Boosting Madness

From my heart and from my hand
Why don't people understand?
--Oingo Bingo

It is becoming glaringly apparent that the so-called CV19 vaccines provide, at best, limited protection against the virus. 'Breakthrough' cases, or CV19 infections in people who previously received the shot, are on the rise. Countries that were early adopters of the vaccines, such as Israel, are seeing big increases in cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated.

Governments are now positioning to recommend/mandate a 'booster' shot to replenish antibody levels that appear to decline in the 5-6 month period after the initial shots.

Alex Berenson, who has been on the story of vaccine 'failure' for months, discusses the ongoing anti-science dysfunction associated with these policies.

The CV19 vaccines come in two related flavors. The mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer (PFE) and Moderna (MRNA) use synthetically created RNA fragments encapsulated in fat particles that are transfected into immune cells to stimulate an adaptive immune response. The synthetic mRNA causes cells to produce a foreign protein (i.e., 'spike protein') that resembles the viral antigen. Production of the spike protein triggers immune system response.

Rather than using synthetically created mRNA fragments, the Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) vaccine employs a 'viral vector' composed of RNA fragments from other supposed harmless viruses to motivate spike protein creation. This approach is intuitively appealing to some people because it somewhat resembles the mechanism of traditional vaccines that inject antigens from a weakened or dead version of the virus to stimulate response.

Why weren't traditional vaccines used in the case of CV19? It can take years and cost billion$ to develop traditional antigen-based vaccines that are both safe and effective. Conversely, prospective RNA vaccines can be designed and produced in a matter of months. Because of the proclaimed state of emergency associated with the CV19 pandemic, the RNA vaccine route was chosen primarily as a matter of expedience.

The problem is that RNA vaccines are unproven. Previous tests going back years have flopped. Moreover, there have been safety concerns about gene therapies that stimulate spike protein creation.

Unfortunately, the Phase I, II, and III testing protocols that have defined drug development in the past were discarded in the case of the CV19 RNA vaccines. The PFE, MRNA, and JNJ versions underwent accelerated clinical trials that, while indicating a short term reduction in CV19 infections (not deaths) of between 67% (JNJ) to 95% (MRNA)--with a significant side effect profile, it should be noted--the long term reward/risk profile cannot be determined from this work. Why? Not only were control groups cancelled upon authorization of the mRNA vaccines, but the evaluations themselves largely ceased after the initial panel of results were in.

Incredibly, then, there has been no ongoing large-scale clinical trial work overseen by regulating bodies aimed at assessing long-term benefits and problems associated with these vaccines. Previous institutions governing medicine development have essentially been discarded.

Now public health agencies and governments are pushing for another round of vaccines as boosters--with no conclusive evidence as to the treatment's efficacy, much less the possible risks.

As Alex Berenson observes:

"If the FDA or other regulators had any guts, they would insist on a new, full-size clinical trial (a BETTER trial, one powered to detect reductions in death) before allowing [the boosters]."

CV19 vaccines remain experimental products being administered in the most unethical, and unscientific, ways imaginable.

position in JNJ

Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

I read the news today, oh boy
--The Beatles

Have you ever read an article that was written about a subject you know something about and found it riddled with error and misunderstanding--only to then move on to another article written about a topic you know less about and consume the information as if it must be completely accurate?

The late Michael Crichton labeled this the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.

"You read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in the story [about the topic in which you have some expertise], and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine that the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

Glad I'm not the only one to notice this.

Repeating Epic Failure

Rita Hanson: Did you ever have deja vu?
Phil Conners: Didn't you just ask me that?
--Groundhog Day

Nice WSJ essay reviewing the failed path of socialism.

Robert Owen coined the term and founded the New Harmony, Indiana commune in 1825. 40-50  similar communes were founded and failed with a median lifespan of 2 years.

Marx's 'scientific socialism' revitalized the failing concept and inspired a wave of socialist political parties across Europe. Subsequently, Marx's predictions of poorer workers and a disappearing middle class in industrialized countries did not come true, and once again socialist enthusiasm began to wane.

Lenin picked up the dimming torch to pioneer modern communism. The subsequent repression snuffed out as many as 100 million lives.

'Democratic socialists' in various countries rejected Lenin's methods but still strove toward socialist goals thru labor party movements, moving large industrial verticals under state control, and lavish government spending programs. Austerity movements followed to reverse the debt pile up.

Scandinavian social democrats learned to settle for dense social safety nets necessarily funded by free markets (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden rank highly on pro-market scales).

Socialism in Third World countries has yet to produce a winning model while some  countries (e.g., North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela) collapsed to economic lows under socialist regimes.

The author suggests that only Israel produced a socialist model that seemed to 'work' for a while. However, once the Jewish state stabilized, politicians steered the economy toward private enterprise in order to increase prosperity.

Socialism has been an epic failure--one that was imminently predictable. Socialist failure constantly repeats itself in Groundhog Day fashion under the auspices of eternal socialist hope that the next time will surely be different.

Bucking Tribal Bias

King Henry VIII: It's my bounded duty to put away the Queen. And all the popes back to Peter shall not come between me and my duty. How is it that you cannot see? Everyone else does.
Sir Thomas More: Then why does your Grace need my poor support?
King Henry VIII: Because your honest. And what's more to the purpose, you're KNOWN to be honest.
--A Man for All Seasons

On the surface, attorney, law professor, and political analyst Alan Dershowitz would seem no friend of freedom. He is an avowed Democrat who endorsed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in recent presidential elections.

Over the years, however, I have found some value in Dershowitz's viewpoints. Because he is a constitutional scholar, Dershowitz's take on related issues can be interesting. Some of his arguments, such as those involving gun control and Israel, miss the mark. Many of his civil liberty opinions, on the other hand, are grounded in a libertarian-minded reading of the Constitution.

Dershowitz is also interesting because he has demonstrated that he has not afraid to break from the pack on controversial issues. As suggested by signaling theory, a message is often seen as more credible when it conflicts with the ideologies of the sender's home 'tribe.' Because the sender is not toeing the party line as expected, receivers reason, then the information may contain more truth and less 'tribal bias.'

This is what I’ve been arguing for months. Finally someone agrees @WSJopinion https://t.co/eiDgTlbKYn

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 11, 2017

For some time now, Dershowitz has been arguing (as indicated in the Tweet above) against the legal investigations into Donald Trump's alleged Russian collusion and associated obstruction of justice charges. His basic argument is that no credible evidence of collusion has been brought forth, and that the Constitution grants presidents broad discretionary powers in staffing his agencies.

Pushback by his home tribe has been significant, as Dershowitz notes below.

.@AlanDersh: "I call it the Donald Trump Diet. I've lost 7 pounds because my liberal friends have stopped inviting me to dinner parties." pic.twitter.com/Bc8jkJhRlb

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 8, 2017

Dershowitz likely knows from experience that when you buck tribal bias, you will incur the wrath of the tribe.

Debt and GDP

In violent times
You shouldn't have to sell your soul
In black and white
They really, really ought to know
--Tears for Fears

Uncited but simple list that ranks debt as a percentage of central government GDP.

Government debt as share of GDP.

Japan: 250%
Greece: 179%
Italy: 132%
US: 106%
Spain: 99%
France: 96%
Canada: 92%
UK: 89%
India: 69%
Brazil: 69%
Germany: 68%
Pakistan: 66%
Netherlands: 62%
Israel: 62%
China: 46%
S Korea: 38%
Turkey: 28%
Russia: 17%
Saudi Arabia: 13%

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) November 15, 2017

US is number four. Federal debt now exceeds $20 trillion.

Coming Undone

Ah, it'll take a little time
Might take a little crime
To come undone
--Duran Duran

Like its progressive electorate in general, the Obama administration appears to be coming undone on the way out the door. After publicly berating Israel over its settlement policy and unilaterally claiming 1.6 million acres of western United States land as 'national monuments, the administration sanctioned Russia for allegedly interfering with the US presidential election without producing a shred of specific evidence to support those allegations.

This opened the door for Russian President Vladimir Putin to, as he has done several times during President Obama's tenure, look like the adult in the room by publicly declining to retaliate against Obama's sanctions and even inviting US citizens to partake in holiday ceremonies at the Kremlin.

The juvenile behavior has some DNC operatives distancing themselves from an administration whose 'legacy' is dwindling by the day. Some of the administration's mainstream media lackeys also seem disturbed by the folly.

'Out with the old and in with the new' seems particularly appropriate on this day.

Iran and Peace

A cloud appears above your head
A beam of light comes shining down on you
Shining down on you
--A Flock of Seagulls

Little that President Obama has done has been peaceful. Like most modern presidents, Mr Obama believes in expanding government reach. And as government grows, more aggression is applied to social systems.

Welfare and warfare states are both states of violence.

However, there have been two areas were this president's actions have actually removed offensive force from the system: Cuba and, more significantly, Iran.

Primarily, these actions have served to reduce sanctions with these two countries. Sanctions usually restrict trade. Trade between countries improves well being on both sides and reduces incentive for war. To reciprocate a classic truism: "When goods cross borders, armies won't."

There are the usual complaints that Obama's agreement with Iran is too one sided, e.g., Iran can still build nukes, the president hates Israel, these actions threaten national security, etc. None of this matters. In fact, purely unilateral actions to lift all sanctions without demanding anything in return would have been the most peaceful action to take.

Good work, Mr President. If you want to continue to build a legacy of peace rather than of aggression, then there is much more you can do.

Iran Progress

"When we're forced to go back in a couple of years, and please quote me on this, we'll be squared off against a shattered Iraq, a hopeless Afghanistan, and a nuclear Iran. How many troops are we going to need then? I guarantee you'll be adding some zeros."
--Senator Jasper Irving (Lions for Lambs)

Although I am critical of the Obama administration on most fronts, I applaud its leadership in brokering an interim deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons.

The agreement calls for Iran to curtail high level uranium enrichment and neutralize some rich uranium stockpiles in exchange for a reduction in trade sanctions. If Iran follows through on its promises, then its capacity for developing nuclear weapons will be reduced.

Predictably, hawks from the Right, and Israel, are protesting that the deal goes nowhere far enough. For example, Iran can still enrich uranium under this agreement. In addition, experience with other 'rogue' nations such as North Korea suggests that Iran could simply use this agreement as a smokescreen and proceed with its nuclear build-up.

Such arguments miss the mark. Neither the United States nor any other country or collection of countries has the right to dictate nuclear policy to another sovereign. Even if nuclear capability is directed toward weapon development, owning weapons is not an act of aggression. Weapons can be rightfully used for defensive purposes.

Many Second Amendment proponents hypocritically oppose weapon build-ups in other lands. The right to bear arms is not peculiar to the US. All have the right to build defense capacity as they see fit. The law tells us that perceiving someone else as a threat does not justify pre-emptive force to quell that threat. That other person must attack or must reasonably be perceived as on the cusp of initiating attack before counterforce is justified. If pre-emptive force is applied to neutralize a perceived threat that has not attacked, then that pre-emption is an act of aggression rather than of self-defense.

I would agree that the present deal with Iran does not go far enough--but in ways that both the hawks and this administration would not admit. A truly radical response to Iran's nuclear program would be this: totally withdraw all trade sanctions with Iran today. Encourage free, unhampered trade with Iran--and with all countries for that matter.

As such, from where I sit, the best part of the present deal is that trade sanctions have been reduced.

Perhaps Iran--and the US--and the world--can learn that the best interests of people in all countries are served when individuals engage in voluntary, peaceful exchange.

Availability Heuristic

There seemed no way to make up
Because it seemed your mind was set
And the way you looked and told me
That's a look I know I'll never forget
--Phil Collins

The availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) is a rule of thumb that people use to judge the frequency and probability of events based on the ease with which examples come to mind. Memories that are, for example, vivid, full of emotion, and/or recent are likely to be favored when estimating frequency or likelihood of occurrence.

This can lead to systemic bias and error in judgment. The classic example is the event of a catastrophe. Catastrophes, by definition, are rare events with extremely negative consequences. Natural disasters, stock market crashes, and unexpected death of loved ones exemplify catastrophe.

Following catastrophes, people are likely to overestimate how often similar events have happened in the past; people are also apt to overweight the likelihood of the recurrence of similar catastrophes in the future.

This is consummate System 1 activity.

In his book, Kahneman recounts a particular time when he was living in Israel. A string of terrorist bombings had occurred--many of them taking place on buses. Kahneman recalls feeling anxious every time his car pulled alongside a bus at traffic intersections--to the point where he was tempted to run red lights to avoid perceived danger. In reality, the actual probability of his being near a potential terrorist event was tiny.

Fear of catastrophic events drive many people to purchase insurance--often after such rare events have already occurred and when insurance premiums are steep.

In the public sphere, politicians understand the availability heuristic well. They know that people are willing to surrender much freedom in exchange for protection against the recurrence of recent tragic loss.

Because those looking to assimilate power relish crises as opportunities, people would be wise to examine their thought processes during difficult times for evidence that the availability heuristic may be selling them short.

Reference

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2): 207-232.

Assassinate and Escalate

"We fight over an offense we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended. What is Jerusalem? Your holy places lie over over the Jewish temple that the Romans pulled down. The Muslim places of worship lie over yours. Which is more holy? The wall? The mosque? The Sepulchre? Who has claim? No one has claim. All have claim!
--Balian of Ibelin (Kingdom of Heaven)

This morning Israel took out Hamas' chief of staff in a precision airstrike. Israel says that the assasination was in response to recent shelling of Israeli soil out of Gaza, which was Hamas' response to recent Israeli aggressions, etc.

Not sure how much longer this thing can escalate before the region gets really hot.

Oil, btw, is up a percent on the news.

position in oil

David's Shield

Reached out a hand to touch your face
You're slow disappearing from my view
Disappearing from my view
--A Flock of Seagulls

Russell opines that there's increasing chance that Israel attacks Iran. The Stratfor folks have been handicapping this also.

The basic thought process goes like this.

-->The US wants to appear more balanced in the region, so it has moved further away from Israel and has been largely non-interventionary in Iran's activities. (I'm not suggesting that this is a bad thing, btw)

-->Iran knows this and is exploiting a more hands off US to ramp its nuclear efforts.

-->Israel, who time and again has been verbally threatened by Iran, feels increasingly insecure and thinks it needs to take matters into their own hands.

You should be able to fill in the rest.

How would such an event impact the nascent economic recovery and financial markets? Crude's been strong (perhaps it sniffs something), and one would think a pop towards $100 would be 'easy.'

Stock markets have been stronger than a mule's breath and sentiment levels are at extremes. Hard to imagine that an Israeli strike is well priced in.

position in SPX

An Naksah

"I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."
--Dr Julia Kelly (The Peacemaker)

Toddo and Prof Zucchi ponder what Israel's deafening silence in the wake of Iran's activities means. We have a US president who is (in my view correctly) trying to stay away from military action.

In the past, Israel has demonstrated capacity for unilateral action.

Connecting the dots to form a plausible scenario around this situation is pretty straightforward.