All Cause Mortality in 2020 in Line with 2017, 2018, 2019

All cause mortality in the USA is not up.

CDC reports 2,452,180 all cause deaths as of November 12. Assuming that the death rate remains stable, this implies (2,452,180/45*52=) 2.83 million deaths for 2020.

Here are the death counts from previous years:

2017: 2,813,503

2018: 2,839,205

So it appears that 2.8 million people die in the USA every year and that nothing has changed this year. Count is provisional, but bear in mind that as we approach the end of year (7 weeks away now), the pictures becomes clearer and clearer.

COVID 19 is a false pandemic.

The Cost of 3 months of Lockdown vs. the Cost of a Century of Pandemics

modeling pandemic

This article represents the global economic impact of pandemics as about 6 trillion in losses over the course of the 21st century. But it is evidently a study of economic losses caused by the pandemics themselves, not lockdowns.

The global economic losses because of the pandemic LOCKDOWN is probably already 6 trillion.
First published on Facebook, April 28, 2020
We can see that our model estimates an average loss to the global economy of more than $60 billion per year—or more than $6 trillion per century. Again, an important feature of the distribution of expected economic losses is that they exhibit a long right tail; that is to say, there is a nontrivial chance of seeing much more extreme losses. For example, the model predicts a 10 percent chance that average losses this century will be more than $120 billion per year. Indeed, it is because our model accommodates for the possibility of these rarer but more extreme outcomes that our estimate of average losses is higher than the $30 billion calculated by the World Bank.
No model can perfectly predict the economic losses that will arise from future pandemics, and all models have their limitations.

Cholesterol’s designer may be smarter than most doctors

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
Marvellous are thy works;
And that my soul knoweth right well.

Psalm 139:14 (KJV)

Cholesterol is good for you. It is in the lining of your cell walls. About 25% of your body’s cholesterol is in the brain. The body produces stress hormones, sex hormones, and vitamin D from cholesterol. Cholesterol is necessary to repair the body and when a person is stressed or injured, the liver produces more cholesterol. But medical doctors have set arbitrary limits of how much of this good stuff you should have, and therefore to lower your cholesterol, they will prescribe a drug with many known side effects including muscle damage, kidney failure, peripheral neuropathy and memory loss. Statins are derived from the poison husk of red rice which kills its predators. Interestingly, statin poisons lower cholesterol, and perhaps that is the point: if you lower cholesterol, your mortality rate goes up.

Doctors have decided that this cholesterol which our livers produce and release into the blood stream is bad for us. Yet the mechanism which the liver “decides” to release cholesterol may be a necessary part of the normal function and often of healing the body. Who do you think is smarter? Your doctor or your liver?

Actually it isn’t a question of whether the liver is smarter but of the designer of the liver being smarter. If the one who designed your liver knew what he was doing, then perhaps we should not second guess this mechanism governing cholesterol production and thus allow a mere human being to determine what our serum cholesterol levels should be. For the designer of the liver may actually be smarter than the doctors who are trying to fix arbitrary limits on the liver’s production of cholesterol.

The final concern has to do with money. The designer owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 5.10). He is wealthy beyond our imagination. The pharmaceutical companies require continual sales of statins to pay their employees (not least of all their CEOs gargatuan 7 figure salaries), their shareholders, and their promotion efforts, including the transfers to doctors on panels which decide what cholesterol levels should be. In investing, we call this a conflict of interest. The designer has no conflict of interest, because he has no need of our money.

QE Carney: Loonie monetary policy

Mark Carney Leaves Canada With ‘Stealth QE’ Rising At Fastest Pace Since 2009

Carney has much practice devaluing the Canadian loonie.  He is perfectly suited as the new head of the Bank of England.  From Zerohedge:

As Mark Carney steps aside from his role at the Bank of Canada to undertake all manner of easy money in the UK, we thought a reflection on the ‘stealth’ QE that he has been engaged with, very much under the radar, in the US’ neighbor-to-the-north was worthwhile. It seems quietly and with little aplomb, Carney’s BoC has grown its balance sheet by over 21% YoY – the most since 2009. If that was not enough to make someone nervous, the quantity of Canadian government bonds on the BoC’s balance sheet has grown at a remarkable 46% YoY! All of this has taken place during a time when ‘supposedly’ the Canadian economy has been reasonably strong and foreign demand for debt high. With Canada’s CAD267bn debt due in 2013, we suspect this ‘stealth’ QE will continue to rise.

Where is this easing reported in the Canadian news media?  Inflation in Canada is rampant–that can be seen in the price of housing alone.  But who is covering the monetary expansion of the loonie?  So now we Canadians who have Canadian dollars suffer the abuse of both ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and QE.

It’s all monopoly money.

Price setting mechanism for gold and silver is broken

The law of supply and demand should dictate that when a physical commodity is scarce and there is unsatisfied demand, that the price of that commodity will increase. Yet in the last few weeks, the world market price for the scarce commodities of gold and silver, which are still at least a week away from physical delivery in our local Canadian PMX,  has shrunk.  How is this lower price helping to assure that buyers and sellers are able to make transactions?  Lower supply of the physical item should result in a higher price, and instead, we see the price go down. Clearly, the price setting mechanism is broken, for if there is supply but no demand, the price goes down.  In this case, we have great demand but no supply.  So the price should go up.  The fact that the price has gone down is proof that the gold and silver markets are manipulated and not free.