting is critical to realizing such benefits

Which exactly nobody in the general public either understands or will comply with.  Therefore the “benefits” will not be realized.

Results from epidemiological and clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of masks in reducing disease transmission suggest that mask wearing can provide some benefits10,11, especially with early interventions, but often the results lack statistical significance

If there is no statistical significance then the results can be due to random chance.  In other words there is no scientific evidence.

And then note this:

They did, however, find that masks reduced shedding of seasonal coronavirus from breathing for both coarse and fine particles, although viral RNA was observed in less than half of the samples even with no mask, complicating the assessment.

How do you measure a “reduction” in something that isn’t there in the first place?  This, by the way, is why you have to read entire studies and not just abstracts.

But…. it gets worse.  Those were talking about surgical masks and N95s.  We know that a properly-fit N95, used within recommendations (meaning no re-use and no more than 2-4 hours of wearing) is effective in materially reducing both shed (outward) and acquired (inward) particulate material down to the sub-micron level.  That includes viruses.

But N95s are impractical to require; they’re relatively expensive and the no re-use, limited lifetime requirement means nobody in the general public will use them and attempting to compel same requires you to pay for them, never mind the limited supply and disposal problems generated by mass use of these things.  Thus the “use a bandana or cloth mask” deal.  Oh, and note that the other comparison was actual surgical masks, not the mass-packaged, all claims disclaimed Chineesium paper garbage sold at WalMart (and marked up by 5,000% in the local Kroger here), which has not been tested and is likely no better than a bandana and might be worse.


Uh huh.

 To date, however, none have investigated the effectiveness of masks across a range of expiratory activities, and limited consideration has been given to different mask types. Furthermore, no studies to date have considered the masks themselves as potential sources of aerosol particles. It is well established that fibrous cellulosic materials, like cotton and paper, can release large quantities of micron-scale particles (i.e., dust) into the air39,40,41,42. Traditionally, these particles have not been considered a potential concern for respiratory viral diseases like influenza or now COVID-19, since these diseases have been thought to be transmitted via expiratory particles emitted directly from the respiratory tract of infected individuals43. Early work in the 1940s indicated, however, that infectious influenza virus could be collected from the air after vigorously shaking a contaminated blanket44.

Go read that as many times as you need to.

Remember what I’ve pointed out for months — while droplets sounds like a nice panacea it is not.  A droplet is merely water.  The water evaporates and it is not the water that is infectious, it is what is floating around in the water.  Once the water is gone at a molecular level via evaporation the virus remains and now can be expelled straight through the mask because it, as a sub-micron size particle, is smaller than the pores in the material — by a lot.  In fact it’s like trying to stop mosquitoes with a chain link fence.

Note that all these tests that have been done and “studies” of late have used very short time lines compared with the real world.  Why?  Because you try to get someone to sit nicely in a place where you can contain and thus analyze all the things that come out of their mouth and nose for hours at a time — which, incidentally, is what the mask mandates require, especially for employees and school children.

What comes through the mask in 5 minutes has no real bearing on what comes through after six hours when any droplets expired in the first 15 minutes have long-since evaporated!  This too is intentional fraud; they are intentionally not looking at the actual conditions of use, just like someone could claim that an air filter in your car “works great” — and it might be true for 10,000 miles, but if you leave it in the car for 50,000 miles it’s worthless or even worse, chokes off the engine.

And what do we have in the literature?  Emerging evidence that I’m right.

This observation raises the possibility that masks or other personal protective equipment (PPE), which have a higher likelihood of becoming contaminated with virus, might serve as sources of aerosolized fomites. Indeed, recent work by Liu et al. demonstrated that some of the highest counts of airborne SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) occurred in hospital rooms where health care workers doffed their PPE, suggesting that virus was potentially being aerosolized from virus-contaminated clothing or PPE, or resuspended from virus-contaminated dust on the floor


It gets worse though in this paper. First, they acknowledge that the unsealed parts of the mask are not being sampled.  Most of the other studies simply omit that, which is intentional fraud.  These folks cannot account for it but admit that to be true, and thus that their results will likely overstate filtering efficiency.  Well duh — and maybe a lot.

So what did they find?

Surgical masks and N95s reduced particles.  Big shock — not.  Of course they intentionally ignored all of the unsealed area and airflow out of it.  That’s a huge problem but, they admit it’s a problem and that it makes their results interesting but not scientific evidence of efficacy in the real world.  Nonetheless, it is what it is.

But the problems with the use of paper and homemade cloth masks showed up immediately.

In all cases cloth masks, whether single or double-layer, resulted in more particle emission than an unmasked control.  And it is a fact that a viron (infectious virus particle) can ride on particulate matter of any sort.  Indeed it is specifically PM <2.5 that poses most of the risk because it is inhaled deeply into the lungs; larger particles tend not to get there because the body’s defenses intercept them in the airway.

In the case of paper (non-surgical) masks for all but ordinary breathing (e.g. talking, jaw movement or coughing) showed statistically similar or increased particle emissions than an unmasked control.

And in the case of cloth masks not a little increase either:

Surprisingly, wearing an unwashed single layer t-shirt (U-SL-T) mask while breathing yielded a significant increase in measured particle emission rates compared to no mask, increasing to a median of 0.61 particles/s. The rates for some participants (F1 and F4) exceeded 1 particle/s, representing a 384% increase from the median no-mask value. Wearing a double-layer cotton t-shirt (U-DL-T) mask had no statistically significant effect on the particle emission rate, with comparable median and range to that observed with no mask.


A nearly four hundred percent particle emission increase while simply breathing?

It didn’t get better when you talked or coughed.

There was another very interesting statistic that came out of this — they found a super-emitter by accident.  That is, they had one person who when coughing emitted one hundred times as many particles as the others — but no materially larger number when talking or simply breathing.  This is very interesting indeed because we know this bug, in particular, displays stochastic qualities — that is, the results are non-deterministic; many people who get the bug infect nobody, but a few people infect many.

This of course means that the old “hair salon” example trotted out is a known scientific fraud; there are a large number of people who are infected but do not emit virus in their breath and said person, masked or not, will make nobody sick.  On the other hand if you get that superemitter cutting your hair you’re screwed — masked or not.  The mask is not the determining factor.

There’s even worse news in here — the focus on “droplets” has, by this study, been scientifically disproved.


Read this:

The emission rates presented in Fig. 2 represent the total for all particles in the size range 0.3 to 20 µm. We also measured the corresponding size distributions in terms of overall fraction for all trials (Fig. 3). In general, all size distributions observed here were lognormal, with a peak somewhere near 0.5 µm and decaying rapidly to negligible fractions above 5 µm. Breathing while wearing no mask emitted particles with a geometric mean diameter of 0.65 µm (Fig. 3a), with 35% of the particles in the smallest size range of 0.3 to 0.5 µm. Regardless of the mask type, wearing masks while breathing significantly increased this fraction of particles in the smallest size range (e.g., to as high as 60% for KN95 respirator), shifting the geometric mean diameter toward smaller sizes. 

If you’re having trouble parsing that I’ll do it for you: Nearly all particles were sub-micron, that is, almost none were larger than 5um.  Paper and cloth masks have pore sizes materially larger than that and thus are worthless in trapping nearly all of the particles by count.  I pointed this out months ago; particle distribution was long-ago known to be slanted heavily toward the smaller, sub-micron particles which is likely why the Neil Orr study in operating rooms found no effectiveness.

But then we get to the money shot which explains why masks in operating rooms led to more infections rather than doing nothing.

Wearing a mask shifted the particle distribution toward the smaller end of the range, likely due to lower velocity (larger particles stay in the throat and mouth as they hit something before getting out of the mouth or nose) which means wearing a mask causes you to make more small particles that both are more-likely to go through said mask and travel further once they do.

The money shot from the top of the discussion:

Our results clearly indicate that wearing surgical masks or unvented KN95 respirators reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask. However, for the homemade cotton masks, the measured particle emission rate either remained unchanged (DL-T) or increased by as much as 492% (SL-T) compared to no mask for all of the expiratory activities. 

The amusing conclusion is that they claim mask-wearing “can help with mitigating pandemics.”

Right.  Increasing particulate emissions by nearly 500% is going to help with mitigating pandemics?

Perhaps you can take that particular bit of stupidity and, with it in mind, explain Italy — which has mandated masks, never mind having capacity limits and other “mitigations” for months.  How’s it working out?  Natural experiments keep proving masks do nothing, nor do the other “mitigations.”

What’s particularly troubling about the return of COVID in Italy is that the country has done everything experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci have been advising. Face masks in public places have been compulsory for months, social distancing is strongly enforced, nightclubs have never reopened, and sporting arenas are at less than a third of capacity. Children who are back at school are regularly tested and strictly social-distanced, and yet, the second wave seems completely unstoppable.

The data actually published says the orders do NOT work, so unless you intend to require and provide surgical and N95 masks en-masse and then further control for the confounder of the percentage of expiratory volume that bypassed their testing machines, which the studies acknowledge but fail to quantify and the experience of locales, states and nations all over the world repeatedly prove that these measures are ineffective.

Incidentally this was exactly what had been considered “conventional wisdom” for decades before we turned a pandemic flu into a political football and killed people for profit as occurred in several states throughout the Midwest.  Said prior experience during which no mask orders were issued include 1957, 1968 (which I got as a kid and remember as it was a freaking MISERABLE experience, even though I was all of about six!) and 2009 when Obama was President.  I got that one too — it didn’t kill me.  Neither did what was probably H1N1 this last January; it was going around, and that’s an ugly one closely related to the bug from 1918.

Italy’s health ministry released data this week showing that 80.3 percent of the new infections “occur at home” while only 4.2 percent come from recreational activities and schools.

Masks and “social distancing” obviously do nothing to prevent transmission in people’s homes.  This is common to government; focus on 10% of a problem that costs a crap-ton of money and screws people for the profit of a few while ignoring the 80% of a problem because you either can’t solve or, if it’s cheap, nobody will get rich off it.

Make sure you thank your Mayor or Governor for demanding that you emit up to FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT as much particulate material, all of which may be laden with virus, as a result of his or her mask order.  They’re literally killing people and, at this point, the scientific evidence points straight at their orders as a material part of the cause.

You’re welcome.

Karl Denninger