Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Fact Check: How to Survive Coronavirus in Three Easy Steps [UPDATED]

As if Coronavirus isn’t bad enough, our "experts" are all at war with each other!  One scientist says one thing and another says the exact opposite. One doctor expresses an opinion and the next day is fired for heresy. New studies come out and their results are contradicted by the very next study. Respected journals of science and medicine publish peer reviewed papers and have to retract them a week later. The WHO, FDA, and CDC take definitive positions and then reverse them shortly thereafter. Doctors are forced into suing the FDA for not allowing them to use drugs they say save lives. 

If the experts can’t sort this out, what chance do you and I have? Well,  it turns out we have a pretty good chance.  Here's why:  Coronavirus hit every country in the world with the same unique challenge, and each country took a different approach.   By studying which countries were successful and which ones weren't, we can benchmark the things that work.  No, it’s not perfect. There will always be data issues, timing issues, and hidden variables.  But real world results have a story to tell, and we should probably listen closely when people are dying by the thousands each day. 

With that in mind, I took a deep dive into the country data to see if I could untangle three big controversies swirling around the pandemic:

  • Do masks work?
  • Does Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) work?
  • Which healthcare systems are handling Coronavirus the best?
And finally, how are we measuring-up in the U.S.?

#1 Do Masks Work?

Masks are not a consensus issue even today.  There are still scientists and doctors who claim they are useless and even harmful.  But as the above graph shows, the five countries that first embraced masks in Europe have much lower infection rates than their neighbors that never did. The five with the highest infection rates were either very late, or still do not wear masks today.

Think of Coronavirus as a car accident. The first strategy for surviving a car accident is avoiding one in the first place, right?  For Coronavirus, wearing a mask is like having good tires and brakes. Masks keep infection rates down, and that is job one when dealing with a deadly new pathogen that we don’t fully understand.

So why limit this analysis to European countries?  Here's why:  The following graph appeared early in the pandemic comparing Asian countries to the rest of the world.  Sure enough it suggested Asian countries had lower infection rates due to masks. Some Asian countries have been wearing masks since the 1918 Spanish Flu! Critics, however, pointed out that other variables such as genetics, diet, culture, etc. could be at play. I wanted to reduce those variables by just looking at European countries.

Of course, masks are just the last line of defense against Coronavirus infection.  A healthy immune system full of Vitamin D,  proper distancing,  proper weight, good diet,  etc. are all equally important.  But if all else fails, masks buy time and keep viral loads to a minimum.

So what happened in the U.S.? Why were we so late to the masked ball?

Here's a compilation of "experts" , The W.H.O., Dr Anthony Fauci, and Surgeon General Jerome Adams, all telling us in March that masks were unnecessary and even harmful! First impressions matter, and we got off on the wrong foot. We currently have one of the highest infection rates in the world. The W.H.O., Dr. Fauci, and Dr. Adams cut our brake lines and gave us bald tires at a critical stage in the pandemic.

President Donald Trump blew this one. He should have overruled the experts.  Recently, he and Fauci et al. have reversed course, and we are now belatedly on track to be fully masked.

#2. Does Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) work?

If you somehow do get infected, what should you do? Or, keeping with the car accident analogy, is there an equivalent to a seatbelt and airbag for Coronavirus?  It turns out there is, and it’s called Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Countries that use it have lower Case Fatality Rates than those that don't, and it's not even close.  

The effort to discredit HCQ may the biggest health hoax in history. Nearly 700,000 people have died globally and far more have permanent organ damage as of this writing. How many could have been spared if there hadn't been a coordinated and thus far successful attempt to prevent this cheap, available, safe, effective therapy from gaining traction? We'll never know, but the case needs to be adjudicated publicly.  Instead, one side is being systematically blocked and censored.  

Despite what you’ve been told, the science unequivocally supports early use of HCQ:

According to every known scientific study of HCQ so far, 100% of the pre-exposure, post-exposure, and early use studies have shown HCQ to be effective when results were conclusive.  100%!  It's most effective when given early and combined with ZINC plus Azithromycin or similar antibiotic.  So why have you been told otherwise?

There are three possibilities:

One is that there may have been an early misunderstanding about HCQ.  We have known since 2005 that HCQ is effective on SARS coronavirus in vitro (in a test tube). Yet most of the early HCQ studies were done with patients who were well beyond the viral stage of the illness. It was like studying the effectiveness of airbags by deploying them days after a car accident!  And we know that zinc plays a crucial role with HCQ, yet almost none of the studies bothered to include it!   

Another possibility is that HCQ is a direct threat to Big Pharma, which hopes to cash in on expensive newly patented therapies like Remdesivir, anti-bodies, and vaccines. As if by magic, very favorable things always manage to be amplified regarding these profitable options, and very damaging things are amplified about generic HCQ. The amplification NEVER goes the other way. And this imbalance goes all the way up the chain of command to government health officials around the world. It's like they are all paid spokesmen for Big Pharma!

And finally, there are the politics of HCQ. The moment President Donald Trump spoke hopefully about HCQ it became a political imperative for his opponents to stop this drug from ever being accepted. The earliest Western HCQ proponent was a French doctor named Didier Raoult. Success for Dr. Raoult and HCQ meant success for Trump, and that could not be allowed regardless of the collateral damage. Hit pieces like this one in The New York Times popped-up like mushrooms bad-mouthing Dr. Raoult. He was dubbed a "barking mad dangerous witch-doctor". Every subsequent proponent of HCQ has suffered a similar fate.

In the end, negative media reports on Hydroxychloroquine outnumber positive ones by orders of magnitude. The message is clear, and it has worked wonders at hurting Donald Trump's poll numbers and raising death rates around the world:

Many others have studied the correlation between HCQ use and low CFRs.  Below is a vivid example:

Source: Anonymous Twitter user @gummibear737

The following graph is from a lawsuit filed against the FDA by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS):

and finally, this very recent randomized study using Adjusted Deaths per Million, which shows HCQ countries have 79.1% lower deaths:   (Hat tip -Twitter user @CovidAnalysis)

So what went wrong in the U.S. with HCQ? Like with masks, it starts with the most influential voice in the country, Dr. Anthony Fauci.  And again he blew the call.

When the subject of HCQ first came up, Dr. Fauci pooh-poohed it saying he needed a time-consuming peer-reviewed double-blind study. After all, that is the gold standard in drug testing.  But, does that make sense during a deadly pandemic with a centuries old class of medicines that have been proven safe,  proven efficacious in vitro, and have proven clinical results against this very Coronavirus?  Fauci had the burden of proof completely backwards! With no viable options and people dying, the burden of proof was on the skeptics.

Then Dr. Fauci and the NIH applied a completely different standard to a new medicine called Remdesivir. Here was a medicine that had no peer-reviewed double-blind study, no track record, no safety profile, and no history with Coronavirus, yet Fauci touted it as a "game changer".  Unlike HCQ, there were billions of dollars to be made with Remdesivir.  It later turned out that several of the scientists reviewing Remdesivir for the NIH had financial ties to Gilead Sciences, the holder of the Remdesivir patent!       

Nevertheless, on March 28th the FDA reluctantly issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for HCQ.  Next came a slew of negative late-stage studies. Almost all of them were done on hospitalized patients long past the viral stage of the illness and nearing death.  And none of them included zinc.  An antiviral like HCQ, even with zinc, cannot resuscitate patients with severe lung, brain, heart, and kidney damage!     

What followed next was truly a "Theater-of-the-Absurd".

On May 22nd, the highly respected British publication, The Lancet, published a huge negative study on HCQ.  It was so devastating that The W.H.O. immediately dropped all attempts to test the drug and recommended it not be used.  The FDA followed suit shortly thereafter.

Except there's one small detail I skipped: The influential Lancet study was completely discredited and retracted! The data was entirely made-up!  It was all fake!  But that has not stopped The W.H.O,  FDA, NIH, CDC, nor Dr. Fauci from proceeding with their campaign against HCQ.  This all stinks to high heaven.  Meanwhile, six thousand people die globally from Coronavirus every single day.

Here's what has happened in the U.S. since the FDA ended the EUA for HCQ:

The saddest piece of data in the U.S. is that the two states that make up about a third of all deaths, NY and NJ, totalling 48,725 dead as of 8/5/2020, took decisive action to make sure no one could possibly be saved by HCQ.

On March 3, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order that among other things strictly limited the use of HCQ:

No pharmacist shall dispense hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine except when written as prescribed for an FDA-approved indication; or as part of a state approved clinical trial related to COVID-19 for a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19, with such test result documented as part of the prescription. No other experimental or prophylactic use shall be permitted...

This effectively banned HCQ use in NY when it could have been most effective against the disease. Waiting for test results could mean a possible 14 day delay in treatment when patients would be well beyond the viral stage of the illness.

On March 9th, NJ Governor Phil Murphy also issued an executive order declaring a state of emergency, and by March 29th NJ had strict restrictions on prescribing HCQ:
All dispensing of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 shall be limited to prescriptions supported by a positive test result, which must be documented on the prescription.
The reason for these limits was ostensibly to prevent Lupus and other Autoimmune patients from running out of HCQ.  But those patients are not in danger of dying and have many treatment options. Coronavirus patients are in mortal danger and have no other options. This ensured no NJ or NY resident could get early outpatient treatment with HCQ when it was the only thing that could have saved them.

Here's the bottom line:  The W.H.O, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Big Pharma, the media, and anti-Trumpers, slashed our seat belts, disabled our airbags, and made this pandemic much, much worse than it needed to be.  To his credit, Donald Trump had the right instincts on HCQ, but was unable to overcome the forces against it.

HCQ is not the only cheap, available, and safe treatment being looked at for Coronavirus. Some others are Ivermectin, Artemisinin, Quinine, Quercetin, and Green Tea.  All of these share one thing in common with HCQ - they are all zinc ionophores.  Here's how it was explained to me: zinc ionophores facilitate the transport of zinc ions into cells.  Zinc is particularly good at interfering with all sorts of mischief by cellular invaders.  A useful analogy is this; the ionophore is the gun and zinc is the bullet. (H/T Dr. Zelenko)  Doing tests on zinc ionophores without zinc is like testing guns without bullets.

[UPDATE: Ivermectin may be a miracle drug.  The success of this drug against SARS-COV-2 appears to be stronger than any other single therapeutic.  Keep and eye on Ivermectin.  Interestingly, it shares a trait with Azithromycin: both are derived from bacteria in soil!]   

(The countries in my HCQ graph were chosen from this study published in April, with one exception.  Costa Rica's outbreak was late and therefore was not included, but they famously responded using the S. Korea model and have had dramatic results.  Since I could only include ten countries before the graph got cluttered, I chose the ten with the most and least success.)      

#3 Which healthcare systems are handling Coronavirus the best?

The pandemic presents a unique opportunity for comparing healthcare systems around the world.  As it turns out, the healthcare systems that performed well were the ones that had a robust free market component, and the ones that did poorly were the most bureaucratically socialized ones. (Like with masks, I kept this mostly to European countries to minimize variables.)

I don't mean to pick on France, Italy, UK, Belgium, etc., but there’s a pattern. These countries, in addition to being late on masks and Hydroxychloroquine, also have the most highly socialized healthcare systems in the world. Ask yourself this, if you had a life-or-death shipping problem and needed a quick innovative solution, would you go to the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, or UPS?  These socialized countries had only their post-offices to turn to.

I first stumbled on this correlation while studying economic freedom and death rates.  Early in the pandemic I found a strong correlation between economically free countries and low CFRs,  but the correlation faded as the pandemic progressed. What never changed were the outliers - free countries with very high CFRs. After looking into it, I found that these countries all had highly socialized healthcare systems with no significant free market components.

Ironically, The W.H.O., also wrong about masks and Hydroxychloroquine, ranks healthcare systems.  Lo and behold, France and Italy take first and second place respectively!

To be clear, having some socialized healthcare is the norm around the world. Even in the U.S. we have tons of socialized medicine. In fact, if you take Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and SCHIP together, they comprise the largest government healthcare program in the world. And yet our CFR is in the low range. That’s because we also have a robust free market in healthcare alongside our socialized system.  

President Donald Trump again has the right instincts here.  He's tried to increase free market healthcare in the U.S., but has been thwarted by both Republicans and Democrats in congress. 

Conclusions - How to Survive Coronavirus in Three Easy Steps: 

  • Masks correlate with low infection rates. Wear a mask when in close quarters.
  • HCQ correlates with low fatalities. Make sure your doctor understands HCQ, zinc, and zinc ionophores in general.  [UPDATE: plus Ivermectin!] 
  • And free market healthcare correlates with low fatalities. You don’t want to be stuck in post-office healthcare when your life depends on it.  
I suggest you contact your doctor and make sure they are up on these issues.  Mine was not, and I’m glad I found out early.  [UPDATE: I was able to obtain everything I wanted through telemedicine.  This link works well for getting a referral: ]

As noted above, there are plenty of herbal over-the-counter zinc ionophores like quercetin and green tea.  And of course, zinc is readily available.

I wonder what would happen in the presidential race if one of the candidates pledged to make HCQ w/zinc over-the-counter?  Many drugs, like ibuprofen (Advil) are OTC in low doses, but require a  prescription for higher doses.  Could that be done with time-tested drugs with proven safety records like HCQ and Ivermectin?   

One final note on why these analyses use Case Fatality Rates (CFRs) and not Fatalities per million population.  Since these analyses compare treatments and outcomes (ie: HCQ & healthcare vs. deaths), only those that are treated are included. Using Fatalities per million population would introduce widely variable infection rates into the analysis and infection rates have nothing to do with treatments.  Infection rates are also important, but they are a function of masks, distancing, culture, lifestyle, age, etc., which is why they were used in the mask analysis above.  (original charts are based on data from

Saturday, August 1, 2020

My Op-Ed to WaPo's: "Americans are suffering. Trump offers them a doctor who warns of sex with demons."

Read the whole opinion piece here.

Here's my op-ed:  (Originally slated for Facebook to those promoting this WaPo smear, but I'm weary of playing the skunk at the leftist picnic. And that's what FB is.  Luckily, I have a blog.)

Some thoughts: 1. This doctor is a black woman.  She treats patients daily at her clinic.  Many have COVID.  She's been successful using Hydroxychloroquine.  Who are you to question her clinical experience?  2. Did it ever occur to you that when she refers to "demon sex" or "alien DNA" she is speaking to a similarly African religious population?  Who are you to judge the idioms of the African religious community?  3.  Are you aware that Hydroxychloroquine belongs to a class of drugs that has been around for centuries and probably millennia?  Did you know Alexander Hamilton was cured of Yellow Fever in 1793 using quinine and Madeira wine (high in zinc)?  Do you know that centuries of science are on her side, not yours?  Your snarky condescension towards this Black, African, female, religious, doctor, reeks of racism, sexism, white privilege, small-mindedness, cultural superiority, religious intolerance, entitlement, and ignorance. You remind me of those Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific Islands who had no idea WWII was over.  Only the islands you are stuck on are information islands like WaPo, NYT, CNN, NPR, etc., and all the digital media who censored this courageous truth-telling doctor.  But it might be even worse.  You probably know that she and centuries of science are right about HCQ.  You probably know that Donald Trump was right about HCQ.  But you don’t care.  Instead, you shout them down like lunatics. Here’s your sick calculus: sacrificing a few hundred thousand more lives to elect Joe Biden's animated corpse in November is worth it to you because you want power more than anything. In which case you are the very demons Dr. Immanuel was referring to, and no one should have sex with you.  (I'll see myself out...) 

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Fact Check: Is Dr. Fauci Credible?

Donald Trump says Dr. Fauci has "made a lot of mistakes."   After Kayleigh McEnany is asked to enumerate those mistakes, the White House releases a memo with the specifics. The press then  described the memo as a leak to discredit Fauci!   

Peter Navarro goes even further in an op-ed today saying "Fauci has been wrong about everything..."  Even the White House had to issue a statement distancing itself from that bold sentiment.

So what's going on here?  Is Dr. Anthony Fauci a hero or a villain?  Is he a liar or is he credible?  Is he wrong or right?  Is there any middle ground with Dr. Fauci?

Here's what I wrote about Dr Fauci on May 2nd, 2020:

[UPDATE: The video below summarizes the relationship between Dr. Fauci's NIAID and the "gain-of function" work done by Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where SARS-COV2 is believed to have been created.  According to many experts, including Norwegian Birger Sorensen, the burden of proof is now on those denying this was made in a lab because there are just too many genetic markers inconsistent with the theory that this came from nature.]     

If you aren't watching Chris Martenson's daily Coronavirus updates, you are missing out on the single best journalist covering this pandemic.  His latest entry connecting the dots between the coronavirus, the Wuhan lab, and Dr. Anthony Fauci will have your jaw scraping the floor.

My opinion of Dr. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) has "evolved".  Like most Americans, I became aware of Fauci through his frequent media appearances and his presentations at the White House press briefings.  Here was a guy with the credentials and experience to give us the straight poop on this mysterious and dangerous virus.  Fauci was the veteran fireman we needed to fight this runaway blaze.  I considered him a national treasure.

But then he lied about masks.  I forgave him though, thinking he was probably just protecting the health care workers who needed them most.  Next he lied about hydroxychloroquine.  OK, maybe he was trying to protect the Lupus and arthritis patients who needed it as well?  Next he lied about the virus potentially being man-made in a lab.  At this point I'd seen the science, and something was very fishy.  But then he lied about Remdesivir.  This was the last straw for me.  It turns out, fully 20% of the NIH panel that reviewed Remdesivir had financial connections to Gilead Sciences, the company that holds the patent!

But that's just the tip of the Fauci iceberg.  It turns out that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the fireman we are all depending on to put out the fire, is also likely one of the arsonists that lit it!  Watch below and make up your own mind. 

I, for one, am over this arrogant prick.  Fuck Fauci.  National treasure, my ass.  I hope everyone soon recognizes the damage he has intentionally, or accidentally, done to the world and all its suffering people.     

Here is the Newsweek article that Chris Martenson references. 

And here is an interview from February that details some of this a bunch more.  This line of viruses, and the technology to achieve "gain of function", originated here in the U.S.! (I know, it's nutjob Alex Jones doing the interview, but this guy probably couldn't get an interview anywhere else!)

Friday, June 19, 2020

Fact Check: Ted Cruz is Awesome IX

Watch Ted Cruz summarize what's going on at the U.S. Supreme Court under John Roberts.  And while he accurately captures the absurdity and lawlessness at the court, it needs to be put in context.  For this is a time in America when going surfing, cutting hair, attending a gym, or going to church can land you in jail, but rioting, looting, arson, and assaulting a cop are actually celebrated.  

Oh, and stock valuations are at all time highs in the middle of a global pandemic and shutdown.  Absurd times indeed.  

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Fact Check: A February Recession Was Predicted Here, Correctly

The current recession began in February according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.  Since COVID-19 was not in play in February, the Fed and Jerome Powell caused this recession exactly as I predicted in May, 2019.  Below is the piece that correctly called it:


Fact Check: The Truth About Recessions from 5/19/2019

"ANOTHER BUSH, ANOTHER RECESSION" - That was the bumper sticker that appeared on my despondent friend's car right after the election of George W Bush.  Haha, I thought, that's not how recessions happen!

You see, I'd been to business school and was taught that there was something called "the business cycle" that determined when recessions happen.  The theory was that economies inevitably grow too fast, peak, and then shrink. It was just what happened, we were told.

Except that's not what happens.

It turns out The Federal Reserve (Fed) causes recessions.  At least every one in modern times. They decide if, when, and how a recession occurs. They can turn elections. They can drive markets.  In many ways the Federal Reserve is the most powerful government institution in the U.S.  They have more power over our day to day lives than any other branch of government.  And they are unelected.

Here's the proof:  There have been nine recessions since 1954.  Each one followed two specific Fed caused conditions:

  • A marked increase in the Federal Funds rate
  • A negative spread between the 10-Year Treasury Bond, and either the Federal Funds rate or the 1-Year Treasury.  Also known as an inverted yield curve.

There were no exceptions.  You would think that  in sixty five years at least one recession would be strictly tied to economic issues.  But not a single one occurred independent of those two deliberate Fed caused conditions.

Click on the graphs below to see them in greater detail.  Grey bars are recessions.  Or use these links to see the interactive originals:  10-Year Treasury minus Fed Funds  ,  Fed Funds Rate  (The first two recessions on these graphs had inversions in the 10-Year minus the 1-Year.)

10-Year Treasury minus Fed Funds (Yield Curve) 1954-2019

Fed Funds Rate 1954-2019

There were two times when those two conditions did not result in a recession and there were two cases when only one condition was present.
  1. 1966 had both an inverted yield curve and a Fed Funds hike, but no recession ensued.  1966 immediately followed the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts which stimulated the economy enough to overcome the Fed caused weakness.
  2. 1995 had a flat yield curve and a rate increase, but again no recession followed. 1995 also came on the heels of anticipated tax cuts promised by the congressional election of 1994 and The Contract With America.    
  3. 1998 had an inverted yield curve, but no Fed Funds hike or recession.  1998 also followed the 1997 signing of the tax cuts first passed by the House in 1995. 
  4. 1984 had an increase in the Fed Funds rate, but no change in the yield curve.  1984 also followed the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, and preceded the promised tax cuts of 1986.
CAVEAT: The only times recessions did not occur there were recent or anticipated tax cuts.  Hopefully, 2020 will prove similarly resistant following the tax cuts of 2017.

Curiously, of those nine recessions, all but one coincided with Republican presidents.  None occurred while the GOP held both houses of congress.  All tax laws originate in congress.  All interest rate policy originates at the Fed.  Presidents originate neither. 

This is all worth noting now that the Fed has initiated both conditions following eight years of ~ 0% rates under Obama.  The tightening from .12% to the current 2.41% amounts to an increase of 1900%,  the largest ever in percentage terms.  And in May 2019 the yield curve predictably inverted.  (The graphs above only go to March, 2019 when the yield curve was still slightly positive. )

It looks like the next recession is scheduled to begin precisely as we head into the next election. It will likely begin sometime between February and September of 2020 based on past timelines.  (See CAVEAT above.)

Maybe my Al Gore supporting friend was right after all... though for all the wrong reasons!

[UPDATE 7/30/19]
The Fed is expected to cut rates at their next meeting a day from now,  but it will have no impact on the scheduled recession which is already baked into the economy.  The only thing the president can do at this point is pray his 2017 tax cuts and ongoing deregulations overcome the Fed caused weakness and avoid a recession. My money is on the Fed, only because they are experts at causing recessions, and they have way more power and experience than Trump in these matters.


Footnote 1:  Here's why these particular Fed actions cause recessions:  The essential raw material for economic vitality, aside from humans, is credit.  When the Fed raises its Fed Funds rate, banks and lenders pay more for their own credit which ripples through the economy raising borrowing costs.  If the increase is too fast and too much, the yield curve inverts which temporarily misaligns lenders and borrowers.  Lenders want to lend at the higher short rates and borrowers want to borrow at the lower long term rates. Credit slows, and a recession follows.

Footnote 2:  Of course the Fed does not operate in a vacuum.  They would argue they are acting on economic conditions.  Still, the timing and predictability of recessions following those two Fed actions cannot be denied.

Footnote 3:  The reason this analysis only goes back to 1954 is because that is the extent of available Fed data for the 10-Year minus Fed Funds.  The 10-Year minus 1-Year does not exist as a single graph but both can be plotted on the same graph by visiting the FRED site.

Here's the result:

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Fact Check: Candace Owens Nails It!

Candace Owens drops a few truth bombs, as only she can.  This is the most powerful and interesting thing I've seen since this whole sordid George Floyd affair began.  Here are the bullet points:  

  • Black society uniquely celebrates their criminal class and elevates them to martyrdom.
  • George Floyd was a member of the criminal class and is now being elevated to martyrdom.
  • Martyrdom aside, his unjust death is a separate issue, which has thus far been dealt with by the criminal justice system.
  • But the rioters don't care about the criminal justice system because they claim that his killing is part of a pattern of systemic racism by cops.  The data prove this is a false narrative, despite perceptions to the contrary.   
  • Race riots are often timed to occur every 4 years during presidential campaigns.
  • Virtue signaling white liberals will pay no price for these riots, but blacks just signed-up for 60 more years of poverty.
Watch the whole thing.  Twice.  Then share it.  This needs to be heard.
Here's the link:

[UPDATE] This video has gone mega-viral with 10s of millions of hits on numerous platforms.  And today, Rasmussen has Donald Trump polling over 40% among black voters.  (Romney got 6%) Candace's "alarm clock" is working.   

Monday, June 1, 2020

Fact Check: The Stock Market Is A Cryptocurrency

Astute investors will tell you that the stock market is a discounting machine.  It takes estimated future cash flows and discounts them back to current values, and that is what determines stock prices.  It's a definition that has served investors like Warren Buffett well for decades.  It is also a definition that has much less relevance today.  You see, in the short run, and maybe forever more, the stock market is now a cryptocurrency.

From Wikipedia:
cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange wherein individual coin ownership records are stored in a digital ledger or computerized database using strong cryptography to secure transaction record entries, to control the creation of additional digital coin records, and to verify the transfer of coin ownership.
This definition also applies to today's online trading in stocks. The records are kept on digital ledgers on secure computers which verify transactions and ownership.  

Interestingly, stocks and Bitcoin are suddenly more closely correlated:


Now consider these paraphrased quotes:  

  • "The Stock Market has no unique value at all,"
  • "You're just hoping the next guy pays more. And you only feel you'll find the next guy to pay more if he thinks he's going to find someone that's going to pay more. You aren't investing when you do that, you're speculating."
  • "Stay away from it. It's a mirage, basically...The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is a joke in my view."
If you replace "The Stock Market" with "Bitcoin", these are direct quotes by Warren Buffett. 

As I write this today in the midst of a global pandemic, there have been nightly riots in 75 140 U.S. cities.  Burning, looting, mayhem, and destruction reign everywhere.  It's even spreading into the suburbs.  Churches, malls, government buildings, banks, even The White House itself has been targeted.  Anarchy and chaos are gripping the country.  So what is the stock market doing today?  It's up.  

On Friday when the market closed, we lived in a society largely governed by the "rule of law", a foundational concept necessary for an ordered society and a strong economy.  Today, we can forget that illusion.  It no longer exists.  Yet the "discounting machine" known as the stock market thinks anarchy is going to help "future cash flows"?  Is this how a rational discounting machine would behave?

It's not, but it is how a rational cryptocurrency would behave.  Cryptos know that The Fed, along with other central bankers, will increasingly turn to helicopter money to paper-over failing economies.  That will only serve to undermine the existing government fiat currencies and increase flows into alternatives.  

The old alternative, gold, is cumbersome to transact.  But cryptos are nimble and light light.  Same with stocks.  There was a time when trading stocks cost real money and took real time.  Now it's almost free and instantaneous.  

And unlike crypto or gold, stocks often pay dividends.  They are now the perfect alternative to holding anything else.  Rioting and looting ensure the Fed will continue to drop even more helicopter money to gloss over the damage this will inevitably do to our economy.  That money will flow first into stocks.  

Think of the stock market as a cryptocurrency and it will all make sense.

Saturday, May 2, 2020

Fact Check: Did Dr. Fauci Help Create The Pandemic?

If you aren't watching Chris Martenson's daily Coronavirus updates, you are missing out on the best single journalist covering this pandemic.  His latest entry connecting the dots between the coronavirus, the Wuhan lab, and Dr. Anthony Fauci will have your jaw scraping the floor.

My opinion of Dr. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) has "evolved", shall we say.  Like most Americans, I first became aware of him through his constant media presence and his presentations at the White House press briefings.  Here was a guy with the credentials and experience to give us the straight poop on this mysterious virus.  Fauci was the veteran fireman we needed to fight this runaway blaze.  I considered him a national treasure.

But then he lied about masks.  I forgave him, though, thinking he was probably just protecting the health care workers who were having trouble getting them for themselves.  Next he lied about hydroxychloroquine.  OK, maybe he was trying to protect the Lupus patients who were complaining they couldn't get it?  Next he lied about the virus potentially being man-made in a lab.  At this point I'd seen the science, and something was very fishy.  But then he lied about Remdesivir.  This was the last straw for me.  Turns out, fully 20% of the NIH panel that reviewed Remdesivir had financial connections to Gilead Sciences, the company that holds the patent!

But that's just the tip of the Fauci iceberg.  It turns out that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the fireman we are all depending on to put out the fire, is also likely one of the arsonists that lit it!  Watch below and make up your own mind.   

I, for one, am over this arrogant prick.  Fuck Fauci.  National treasure, my ass.  I hope everyone soon recognizes the damage he has intentionally, or accidentally, done to the world and all its suffering people.       

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Fact Check: Did Trump Set a Trap With The Disinfectant Question? [UPDATED]

With this question, Donald Trump set off the yuuugest firestorm ever:
"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?" 
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."

Pundits, journalists, comedians, actors, musicians, ordinary folks, scientists, doctors, and even some twitter trolls, pounced!  How could he say such a thing?  Is he nuts? Is he a complete moron?  Did he just advise Americans to inject Clorox into their veins?  Could he possibly be more dangerous?  IMBLEACH!

Typical headlines looked like this:

'Jaw-Dropping’: Trump Slammed for Touting Dangerous New Virus Treatments After Favored Drug Is Discredited

Forget the matter of whether or not those reactions are even remotely justified by the question asked -  could Trump have actually been onto something?

Turns out the answer is... YES!

  • Since the 1940s doctors have practiced Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation (UBI) to treat pathogens and diseases in the blood.  Apparently it works.  Here's a paper I found at NIH.GOV that calls it "The Forgotten Cure"  Note that today this is done with fiber optics bringing UV into the blood stream.  
  • One of the things I keep hearing from doctors is that the lung pathology of COVID-19 looks a lot like HAPE (High Altitude Pulmonary Edema).  Turns out, alcohol vaporization in the lungs has been known for decades to be effective at treating pulmonary edema.  Here's a paper from the 1950s titled,  "Alcohol Vapor by Inhalation in the Treatment of Acute Pulmonary Edema" .  Alcohol was the disinfectant Trump referenced in his question, because he had just been told it was particularly effective at killing coronaviruses.
  • [UPDATE]  Here's a video which was banned from YouTube and Twitter in response to the collective anti-Trump freak-out.  Apparently, doctors at Cedars-Sanai have developed a UV light specifically for coronavirus that is inserted into the lung.  The video is still up on Venmo for now, though Blogger, a Google Co, will not allow me to embed it here!  All I can do is provide the link: AYTU Healight from Healight on Vimeo.
Look, I don't know if Donald Trump intentionally set a trap for the dim-witted and uninformed, but it sure looks like that's exactly what he's done. Again. Unexpectedly.

P.S. The headline above from The Daily Beast that says Trump's "...Favored Drug Is Discredited" is an obvious reference to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) which recently got some very misleading negative press.  Is HCQ another trap?  Consider that HCQ is still the number one drug for COVID in the world, usually along with zinc and anti-biotics.  How do you think Chris Cuomo emerged from his basement unscathed?  And how about Boris Johnson?  And Justin Trudeau?  And Tom Hanks?  Not to mention whole nations.   



Monday, April 6, 2020

Fact Check: The Truth About Socialized Medicine [UPDATED 4/14]

The COVID-19 pandemic is, among other things, an historical opportunity to compare healthcare systems around the world.    Though it's still too early to draw any final conclusions, a couple of patterns have already emerged.
The graph below plots the top 40 COVID-19 countries based on their Heritage Economic Freedom ranking and their case fatality rates (CFRs) as of April 14th, 2020.  (China, Russia, and Pakistan have been left out due to unreliable data.)

You'll notice that most countries in the first two quadrants of economic freedom are tightly grouped in the bottom left corner of the graph.  Economic freedom correlates with low CFRs.  But there are also countries with very high CFRs in the free group.  In all cases, these outlier countries have the highest degrees of one-size-fits-all nationalized free healthcare, aka socialized medicine.

It seems the more nationalized and rigidly socialized a healthcare system is, the more deadly it is.  (Sorry Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists.) Meanwhile, economically free countries with strong private healthcare components are performing the best in this pandemic.  The U.S., Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Israel, and others with blended private and public healthcare systems have consistently lower CFRs than their fully socialized counterparts.

(raw data below)

Caveats:  1. It is very early in the pandemic.  2. Each country is on a different part of the pandemic timeline.  3. Data is sketchy at this point.  4. Each country has a unique demographic mix.  5. Some countries are doing well AND have nationalized healthcare.

To be clear, every country, including the U.S., has some degree of government guaranteed healthcare. Some countries have the one-size-fits-all universal free systems, some are totally nationalized w/ a fee, some have nationalized insurance, or single-payer, some are blended public and private systems (i.e. The U.S.), and there's everything in between.

One of the big differences between nationalized countries is how they do it.  For example, total nationalization vs insurance nationalization makes a big difference.  Take Canada and UK:  In the UK, everything is nationalized - all health workers work for the national system and the facilities are owned by the system.  In Canada, the healthcare workers etc. are not nationalized, but the insurance system is single-payer. Canada has a low CFR so far, and UK is quite high.  Neither has a fraction of the ventilators or ICU beds per capita as the U.S.

     (Data sources:  Worldometers and Heritage)