[Graphic via Art Berman’s Blog]
Biomedical. Dr Tom Cowan interviews Dr Daniel Roytas, author of the new book “Can You Catch a Cold?,” which i’m reading. They discussed diseases allegedly caused by infectious parasites.
Webinar with Daniel Roytas on Parasites 9/11/24, Tricia Consaga, 9/11/24. Embedded video, an hour long.
My comments. Dr Cowan starts by relating how his mom was born on a 9/11, his father on 12/7. Pearl Harbor Day, and they got married on 11/22, the date of the JFK assassination (though not on the day). Interesting coincidences.
Dr Roytas did a presentation of nearly an hour. He discussed the two types of parasites, microscopic ones (protozoa) and visible ones, e.g. tapeworms. They are blamed for diseases such as malaria and girardia. Protozoa are very hard to distinguish from other entities, including the substances assed to extracted bodily fluids to identity them and the effects of such additives on blood cells. They have never been demonstrated to actually be causative pathogens. Likewise with the visible class. Entities like those, such as tapeworms, are in fact used as treatments for exposure to toxins such as heavy metals, as they consume the toxins and digest them, rendering the whole package something which the body can expel with ease. Identifying them as causal is like identifying firefighters as the cause of fires. I HIGHLY recommend this presentation.
And, this is one which fell through the cracks back in May 2023, Mike Stone has now re-posted it, in his archive page, ViroLIEgy, It’s about healthy people who are deemed to be sick on the basis of some tests with a poor foundation in science. Segments.
The Healthy Sick, Mike Stone, 9/12/24.
Fear the walking healthy.
“In areas where there are limited number of new cases, State or local public health officials may request to test a small number of asymptomatic ‘healthy people,’ particularly from vulnerable populations” -CDC Revised Guidelines August 2020 [Link]
In the not so distant past, when we walked around feeling healthy without any symptoms of disease, most of us would consider that we were, in fact, free of any disease. There would be no thoughts about going to the doctor for a PCR test in order to determine whether or not we were unknowingly a walking talking “virus” spewing host harboring billions of “infectious” particles capable of transmitting disease to our loved ones. We would not subject ourselves to quarantines and daily testing due to the remote possibility of being around someone who tested positive with symptoms, let alone for anyone testing positive without any signs of disease. We did not go around covering our faces with masks out of fear that those around us may be silent spreaders. We didn’t bust out our rulers in order to measure 6 feet of distance between us and another living soul. None of these irrational actions were ever even a glimmer of a thought until the well-orchestrated fear propaganda campaign promoted the pseudoscientific concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease and catapulted it into the public consciousness.
Even though this idea has been effectively weaponized against us over the last few years, it is not a new one. In fact, as will be shown later, the notion of the asymptomatic carrier began at the same time that the germ “theory” was born. The idea is that one can be silently harboring and able to transmit a pathogen without displaying any symptoms of disease whatsoever. This has resulted in the highly illogical creation of asymptomatic disease:
What Does it Mean to Have an Asymptomatic Disease? “Asymptomatic disease is where a person is infected with a disease (or develops a disease; diagnosed) but fails to display any noticeable symptoms.” Asymptomatic until symptomatic – silent diseases
“Many diseases and infections can be asymptomatic, including those that may be potentially fatal in some people. These include (but are not limited to): tuberculosis, breast cancer, endometriosis, HIV/AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, chlamydia, hypertension, common colds/flu, and type-2 diabetes mellitus. Many of these conditions remain largely asymptomatic until very advanced disease stages when they suddenly become symptomatic. Others can remain more or less asymptomatic throughout their disease course."
“Infectious diseases can also be completely asymptomatic (with no symptoms ever manifesting), particularly in younger and healthier individuals. For example, hepatitis (hepatitis C) infections can take up to 6 months to develop, and even then, approximately 80% of infected individuals may not experience any symptoms. Other examples include cholera, herpes, measles, and rubella which can be completely asymptomatic….“In summary, asymptomatic disease refers to diseases and infections which do not lead to any symptoms in patients (subclinical) for the whole disease course or until they develop symptoms in which the asymptomatic phase is referred to as pre-symptomatic….In many respiratory infections including COVID-19, asymptomatic disease is common and may be a source of transmission within the community, though more research is needed to establish the exact contribution asymptomatic transmission has on the community rates of infection.”[Link]
As can be seen, many so-called “infectious diseases” are said to be asymptomatic. If one is labeled as asymptomatic, one never develops the disease at any point in time even though they are diagnosed with asymptomatic disease. This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness. One can not have disease if one is not displaying signs of disease:
Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labeled with disease minus signs of any disease and are then told that they can “infect” others. They are treated as sick individuals based upon results generated using fraudulent tests. In the past, most would have scoffed at this idea and never willingly subjected themselves to quarantines and further testing. In fact, they would have never tested to begin with. However, in the face of a “pandemic” with a “novel virus,” many lined up for the mass testing agenda in order to ensure that they were amongst the “uninfected.” This willingness to subject to testing despite a clear lack of symptoms was primarily driven by fear. This old concept was thrust onto a frigthened population and then ramped up in a way that had never been done so before.
In order to understand why there was never any reason to ever participate in this irrational belief of such a ridiculous concept, let’s examine how the asymptomatic carrier first came about at the dawn of germ theory. We will then examine how this idea was weaponized against the public during the “pandemic” despite a complete lack of any scientific evidence in support of the asymptomatic disease carrier.
When German bacteriologist Robert Koch was looking for the causative agents of certain diseases in the late 1800s, he formulated a series of four logical requirements that needed to be met in order for anyone to claim that a certain microbe caused a specific disease. These were as follows:
• The microorganism must be found in abundance in all hosts suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy hosts.
• The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased host and grown in pure culture.
• The cultured microorganism should cause the same symptoms of disease when introduced into a healthy host.
• The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and shown to be identical to the original causative agent.
While these logic-based postulates were accepted by and large within the scientific community, Koch quickly discovered a problem with his very first criterion. Whether it was tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria, or cholera, the microbe that he was claiming as causative agents were regularly found in healthy individuals. Thus, Koch was unable to satisfy his very own first Postulate. However, rather than realize that his criteria had worked as he had envisioned and had actually ruled out bacteria and other microbes as a causative agent of disease, Koch allowed for himself and others to bend not only his first postulate, but the others as well. Allowing for bacteria and other microbes claimed as causative agents of disease to be found in those without disease lead to the creation of the illogical concept that became known as the asymptomatic carrier of disease. Koch’s entire claim to fame rested entirely on the perception that he was a microbe-hunter. Bending his own rules saved Koch from giving up his prestige, kept his findings intact, and helped to establish the germ “theory” on unfalsifiable pseudoscientific grounds.[Discussion of the case of Mary Mallon, “Typhoid Mary.” ]……
After the highly publicized Typhoid Mary case, this idea of asymptomatic carriers simmered in the background over the next century. While there were claims of such a state in certain diseases, this has never been scientifically proven. However, that did not stop Koch’s escape clause from taking a prominent role in the “Covid crisis,” primarily due to a mass testing campaign that was bound to identify positive cases in healthy people using fraudulent tests never calibrated and validated to purified and isolated “virus.” Although all PCR results are false-positives, we can see that even the CDC noted that testing people without symptoms generates false-positive cases. They stated as much under their PCR guidelines for pertussis when recommending not to test those without symptoms:
Diagnosis PCR Best Practices: “However, only patients with signs and symptoms consistent with pertussis should be tested by PCR to confirm the diagnosis. Testing asymptomatic persons should be avoided as it increases the likelihood of obtaining falsely-positive results. Asymptomatic close contacts of confirmed cases should not be tested and testing of contacts should not be used for post-exposure prophylaxis decisions.”[Link]
Thus, we can see that the CDC were well aware that testing people without symptoms will lead to an influx of cases labelled as asymptomatic “infections” when they are, in fact, not “infected” or diseased at all. This massive amount of asymptomatic cases of “SARS-COV-2” based upon fraudulent test results has cemented the illogical concept of the asymptomatic carrier into the minds of the populace. A timely December 2020 review, while reiterating the history of the asymptomatic carrier described above, pointed out the fact that even though asymptomatic “infection” and transmission has always been a concept waiting it the wings, it has only recently been thrust into the limelight with this “pandemic:”[SNIP]…..
And, Jon Rappoport calls out RFK Jr for his silence on certain matters of alleged mental disorders.
Jon Rappoport, 9/13/24.
Another horror story for your attention, Bob. Make sure your Trump-Kennedy Commission is on the right side of it. But as I write that, I don’t have faith in you.
There are 73 million children under the age of 18 in America. About 7.7 million have been diagnosed with at least one mental disorder! Of those, about half have received treatment—and the “experts” lament the fact that the other half have gone untreated.
I hope you know, Bob, and have the guts to say…there are NO defining physical tests for diagnosing ANY mental disorder. No blood test, no brain scan, no genetic assay. It’s all psychiatric and pharmaceutical MARKETING. Committees of psychiatrists cluster various behaviors and attitudes together, and arbitrarily assign mental disorder labels to them. It’s bullshit.
But I don’t think you will say this.
The psychiatric drugs, as you know, are devastating. The whole country is turning into a psychiatric clinic. Bob, the way I read you, I think you’ve fallen for this mental disorder hustle. I think you accept the psychiatric labels. I think your liberal political side has accepted the standard version of the “mental health crisis.” Prove me wrong. Show me you aren’t lamenting the fact that “so many kids aren’t receiving treatment.”
I have my doubts about you, Bob, because you never did what you promised to do: research the drugs and hormones and puberty blockers given to the children who “transition.” Remember that, Bob? You said kids shouldn’t change their sex without parental OK. That statement was shocking as hell. It sounded a lot like, “With parental OK, sex change for kids is all right.” Then you said you hadn’t really looked into the effects of the drugs and hormones and puberty blockers. I found that ridiculous. Your main concern is defending children’s health. And now, I still hear nothing from you about transgender kids.
Once again, it looks like you’re being a politician. You’re pulling your punches. You’re an environmentalist. Well, some of the worst environmental attacks come from the chemicals called psychiatric drugs. And the drugs are justified by the diagnosis of mental disorders, which in turn are based on nothing but marketing and sales.
Another crossroad for you, Bob. Another chance to speak the whole truth or bite your tongue and stay silent. What’s it going to be?
4IR. A big shift coming in terms of the availability of oil, an ingredient necessary for the functioning of industrial society, including for all the other alleged “alternative” methods of producing energy.
The Looming Shift: Oil Markets Signal a Structural Phase-Change, Art Berman, 9/9/24.
We are witnessing a fundamental shift in oil markets, a structural phase-change.
Oil prices hit their lowest point last week since June 2022, when the market was gripped by fears of a global recession (Figure 1). On September 6, WTI crude price dropped more than $3 below its lower Bollinger band (yellow shading), indicating a potential oversold condition. This suggests that prices could see a short-term rebound driven by technical factors and they are somewhat higher this morning September 9.
However, this doesn’t alter the broader challenges facing the oil market, where fundamental forces continue to exert downward pressure. Figure 1. WTI oil price reached the lowest level since June 2022 on September 6. Source: CME & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. Analysts have explained everything in recent months with narratives of a faltering Chinese economy, more crude flowing from non-OPEC producers, central bank interest rates, and the laughable claim that renewable energy is already curbing oil demand.
They miss the underlying issues that actually drive market movements. It’s about the affordability of things—not just oil–and it’s rooted in a chronic misunderstanding of how energy systems really work. All this chatter about production cuts and demand forecasts is just a sideshow to the main event. Oil prices have been supported positively by geopolitics and negatively by economics for at least the last 50 years.
More concerning than oil price is the change in the shape of futures contract forward curves. Figure 2 shows that the Brent futures curve moved from steep backwardation on August 30 (dashed black curve) to what looks like a transition to contango last Friday, September 6 (red curve). Figure 2. Steep Brent backwardation last week possibly transitioning to contango.Brent 12-month spread dropped -$3.90 (-77%) and 6-month spread fell -$2.80 (-76%). Front-month price decreased -$7.74 from $78.80 to $71.06. Source: CME & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
When a market is in backwardation, oil contract prices decrease as the delivery date moves further into the future. This reflects tight supply conditions, where buyers are willing to pay a premium for immediate access to oil. Conversely, when markets are in contango, future prices are higher than current prices, reflecting an oversupply. In this scenario, buyers are only willing to take near-term deliveries at a discount. Producers anticipate that oil will be cheaper to store and deliver later on when prices may be higher.
Both Brent and WTI have been in backwardation since mid-December 2020, indicating persistent short-term supply constraints and strong current demand. That is the conventional lens through which many analysts continue to operate.
Forward curves last shifted from backwardation to contango in February 2020 as the COVID recession began (Figure 3). The initial change took place in just a few weeks. Figure 3. Is this what’s about to happen with oil forward curves? Progression of Brent term structure from backwardation to contango January – March 2020. Source: CME & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
Is this what happening with oil forward curves? It’s too early to say but it’s a strong possibility. The oil trading group Trafigura said that Brent crude is probably heading into the $60s soon. Gunvor, another giant oil trader, commented, “There is absolutely no demand growth at all in the world on…gasoline. You need a lower oil price than you see today,…and that’s probably below $70.” - Torbjörn Törnqvist, Gunvor CEO
More bullish analysts believe that what is happening now reflects negative market sentiment, and that fundamental factors indicate that the drop in oil prices is overdone. “In oil the fundamental physical picture is still intact, inventories are drawing. The financial market, however, is where the bearishness is and it’s trading the forward outlook, not today.” - Jeff Currie, Chief Strategy Officer at Carlyle Group’s Energy Pathways
A similar view was expressed this morning. “The reality is if you look at the price of oil based on supply and demand, we are undervalued obviously because of the technical mood. We cannot rule out further weakness but the disconnect between the prices and the supply side cannot be ignored.” - Phil Flynn
Most analysts cling to a familiar narrative, assuming the patterns of the recent past will persist. But they fail to see the deeper structural forces at work, ignoring the fundamental shifts that are reshaping the future of energy markets. The status quo is their safety net, and they’re blind to how quickly it’s unraveling.
Markets aren’t always right, especially when it comes to anything beyond short-term profits. Yet, in moments like this, I ask myself, what do markets see that we might be missing? Right now, oil markets are signaling a shift—a shift that echoes the dynamics we saw in late 2014 and early 2020. It’s not just about prices; it’s about deeper, structural changes that the market, in its own way, is picking up on. A storm is building.
Energy, debt, geopolitics, complexity, psychology, and ecology are the real issues shaping our world. Yet, analysts remain stuck in familiar narratives. The truth is much messier, and far more serious, than these simplistic headlines. The global economic machinery, supported by cheap energy and debt, is fracturing, but analyst focus remains on symptoms, not the underlying structural collapse.
And, more on this topic, by Gail Tverberg.
Crude oil extraction may be well past peak, Gail Tverberg, 9/11/24. Segments.
World crude oil extraction reached an all-time high of 84.6 million barrels per day in late 2018, and production hasn’t been able to regain that level since then.
Oil prices have bounced up and down over the ten-year period 2014 to 2024 (Figure2).
In this post, I show that changing oil prices have had varying impacts on production. Recently, lower prices seem to be associated with lower production because extraction has become less profitable for producers. A temporary spike in oil prices does little to raise production. The view of economists that crude oil extraction can continue to rise indefinitely because lower production leads to higher prices, which in turn leads to greater production, is not true. (Economists also believe that substitutes can be helpful, but this is not a subject I will try to cover in this post.)
[1] World crude oil production has not regained its level prior to the Covid restrictions.
According to EIA data in Figure 1, the highest single month of crude oil production was November 2018, at 84.6 million barrels per day (mb/d). The highest single year of crude oil production was 2018, when world crude oil production averaged 82.9 mb/d. The last 24 months of oil production have averaged only 81.7 mb/d of production. Compared to the year with the highest average production, world oil production is down by 1.2 mb/d.
Furthermore, in Figure 1, there is nothing about the world production path in the last 24 months that gives the impression that oil production will be surging upward anytime soon. It merely increases and decreases slightly.
World population continues to grow. If economists are to be believed, oil prices should be shooting upward in response to rising demand. However, oil prices have not generally been increasing. In fact, as of this writing, the Brent crude oil price stands at $69, which is lower than the recent average monthly price shown in Figure 2. There is concern that the US economy is going into recession, and that this recession will cause oil prices to fall further.
[2] OPEC oil production seems as likely as other source of production to be influenced by price, since OPEC sells oil for export and can theoretically cut back easily. ….
[3] An analysis of OPEC’s production relative to price indicates that patterns change over time…..
[4] US oil production since January 2014 has followed an up and down pattern, to a significant extent in response to price.
Figure 7. Monthly crude oil production for the US based on international data of the US EIA. Figure 7 shows three distinct humps, with the first peak in April 2015, the second peak in November 2019, and the third peak in December 2023.
In the first “hump,” there was an oversupply of oil when the US was trying to ramp up its domestic oil supply of oil (through tight oil from shale) at the same time that OPEC also increasing production. The thing that strikes me is that it was OPEC’s oil supply in Iraq that was ramping up and increasing OPEC’s oil supply. Figure 8. Split between Iraq crude oil production and the rest of OPEC’s crude oil production, using the 2024 definition of the countries in OPEC, based on data of the US EIA.
The rest of OPEC had no intention of cutting back if the US was arrogant enough to assume that it could raise production of both US shale and of Iraq with no adverse consequences.
Looking at the detail underlying the first US hump, oil production rose between January 2014 and April 2015 when production was “stopped” by low prices, averaging $54 per barrel in January through March 2015. The US reduced production, particularly of shale, since that was easy to cut back, hitting a low point in September 2016. The combination of growing oil supplies from both the US and OPEC led to average oil prices of only $46 per barrel during the three months preceding September 2016.
Eventually OPEC oil production peaked in November 2016 (Figure 3), leaving more “space” available for US oil production. Also, oil prices were able to rise, reaching a peak of $81 per barrel in October 2018. World crude oil production hit a peak in November 2018 (Figure 1). But even these higher prices were too low for OPEC producers. They announced they were cutting back production, effective January 2019, to try to further raise prices.
During the second hump, US oil production rose to 12.9 mb/d in November 2019. The oil price for the three months preceding November 2019 was only $61 per barrel. Evidently, this was not sufficient to maintain oil production at the same level. The number of “drilled but uncompleted wells” began to rise rapidly…..
[5] The rise in US oil production since May 2020 has been a bumpy one. The peak in US oil production in December 2023 may be its final peak.
The rise in oil production since May 2020 has included the completion of many previously drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells. There has been a trend toward fewer wells, but “longer laterals,” so the earlier wells drilled were probably not of the type most desired more recently. But these previously drilled wells had some advantages. In particular, the cost of drilling them had already been “expensed,” so that, if this earlier cost were ignored, these wells would provide a better return to shareholders. If production was becoming more difficult, and shareholders wanted a better return on their (most recent) investment, perhaps using these earlier drilled wells would work.
There remain several issues, however. Currently, the number of DUCs is down to its 2014 level. The benefit of already expensed DUCs seems to have disappeared, since the number of DUSs is no longer falling. Also, even with the addition of oil from the DUCs, the annual rise in US oil production has been smaller in this current hump (0.8 mb/d) than in the previous hump (1.4 mb/d).
Furthermore, there are numerous articles claiming that the best shale areas are depleting, or are providing production profiles which focus more on natural gas and natural gas liquids. Such production profiles tend to be much less profitable for producers. I think it is quite possible that US crude oil production will start a gradual downward decline in the coming year. It is even possible that the December 2023 monthly peak will never be surpassed.
[6] Oil prices are to a significant extent determined by debt levels and interest rates, rather than what we think of as simple “supply and demand.”….
[7] The current debt bubble is becoming overstretched.
Today’s debt bubble is driving up stock prices as well as commodity prices. We can see various pressures around the world associated with this debt bubble. For example, in China many homes have been built in recent years primarily for investment purposes, rather than residential use. This property investment bubble is now collapsing, bringing down property prices and causing banks to fail.
As another example, Japan is known for its “carry trade,” which is made possible by the combination of its low interest rates and higher rates in other countries. The Japanese government has a very high debt level; it cannot withstand more than a very low interest rate. There is significant concern that this carry trade will unwind, an issue that has already been worrying world markets.
A third example relates to the US, and its role of holder of the US dollar as reserve currency, which means that the US dollar is used heavily in international trade. Historically, the holder of the reserve currency has changed about every 100 years, in part because the high demand for the reserve currency allows the government holding the reserve currency to borrow at lower interest rates than other countries. With these lower interest rates, and the need to pull the world economy along, there is a tendency to “spur asset bubbles.” But an asset bubble is likely to have a debt bubble propping it up.
My previous post raised the issue of the economy today being exposed to a debt bubble. There has been excessive borrowing in many sectors of the economy that have been doing poorly. Commercial real estate is an example, as witnessed by many nearly empty office buildings and shopping malls. People with student loan debt often delay starting a family because they are struggling with repayment of those loans.
If any or all these bubbles should burst, there could be a swift downward fall in oil prices and commodity prices, in general. This could be a major problem because producers would tend to leave the market, and world GDP, which depends on energy supplies of the right kinds, would fall.
[8] Oil is an international commodity. Disruption of demand by any major user could pull prices down for everyone.
[8] Oil is an international commodity. Disruption of demand by any major user could pull prices down for everyone.
China is the single largest importer of oil in today’s world. Its economy seems to be struggling now. This, by itself, could pull world oil prices down.
[9] We don’t often think about the fact that oil prices need to be both high enough for producers and low enough for consumers.
Economists would like to think that oil prices can rise endlessly, allowing more oil to be extracted, but history shows that this is not what happens. If there are too many people for the available resources, wage and wealth disparity tends to increase, leading to many more very poor people. Lots of adverse things seem to happen: the holder of the reserve currency tends to change, wars tend to start, and governments tend to collapse or be overthrown.
[10] Simply because crude oil is in the ground and the technology seems to be available to extract the crude oil doesn’t mean that we can necessarily ramp up crude oil production.
One of the major issues is getting the price up high enough, and long enough, for producers to believe that there is a reasonable chance of making money through a major new investment. The only time that oil prices were above $100 for a sustained period was in the 2011 to 2013 period. On an inflation-adjusted basis, prices also exceeded $100 per barrel in the 1979 to 1982 period based on Energy Institute data. But we have never had a period in which oil prices exceeded $200 or $300 per barrel, even after accounting for inflation.
The experience of 2014 and 2015 shows that even if oil prices rise to high levels, they do not necessarily remain high for very long. If several parts of the world respond with higher oil production simultaneously, prices could crash, as they did in 2014.
There is also a need for the overall economic system to be available to support both the extraction of and the continuing demand for the oil. For example, much of the steel pipe used by the US for drilling oil comes from China. Computers used by engineers very often come from China. If China and the US are at odds, there is likely to be a problem with broken supply lines. And, as I said in Section 8, disruption of demand affecting even one major importer, such as China, could bring demand (and prices) down significantly.
[11] Conclusion.
The crude oil situation is far more complex than the models of economists make it seem. World crude oil supply seems to be past peak now; it may be headed down significantly in the next few years. Central banks have been working hard to keep oil prices within an acceptable range for both producers and consumers, but this is becoming increasingly impossible.
We live in interesting times!
Ending this segment and this edition, Guy McPherson delivered this presentation in a public library in a small town in Vermont recently.
Professor Emeritus Guy R. McPherson Delivered Presentation in Colchester, Vermont, Nature Bats Last, 9/12/24
My comments,. regardless of what you or i think about the accuracy of McPherson’s prediction that the planet is unlikely to be able to support human life past 2030, he puts forth a bunch of peer-reviewed science articles regarding events demonstrating much larger increases in global average temperatures than were anticipated this early in history. View at your mental peril.