Send this article to a friend:


Perform an Experiment for Yourself
Karl Denninger

C'mon folks, let's cut the crap.

Masks don't work because they can't work.  Even worse, those who claim they do and have done "studies" have intentionally lied to you.

I'll prove it using nothing more than what's in your house right now.

I want you to find something made out of plastic or with a finish (e.g. painted, etc) on it.  You can use your car in the garage if you'd like.  You may need to wax a small part of the vehicle or other surface, so you'll need a small amount of car wax.

Have a nice, clean surface and, if it's a painted or "worn" surface, wax it.

Put some water on it.  You will notice the water beads.  This is why you used the wax; you want the surface tension of the water to cause it to break into drops.  These are droplets, just like what you're claimed to be filtering with your mask -- except they're a lot larger.

Now just let the surface sit undisturbed and observe it every 10 or 20 minutes.

What happens?

The droplets get smaller over time as they evaporate until eventually they are all gone, right?

Where did they go?

They didn't disappear.  They went, molecule-by-molecule, into the atmosphere.

What happened to all of the dust and other "things" that were suspended in those droplets?  That didn't disappear either; nearly all of them went into the atmosphere.  A few remain on the surface but without anything to "stick" them there the slightest air current liberates them into the surrounding air.

What do you think happens when you wear a mask?  A mask is a filter; in fact, it looks a lot like the filter in your furnace, doesn't it?  Go pull the furnace filter (or the one in your car's A/C system if your vehicle if reasonably modern) and look at it.  One side where the air comes in is dirty, the other side is clean.  What do you think would happen if you put the filter back into the furnace the wrong way?  You know damn well what would happen without doing it, which I definitely do not recommend -- a large percentage of the material on the filter would be blown through the furnace and out the registers of your house.

Of course when you wear a mask you move air through it both ways.  Further, the air around you is not saturated.  And worse, the material will generally "wick" moisture in both directions including whatever that moisture carries.

In other words you transport whatever the mask collects from one place to another and physics tells us what happens next; some of the moisture evaporates and while some of whatever was embedded "sticks" not all of it does and what does not stick is liberated into the atmosphere along with the water vapor.

What is the protocol for mask use in a hospital?  They're called "procedure masks" because they're put on before a procedure and then discarded before material evaporation can take place.  Even so, they don't work.  Why not?  Because evaporation is a dynamic process and is happening all the time, not only when it's convenient for you.  Life and physics goes on all the time, not only when it's convenient to meet your particular psychosis.  This, by the way, is likely why that 1981 seminal study came up the way it did; even with trained professionals it's not possible to maintain sufficient rigor to overcome the other factors.  In other words the surgeon is less-likely to infect you if he does not wear a mask because despite the expectation it would work physics and human error are a bitch and thus even among highly-trained professionals the mask is worthless or worse, actually increases your risk.

Beyond the physics there is a further problem which is that bacteria are complete organisms and require only water and food to multiply.  A used mask is a crazy-hospitable environment for bacterial replication.  How many cases of bacterial pneumonia or other similar infections have we caused to be transmitted with mask orders?  The worst of this falls on those who are forced to work shifts with these damn things on their face and cannot, for cost and supply reasons, maintain the sort of discipline that medical workers have.

The so-called "mask studies" that have popped up since May, when the CDC admitted in a link on their own web page (which is still there, by the way) that there is no scientific evidence supporting masks in the general public have all claimed that the real world only occurs in ways and at times that are convenient for the person presenting the study.

Every one of these studies is a fraud because (1) they only "model" the short period when they do their "collection" and study and (2) they presume no re-use or no manual contact with the mask the first of which is nearly-always false in the general public and the second of which is always false among everyone since you have to put it on and take it off.  In addition virtually all of these "studies" do not do full-field collection of the airspace surrounding their model which deliberately ignores airflow jets around the unsealed portion of the mask.  This is all intentional fraud by design but is exactly what government repeatedly does; focus on and highlight 10% or 20% of a problem which, in fact, does nothing (other than make some people very rich at the expense of others) because you're deliberately ignoring the vast bulk of the issue.  Indeed you might even make the problem worse.  Destruction of the nuclear family and welfare, especially among minorities anyone?

Universal masking is a sop to bull****.  As pointed out in this Spectator article asking older and at-risk people to stay away while the younger "absorb" the virus may sound like age discrimination but is it or is simple recognition of facts?  Have we ever drafted old geezers to go fight a war or do we draft young men?  Is that age discrimination?  Yeah.  Have we repeatedly done it?  Yes.  Why?  Because young men are more physically sturdy and in addition have a higher percentage of those who are "full of cum and willing to spew it" which is a desirable trait in someone who you intend to go send out to kill the enemy.  Did I register for Selective Service unlike other high politicians who either dodged the draft or falsified their alleged registrations years later?  I sure did, and they sure did too -- cough-Trump-cough-Obama-cough-cough-cough.

How many of those who got Covid in this last very-public round were wearing masks?  Many of them.  How many were wearing masks in the German meatpacking plant and got Covid anyway?  All of those who got it there; mask-wearing was compulsory.

Why did this happen?

Because the 40 years of science we have on this says masks don't work and we understand on the basis of physics, given what we know of viral particle size, why.  They didn't work in 1918 where they threw people in prison for not wearing them; the virus did what viruses do.  The people of the time did not understand why they don't work but now we do and, unlike them, we're intentionally promoting false claims and bull**** that has zero probability of decreasing your risk of getting Covid -- in fact it may increaseyour risk, either directly by transport of the virus or by leading you to believe you're safe when in fact you are not.  Feeling safe is not actually being safe.

The virus did not close a single business or school.  The virus did not restrict a single person's travel.  The virus did not cost us a single dollar of GDP.  Jackasses drunk on power did that and we put up with it instead of loading up our trucks with wood, nails, hammers and erecting a gallows on the State and Federal lawns, telling them to cut that crap out or else.

Every one of those people from the President on down has as their highest and best use feral hog food.  Notice how few of those who seized such power have voluntarily relinquished it.  We have a Governor and Health Department (Michigan) that lost in their State Supreme Court and instead of accepting the result immediately turned around and tried to circumvent the decision.  My own Governor continued his unconstitutional orders even after one political subdivision was caught deliberately concealing the truth of where infections were traced to and that the orders they enacted were statistical zeros with their "powers" enabled by said unlawful order!

What makes you think that people of this same persuasion will accept the result of an election that they lose?  Does not the 2nd Amendment exist for exactly this reason -- to handle the regrettable circumstance where a tyrannical portion of the government decides to stick up the middle finger after the last available means of legal appeal, whether it be in a voting booth or through the courts has been exhausted and they lost, say much less when they get caught intentionally falsifying the evidence?

If that is not the entire reason for the 2nd Amendment would you please explain to me why it exists?

Do we really need to refer back to 1776 and go through that again?

Suicide and drug OD rates are through the roof.  We became monsters in prohibiting family members from spending time with their loved ones near or at the end of their lives.  A month cooped up in your house when you're 20 is a small slice of your life.  When it's your last month it's all of it.  We did this to hundreds of thousands of people and there is no way to "pay them back" since they're now dead.  Exactly all who advocated, supported and enacted such policies and enforced them are monsters.  I shall never forgive any of you.

The CDC itself has classified 80,000 of the deaths as having co-infections with flu.  Which killed them?  We don't know.  The CDC also changed the rules for this disease unlike any other in history in that it is the only disease where Covid does not have to be in the causal chain of death as proved by autopsy or obvious external or clinical evidence to be listed as a "cause."  The CDC itself lists over 6,000 deaths as "Covid" which were car accidents, suicides, poisonings and similar.  At the same time the CDC claims last year's flu season claimed only 20,000 lives.  That's at least 50% below a light, modest flu season and last year's was nothing of the sort -- H1N1 was circulating which is a truly evil flu bug - the same basic bug that caused the 1918 pandemic!  And yes, it was evil and more than sufficient to kill anyone who was medically brittle -- I contracted it myself and toughed it out.  It was bad.

These claims are intentional frauds and scaremongering.

The jobs data tells the truth and Joe Biden did too last night: The rich and powerful, including all you *******s with nice white-collar and well-paying jobs made out just fine during this event while the black woman stocking grocery store shelves got ****ed.  Biden showed the very contempt found in Fauci, Birx and all of those who supported lockdowns and mask mandates last night with his comment on exactly that; that the black woman stocking shelves took his risk for him and is why he didn't have to risk getting the bug.  What he didn't mention is that she did not take that risk voluntarily; she was forced to do so and he was and remains all in favor of imposing said force against her.  You are all perfectly happy to step on the necks of those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.  Again the data in the recently employment reports, including the one from last Friday is clear; the burden fell on the least educated and minorities while everyone else not only did well the further up you are the better you did.  Amazon's Bezos has seen his firm's stock price rise by more than 50%, along with his net worth.  He's not alone.  It must be nice if you're a school teacher who can demand that you don't have to work in your "office" and take risk, getting away with that while the high school graduate who lives next door has to go to work so you can shop at the grocery store and don't starve.

What the actual **** do you think gives you that right?


This, by the way, is why I've raised Hell locally about mask and other mandates.  I have no right to demand someone else take my risk and neither do you.  If you are scared wear a respirator whenever you think it's appropriate; I don't care.  But as soon as you try to make someone else bear your risk that demand should be met with a cough full of Covid straight up your nose.

I'm perfectly happy to walk into a store with no mask.  I am not afraid of you.  If you're afraid of me then wear something effective, not a useless diaper.  I will not and have not expected you to take my risk for me.  You decide, as an adult, what level of risk is acceptable for you.

My determination is that there is no particularized and excess risk involved in this bug above and beyond that which I accept every single day being an adult human engaging in various social events, and if I'm wrong the risk and consequence is mine.

Speaking of that risk we know that there are effective things one can do both from a perspective of prophylaxis and treatment.  All viruses follow the same rules; they have a replication time in the body of somewhere between 8 and 72 hours depending on the specific virus and a "per-turn replication exponent" of somewhere between a few thousand and somewhat over 100,000 copies per infected cell.  Most, but not all, destroy the infected cell when they finish their replication (they "lyse" the cell, bursting it and releasing the copies.)

There are exactly zero exponential sequences that can go on forever.  Yet politicians of all sorts never mind banking and monetary "experts" continually assert otherwise.  That's a lie.  Trees do not grow to the moon.  Population cannot continually expand on a rock of fixed size, mass and resource.  Debt cannot continually expand without boundary.  If a virus was able to continually replicate it would not be long before all you were was virus!  Further, the exponent is so large that this would happen very rapidly.  There are 37 trillion cells in a human being (or ~3.7x10^13), roughly, which sounds huge but with an exponent of 1,000, the lower band, if you started with one viral particle and an 8 hour replication time in just five replications, or less than three days, you'd have more virus than cells!

In other words every single virus would kill you in hours to a few days, but obviously they do not.

Why not?

The reason is that your immune system recognizes the virus as a dangerous thing and starts producing countermeasures, which attack the virus and infected cells.  Quite rapidly the body's response suppresses the flood of invaders, and blunts what would otherwise kill you every single time.  What's left is the cleanup and the damage that has to be repaired from the infection.  In nearly every case if you die from a viral infection it is that collateral damage that kills you, not the virus.

Simply on the math of the matter it is clear that anything you can do to repress the efficiency of that viral replication can only work for a few hours to a couple of days after you recognize you're infected, after which any effective therapy is only going to deal with mitigating the damage that was done.  Further, any repression of that replication during that short period of time is a period of time during which your immune system is allowed to build its response and thus has a MASSIVE impact on the amount of collateral damage that occurs.

Anyone who has even a high school understanding of mathematics -- that is, Algebra, understands this once it is explained to them.  Every single so-called PhD in whatever related field when it comes to infectious disease all the way to anyone we call "Doctor" (as in medical doctor) has to be presumed to have passed Algebra.  There is no possible claim one can make that they are ignorant of any of this.

Yet our entire paradigm for this outbreak has been predicated on a "testing" system that by its nature, being processed in a lab, delays the results long enough that at least one full exponential period and perhaps two or more have already passed before you get the results back and we are telling people to deliberately sit at home and do nothing to repress viral replication during that time.

We are spending tens of millions of dollars a day for tests that even if they were diagnostic (they're not) are knowingly and intentionally worthless because the results do not come back until there is nothing you can do to interrupt the disease.  This is not an accident; the FDA controls what tests to authorize. They did this on purpose.

Does HCQ (and/or Ivermectin) along with zinc and either doxycycline or Zpak work?  Maybe.  But remember -- you have a few hours to do something if you get this bug before it does not matter what you do in terms of actually suppressing the bug.  Even a modest suppression of replication has huge results because of this fact; it is simply the size of the exponent.  Likewise, boosting your immune system prior to being infected so it responds more-robustly works on the other side of the equation.

What do we know about attempting to interdict Covid19 early?  We know it works.  Not for everyone, to be sure, but we know that it makes a difference.  Listen to this once again:

1,700 Covid19 patients, one hospitalization for four days, zero deaths.  All of this with early intervention.  We have had Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the NIH and state pharmacy and medical boards deliberately interfere with physicians attempting early intervention in the disease process despite the mathematical fact that if you're going to have an impact on the course of disease you have to intervene early or not at all.  In other words all of those people are engaged in intentional homicide and every one of them knows damn well that $19,000 being paid to a hospital for a "Covid patient", which CMS (the Federal Government) does is a hell of a lot more profitable than $20 worth of cheap off-patent drugs taken early -- which may or may not work but have a safety profile superior to that of aspirin.

This is not the only example.  There's a doctor in NY who did this very early on with his patients and had similar results.  People trashed him immediately as a "quack" because Trump said he liked HCQ but the results speak for themselves.  Do remember that Fauci himself said that HCQ was both a cure and a preventative for SARS.  What is Covid19?  Formally, SARS-Cov-2.  It's extremely similar to the original SARS virus -- but a hell of a lot less lethal (by a factor of 100 or more.)

I have been personally undertaking prophylaxis since April.  Has it worked?  I haven't gotten the bug but that's not proof, of course; anecdotes are not data, whether singularly or in plural.  I might be T-cell reactive and thus partially or entirely immune.  I have no way to find out.  But I do have antibody tests and have taken a few over the last six months, with all coming up negative.  So either I haven't gotten it, I never built an antibody response and had an asymptomatic case or I'm T-cell reactive and can't get it.  Whichever it is doesn't matter to me; what matters is that I haven't gotten sick.  Whether that's because I consumed a small dollar amount of non-prescription things I can buy for very little cost, along with being physically active and thus boosting my immune system in that regard as well doesn't make any difference when you get down to it.  If I was to get Covid and had an asymptomatic case that doesn't matter either.

All that matters is if you are physically debilitated to some degree or worse; the very premise of disease requires some sort of disorder in your body.  If there is no disorder you were not diseased.  You encounter viruses and have them replicate in your body every single day but most of them do not cause a disorder.  So what?  There are trillions of bacteria that live in and multiply in your body every single day.  You crap out a trillion or so of them daily in your scat.  So what?  Until and unless one of them causes a disorder you are not diseased.

Finally, let's talk vaccines.  Everyone is clamoring over a recent report that the AP is running about vaccine testing.  Folks, short-term testing, which is what you get in a month or two, only covers direct, acute problems with the vaccine.  It does not, because it can't, cover the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement or cross-virus interference.  Both are well-known, very real and can kill you very dead.  We allowed this "accelerated timeline" to be run in the Philippines with a Dengue Fever vaccine and it made a number of kids very sick including killing some of them through this exact mechanism.  Until a sufficient percentage of the people who get a test vaccine are exposed to those agents and nobody knows which viruses or bacteria may present that risk there is no way to know if that problem exists.  Beyond the fact that a challenge study (where you deliberately try to infect someone) is wildly unethical in humans and thus can only be done in animals you don't know what to challenge with.  This is the reason it typically takes 5-10 years to approve a vaccine -- you have to follow the people to whom you gave the test shots for a long period of time and see whether or not there are any statistical anomalies in other bugs they get and make them actually sick over that period of time.  There is no way to short-circuit this time requirement.  You can stop taking a drug that has a bad reaction but when it comes to an injection you're stuck with the consequences for the rest of your life.  If these problems do exist in the vaccines we are unlikely to know with any sort of statistical certainty for years and if that happens everyone who took them is stuck with the risk forever.

Now if you're at very high risk for Covid19 then perhaps it makes sense to take the vaccine.  If there's a 1% chance the shot has a bad reaction with some other virus that, if you contract it, will kill you but a 10% chance that getting Covid19 will kill you, and the shot will protect you from Covid19, then the math might work out for you.  But what if the odds of dying are 2%, there is a 1% risk of a bad reaction from some other virus and the shot is only 50% effective?  Now the odds might appear to be even but they're not, since the vaccine risk is a certainty once you take it but you might not get Covid at all.

What makes it worse is that with early treatment of all infections we can reduce the hospitalization and mortality rate.  We know this.  Multiple doctors and medical centers have proved it with varying degrees of success.  Once you can do that is the vaccine worth it at all, even if you would otherwise be at high risk?  That's a tougher call.

This is why I don't take the flu vaccine.  Being that I am not medically brittle the odds of the flu sending me to the hospital or killing me approximate zero.  The vaccine is more likely to harm me on a cumulative, annual basis than the flu is when controlled for the odds that the vaccine would actually be protective in any given year.  Therefore I decline, but that's based on my personal medical status.  Everyone's level of brittleness when it comes their health is individual; for some people the flu shot quite-clearly makes sense.  It has a decades-long and quite-well understood risk profile against which to compare.  So do most other vaccines and for most (e.g. polio) the odds ratio is clearly in favor of vaccination.  That is definitely not true for this virus.

In short this is an individual decision -- and it's your ass, so you are the one who gets to make that decision without exception.  If you're wrong, or the drug company is wrong, they don't die -- you do.  Likewise if you choose "no" the risk and outcome is yours, not theirs.  All who attempt to coerce such a decision must be treated as attempting to commit homicide and dealt with appropriately.

These are not simple questions on an individual basis but we have done critical damage to the economy based on bull****.  We have dehumanized the entire population of the nation with mask mandates over claims that are physically impossible and have been known to be lies for 40+ years.  We have put the burden of those policies on those who stock the grocery shelves instead of on each of us making an individual decision about our own personal risk and reward of engaging in a particular activity -- or not, as the case may be.  We have deprived hundreds of thousands of elderly persons of the care and comfort of their loved ones in the last days, weeks and months of their lives, a monstrous act never before undertaken in a free society.  We have thrown millions of people out of work and exposed others to disease, using them as human shields, with nearly all of that burden falling on those with the least educational and life experience, while those who are better-educated and employed in "government protected" jobs of various sorts, including teaching, either suffered no harm or actually profited both personally and financially from the lockdowns and mandates.  And we have refused to follow the science when it comes to very inexpensive and trivially available interventions both personally and on a medical basis should one get infected, many of which have shown at least some degree of efficacy.

This is unsupportable, it is unconstitutional and 250 years ago the same sort of bull**** -- that it was "too dangerous" for the mere ordinary colonists to possess powder and ball (while for the "gentry" it was all ok) -- got a bunch of British shot and ultimately ejected from what is now America.  Why is it that 250 years later we cannot find a single pair of testicles among 330 million Americans?

Physics and math are not The 10 Suggestions.



Mr. Denninger, recent author of the book Leverage: How Cheap Money Will Destroy the World, is the former CEO of MCSNet, a regional Chicago area networking and Internet company that operated from 1987 to 1998. MCSNet was proud to offer several "firsts" in the Internet Service space, including integral customer-specified spam filtering for all customers and the first virtual web server available to the general public. Mr. Denninger's other accomplishments include the design and construction of regional and national IP-based networks and development of electronic conferencing software reaching back to the 1980s.

He has been a full-time trader since 1998, author of The Market Ticker, a daily market commentary, and operator of TickerForum, an online trading community, both since 2007.

Mr. Denninger received the 2008 Reed Irvine Accuracy In Media Award for Grassroots Journalism for his coverage of the 2008 market meltdown.

Send this article to a friend: