Connect with us

Government

Market Rallies On Powell’s “Easy Money” Promise

Market Rallies On Powell’s "Easy Money" Promise

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

I could almost repeat last week’s market update.

“Over the past week, the market didn’t make a lot of headway, as price rises…

Published

3 years ago

on

Market Rallies On Powell's "Easy Money" Promise

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

I could almost repeat last week’s market update.

“Over the past week, the market didn’t make a lot of headway, as price rises were limited while intraday dips got repeatedly bought. Such is what we would expect with the ‘money flow’ indicators we have discussed over the last several weeks back on “sell signals.” (Importantly, note that Friday’s early morning decline held the uptrend line from the October lows.)”

This week was much the same story, with stocks slopping around all week. However, on Friday, a late afternoon buying surge sent the market back to all-time highs. Again, as noted, stocks haven’t made a lot of headway since the February peak despite a lot of volatility. But Powell’s promise of continue “easy money” certainly didn’t hurt.

As discussed last week, the “sell signal” triggering on a short-term basis coincides with our concerns of quarter-end rebalancing for pension funds. We discuss the confluence of the long- and short-term indicators and the market’s potential outcome in Thursday’s “3-minutes” video.

I think we saw a good bit of that rebalancing this past week and are likely close to its conclusion. As noted, the positive weekly money flows keep downside risk somewhat mitigated for now. As seen over the last two weeks, dips continue to be bought despite overall price weakness. We also see relatively rapid rotations between the defensive and offensive market sectors. As stated previously, such suggests rallies may remain limited until the subsequent “buy signals” are triggered. 

I suspect we may have some additional quarter-end rebalancing risk early next week. However, buying on Thursday and Friday next week, as second-quarter positioning gets underway, would not be surprising.

As such, hold positions early next week and look for weaknesses to add to exposures as needed.

The Dollar’s Silent Action

Over the last couple of months, we repeatedly discussed the market’s ongoing rise, particularly the “value” rotation, depended on continuing dollar weakness.

The recent rotation to value has been primarily a function of a “weaker dollar,” which boosts commodities. As noted, if economic growth does strengthen, leading to higher rates will attract foreign inflows into the dollar for a higher yield. Such also undermines corporate profitability, given that roughly 40% of corporate profits are from abroad.

The dollar has been gaining strength this year on expectations of more robust economic growth. A break above the 200-dma could accelerate buying as shorts begin to cover their positions. 

The risk not factored into the current “value” trade is the inflation and interest rate increase due to the massive amounts of stimulus. However, that stimulus will quickly flow through the system, leaving consumers tapped by higher inflation and rates eroding disposable income.

In other words, the “value trade” could be just a fleeting as the “economic recovery” itself.

We are firm believers in “value investing.”  However, after years of artificial interventions, accounting gimmicks, share buybacks, and massive balance sheet leveraging, there is little “real” value in the markets currently.

Given that the markets have not been allowed to reset, speculators are now simply chasing the next “momentum” trade called “value.”

Powell’s “Easy Money” Promise

Last week, we discussed Powell’s latest change to monetary policy, or rather, lack thereof.

“The U.S. economy is heading for its strongest growth in nearly 40 years, the Federal Reserve said on Wednesday, and central bank policymakers are pledging to keep their foot on the gas despite an expected surge of inflation.” – Reuters

In other words, despite the Fed’s mandate of maximum employment and price stability, the Fed is opting to let things run ‘hot’ for some time to ensure that growth is ‘sticky.'” That stance makes some sense, given the economy still requires massive liquidity support more than a decade after the financial crisis. As discussed previously in ‘Forever Stimulus:’ 

‘What this equates to is more than $12 of liquidity for each $1 of economic growth.'”

The question that financial markets wanted answering was just how much of a decline in asset prices the Fed will tolerate before providing reassurance.

It only took a 3% clip off of all-time highs before there was a scramble by Fed members to assuage market concerns. My colleague, Mish Shedlock, put together an excellent summary:

“Easy Money” Quotes

  • On Thursday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said even with the economy rebounding faster than expected, any change in monetary policy would happen “very, very gradually over time and with great transparency. Only when the economy has all but fully recovered.”

  • Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida said the central bank would stay in the game until the recovery is “well and truly complete.”

  • Fed Governor Lael Brainard promised “resolute patience.”

  • San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly said the central bank would show at least “a healthy dose” of patience. ”We are not going to take this punch bowl away.”

  • Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin said that the United States might well see economic growth remain above trend for several years given the amount of pent-up demand. Nonetheless, “What matters is what outcomes we get. I will see where we go and am not trying to overthink the date (of any policy change). I am trying to think about the outcome.”

Not surprisingly, the Fed is very cautious about the financial markets due to its inherent impact on consumer confidence. However, at this juncture, with rates at zero, stimulus checks in the mail, and QE running $120 billion per month, verbal support is all they can do currently.

As Mish concludes:

“The Fed’s 2% inflation target is monetary insanity. Full speed ahead with the stimulus in search of inflation that would be visible to anyone who was not wearing groupthink blinders. Japan has tried what the Fed is doing now for over a decade, with no results.”

Japanification

He is correct. The Fed’s “inflation policy” will likely backfire on them badly. As discussed previously in “Japanification:”

“The U.S., like Japan, is caught in an ongoing ‘liquidity trap’ where maintaining ultra-low interest rates are the key to sustaining an economic pulse. The unintended consequence of such actions, as we are witnessing in the U.S. currently, is the battle with deflationary pressures. The lower interest rates go – the less economic return that can be generated. An ultra-low interest rate environment, contrary to mainstream thought, has a negative impact on making productive investments, and risk begins to outweigh the potential return.”

As my colleague Doug Kass noted, Japan is a template of the fragility of global economic growth. 

“The bigger picture takeaway the fact that financial engineering does not help an economy, it probably hurts it. If it helped, after mega-doses of the stuff in every imaginable form, the Japanese economy would be humming. But the Japanese economy is doing the opposite. Japan tried to substitute monetary policy for sound fiscal and economic policy. And the result is terrible.”

I agree with Doug, as does the data, that while financial engineering props up asset prices, it does nothing for an economy over the medium to longer-term. It actually has negative consequences.

Stock Buybacks Gone Wild

Two weeks ago, I addressed the “Money On The Sidelines” myth stating:

“No, this is not the ‘cash on the sidelines’ argument which I debunked previously. Following the pandemic, corporations drew down credit lines and hoarded cash due to economic uncertainty. Now, with expectations of recovery, corporations are once again beginning to deploy that cash.”

As I stated then, while the mainstream media hope is all this cash will be flowing back into the economy, the reality is that it will primarily go to stock buybacks. Again, while not necessarily bad, it is the “least best” use of the company’s cash. Instead of expanding production, increasing sales, acquiring competitors, or making capital investments, the money gets used for a one-time boost to earnings on a per-share basis.

This past week, share buybacks hit a new record. 

Not surprisingly, the most prominent players in buybacks are the ones that need to subsidize their earnings the most to beat estimates; technology and financials.

Net Purchases

While share buybacks primarily are for the benefit of corporate insiders “cashing out,” it does have the effect of supporting asset prices as well. As I discussed in 2019, when stocks were hitting records amid record share repurchases:

“What is clear, is that the misuse, and abuse, of share buybacks to manipulate earnings and reward insiders has become problematic. As John Authers recently pointed out:

‘For much of the last decade, companies buying their own shares have accounted for all net purchases. The total amount of stock bought back by companies since the 2008 crisis even exceeds the Federal Reserve’s spending on buying bonds over the same period as part of quantitative easing. Both pushed up asset prices.’

In other words, between the Federal Reserve injecting a massive amount of liquidity into the financial markets, and corporations buying back their own shares, there have been effectively no other real buyers in the market.”

I bring this up for two reasons:

  1. The buybacks ARE SUPPORTIVE of asset prices in the short-term; and,

  2. We just had to “bailout” these companies because they couldn’t weather an economic downturn as they have spent years piling into debt and buying back shares.

While Janet Yellen is okay with the buybacks, as she thinks the banks are healthier now, why doesn’t anyone ask the question:

“If banks are so healthy, why do they need a constant monetary stimulus to remain in business and a bailout every time the economy declines?”

It doesn’t sound very healthy to me.

As noted above, with the “money flow” indicators now negative on both a daily and weekly basis, we are currently holding much higher levels of cash. Last week, we also added a bit of “duration” to our bond portfolio by stepping into TLT to add a hedge against a potential pickup in volatility short-term. 

With the market now about 1/3rd of the way through the correction cycle, there is limited downside risk currently as we remain in the year’s seasonally strong period. However, such doesn’t mean we can’t have a lot of volatility in the meantime.

We remain wary of the rise in yields, and ultimately the dollar, which remains the key to the current market cycle. As discussed last week, the “value trade,” which had become excessively overbought, corrected in earnest this past week. While we may see some “bottom-fishing” in the short-term, there is still substantially more room for a correction given the extension from long-term means. 

Our more significant concern over the next quarter is the extremely high net positioning of institutions in the markets. Historically, “everyone is in the pool,” outcomes have not been all that pleasant. While we continue to remain allocated toward equity risk currently, we do it with a constant eye on the risk. We suspect that we could see a fairly substantial correction during the summer. 

But that is a story we will discuss when we get there. 

Continue to manage risk until we start to see “buy signals” across our indicators once again.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/28/2021 - 10:30

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

Mistakes Were Made

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that a bit during these past few years, but, if there’s one thing they’re exceptionally good at, it’s taking responsibility for their mistakes. Seriously, when it comes to acknowledging one’s mistakes, and not rationalizing, or minimizing, or attempting to deny them, and any discomfort they may have allegedly caused, no one does it quite like the Germans.

Take this Covid mess, for example. Just last week, the German authorities confessed that they made a few minor mistakes during their management of the “Covid pandemic.” According to Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health, “we were sometimes too strict with the children and probably started easing the restrictions a little too late.” Horst Seehofer, the former Interior Minister, admitted that he would no longer agree to some of the Covid restrictions today, for example, nationwide nighttime curfews. “One must be very careful with calls for compulsory vaccination,” he added. Helge Braun, Head of the Chancellery and Minister for Special Affairs under Merkel, agreed that there had been “misjudgments,” for example, “overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines.”

This display of the German authorities’ unwavering commitment to transparency and honesty, and the principle of personal honor that guides the German authorities in all their affairs, and that is deeply ingrained in the German character, was published in a piece called “The Divisive Virus” in Der Spiegel, and immediately widely disseminated by the rest of the German state and corporate media in a totally organic manner which did not in any way resemble one enormous Goebbelsian keyboard instrument pumping out official propaganda in perfect synchronization, or anything creepy and fascistic like that.

Germany, after all, is “an extremely democratic state,” with freedom of speech and the press and all that, not some kind of totalitarian country where the masses are inundated with official propaganda and critics of the government are dragged into criminal court and prosecuted on trumped-up “hate crime” charges.

OK, sure, in a non-democratic totalitarian system, such public “admissions of mistakes” — and the synchronized dissemination thereof by the media — would just be a part of the process of whitewashing the authorities’ fascistic behavior during some particularly totalitarian phase of transforming society into whatever totalitarian dystopia they were trying to transform it into (for example, a three-year-long “state of emergency,” which they declared to keep the masses terrorized and cooperative while they stripped them of their democratic rights, i.e., the ones they hadn’t already stripped them of, and conditioned them to mindlessly follow orders, and robotically repeat nonsensical official slogans, and vent their impotent hatred and fear at the new “Untermenschen” or “counter-revolutionaries”), but that is obviously not the case here.

No, this is definitely not the German authorities staging a public “accountability” spectacle in order to memory-hole what happened during 2020-2023 and enshrine the official narrative in history. There’s going to be a formal “Inquiry Commission” — conducted by the same German authorities that managed the “crisis” — which will get to the bottom of all the regrettable but completely understandable “mistakes” that were made in the heat of the heroic battle against The Divisive Virus!

OK, calm down, all you “conspiracy theorists,” “Covid deniers,” and “anti-vaxxers.” This isn’t going to be like the Nuremberg Trials. No one is going to get taken out and hanged. It’s about identifying and acknowledging mistakes, and learning from them, so that the authorities can manage everything better during the next “pandemic,” or “climate emergency,” or “terrorist attack,” or “insurrection,” or whatever.

For example, the Inquiry Commission will want to look into how the government accidentally declared a Nationwide State of Pandemic Emergency and revised the Infection Protection Act, suspending the German constitution and granting the government the power to rule by decree, on account of a respiratory virus that clearly posed no threat to society at large, and then unleashed police goon squads on the thousands of people who gathered outside the Reichstag to protest the revocation of their constitutional rights.

Once they do, I’m sure they’ll find that that “mistake” bears absolutely no resemblance to the Enabling Act of 1933, which suspended the German constitution and granted the government the power to rule by decree, after the Nazis declared a nationwide “state of emergency.”

Another thing the Commission will probably want to look into is how the German authorities accidentally banned any further demonstrations against their arbitrary decrees, and ordered the police to brutalize anyone participating in such “illegal demonstrations.”

And, while the Commission is inquiring into the possibly slightly inappropriate behavior of their law enforcement officials, they might want to also take a look at the behavior of their unofficial goon squads, like Antifa, which they accidentally encouraged to attack the “anti-vaxxers,” the “Covid deniers,” and anyone brandishing a copy of the German constitution.

Come to think of it, the Inquiry Commission might also want to look into how the German authorities, and the overwhelming majority of the state and corporate media, accidentally systematically fomented mass hatred of anyone who dared to question the government’s arbitrary and nonsensical decrees or who refused to submit to “vaccination,” and publicly demonized us as “Corona deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “far-right anti-Semites,” etc., to the point where mainstream German celebrities like Sarah Bosetti were literally describing us as the inessential “appendix” in the body of the nation, quoting an infamous Nazi almost verbatim.

And then there’s the whole “vaccination” business. The Commission will certainly want to inquire into that. They will probably want to start their inquiry with Karl Lauterbach, and determine exactly how he accidentally lied to the public, over and over, and over again …

And whipped people up into a mass hysteria over “KILLER VARIANTS” …

And “LONG COVID BRAIN ATTACKS” …

And how “THE UNVACCINATED ARE HOLDING THE WHOLE COUNTRY HOSTAGE, SO WE NEED TO FORCIBLY VACCINATE EVERYONE!”

And so on. I could go on with this all day, but it will be much easier to just refer you, and the Commission, to this documentary film by Aya Velázquez. Non-German readers may want to skip to the second half, unless they’re interested in the German “Corona Expert Council” …

Look, the point is, everybody makes “mistakes,” especially during a “state of emergency,” or a war, or some other type of global “crisis.” At least we can always count on the Germans to step up and take responsibility for theirs, and not claim that they didn’t know what was happening, or that they were “just following orders,” or that “the science changed.”

Plus, all this Covid stuff is ancient history, and, as Olaf, an editor at Der Spiegel, reminds us, it’s time to put the “The Divisive Pandemic” behind us …

… and click heels, and heil the New Normal Democracy!

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A…

Published

9 hours ago

on

March 16, 2024

By

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Harvard Medical School professor who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine has been terminated, according to documents reviewed by The Epoch Times.

Martin Kulldorff, epidemiologist and statistician, at his home in Ashford, Conn., on Feb. 11, 2022. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, was fired by Mass General Brigham in November 2021 over noncompliance with the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate after his requests for exemptions from the mandate were denied, according to one document. Mr. Kulldorff was also placed on leave by Harvard Medical School (HMS) because his appointment as professor of medicine there “depends upon” holding a position at the hospital, another document stated.

Mr. Kulldorff asked HMS in late 2023 how he could return to his position and was told he was being fired.

“You would need to hold an eligible appointment with a Harvard-affiliated institution for your HMS academic appointment to continue,” Dr. Grace Huang, dean for faculty affairs, told the epidemiologist and biostatistician.

She said the lack of an appointment, combined with college rules that cap leaves of absence at two years, meant he was being terminated.

Mr. Kulldorff disclosed the firing for the first time this month.

“While I can’t comment on the specifics due to employment confidentiality protections that preclude us from doing so, I can confirm that his employment agreement was terminated November 10, 2021,” a spokesperson for Brigham and Women’s Hospital told The Epoch Times via email.

Mass General Brigham granted just 234 exemption requests out of 2,402 received, according to court filings in an ongoing case that alleges discrimination.

The hospital said previously, “We received a number of exemption requests, and each request was carefully considered by a knowledgeable team of reviewers.”

“A lot of other people received exemptions, but I did not,” Mr. Kulldorff told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Kulldorff was originally hired by HMS but switched departments in 2015 to work at the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is part of Mass General Brigham and affiliated with HMS.

“Harvard Medical School has affiliation agreements with several Boston hospitals which it neither owns nor operationally controls,” an HMS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “Hospital-based faculty, such as Mr. Kulldorff, are employed by one of the affiliates, not by HMS, and require an active hospital appointment to maintain an academic appointment at Harvard Medical School.”

HMS confirmed that some faculty, who are tenured or on the tenure track, do not require hospital appointments.

Natural Immunity

Before the COVID-19 vaccines became available, Mr. Kulldorff contracted COVID-19. He was hospitalized but eventually recovered.

That gave him a form of protection known as natural immunity. According to a number of studies, including papers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, natural immunity is better than the protection bestowed by vaccines.

Other studies have found that people with natural immunity face a higher risk of problems after vaccination.

Mr. Kulldorff expressed his concerns about receiving a vaccine in his request for a medical exemption, pointing out a lack of data for vaccinating people who suffer from the same issue he does.

“I already had superior infection-acquired immunity; and it was risky to vaccinate me without proper efficacy and safety studies on patients with my type of immune deficiency,” Mr. Kulldorff wrote in an essay.

In his request for a religious exemption, he highlighted an Israel study that was among the first to compare protection after infection to protection after vaccination. Researchers found that the vaccinated had less protection than the naturally immune.

“Having had COVID disease, I have stronger longer lasting immunity than those vaccinated (Gazit et al). Lacking scientific rationale, vaccine mandates are religious dogma, and I request a religious exemption from COVID vaccination,” he wrote.

Both requests were denied.

Mr. Kulldorff is still unvaccinated.

“I had COVID. I had it badly. So I have infection-acquired immunity. So I don’t need the vaccine,” he told The Epoch Times.

Dissenting Voice

Mr. Kulldorff has been a prominent dissenting voice during the COVID-19 pandemic, countering messaging from the government and many doctors that the COVID-19 vaccines were needed, regardless of prior infection.

He spoke out in an op-ed in April 2021, for instance, against requiring people to provide proof of vaccination to attend shows, go to school, and visit restaurants.

“The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune,” he wrote at the time.

Mr. Kulldorff later co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of people at high risk while removing restrictions for younger, healthy people.

Harsh restrictions such as school closures “will cause irreparable damage” if not lifted, the declaration stated.

The declaration drew criticism from Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who became the head of the CDC, among others.

In a competing document, Dr. Walensky and others said that “relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed” and that “uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity(3) and mortality across the whole population.”

“Those who are pushing these vaccine mandates and vaccine passports—vaccine fanatics, I would call them—to me they have done much more damage during this one year than the anti-vaxxers have done in two decades,” Mr. Kulldorff later said in an EpochTV interview. “I would even say that these vaccine fanatics, they are the biggest anti-vaxxers that we have right now. They’re doing so much more damage to vaccine confidence than anybody else.”

Surveys indicate that people have less trust now in the CDC and other health institutions than before the pandemic, and data from the CDC and elsewhere show that fewer people are receiving the new COVID-19 vaccines and other shots.

Support

The disclosure that Mr. Kulldorff was fired drew criticism of Harvard and support for Mr. Kulldorff.

The termination “is a massive and incomprehensible injustice,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, an ethics expert who was fired from the University of California–Irvine School of Medicine for not getting a COVID-19 vaccine because he had natural immunity, said on X.

“The academy is full of people who declined vaccines—mostly with dubious exemptions—and yet Harvard fires the one professor who happens to speak out against government policies.” Dr. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California–San Francisco, wrote in a blog post. “It looks like Harvard has weaponized its policies and selectively enforces them.”

A petition to reinstate Mr. Kulldorff has garnered more than 1,800 signatures.

Some other doctors said the decision to let Mr. Kulldorff go was correct.

“Actions have consequence,” Dr. Alastair McAlpine, a Canadian doctor, wrote on X. He said Mr. Kulldorff had “publicly undermine[d] public health.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 21:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

“Extreme Events”: US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In “Large Excess Over Trend”

"Extreme Events": US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In "Large Excess Over Trend"

Cancer deaths in the United States spiked in 2021…

Published

14 hours ago

on

March 16, 2024

By

"Extreme Events": US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In "Large Excess Over Trend"

Cancer deaths in the United States spiked in 2021 and 2022 among 15-44 year-olds "in large excess over trend," marking jumps of 5.6% and 7.9% respectively vs. a rise of 1.7% in 2020, according to a new preprint study from deep-dive research firm, Phinance Technologies.

Algeria, Carlos et. al "US -Death Trends for Neoplasms ICD codes: C00-D48, Ages 15-44", ResearchGate, March. 2024 P. 7

Extreme Events

The report, which relies on data from the CDC, paints a troubling picture.

"We show a rise in excess mortality from neoplasms reported as underlying cause of death, which started in 2020 (1.7%) and accelerated substantially in 2021 (5.6%) and 2022 (7.9%). The increase in excess mortality in both 2021 (Z-score of 11.8) and 2022 (Z-score of 16.5) are highly statistically significant (extreme events)," according to the authors.

That said, co-author, David Wiseman, PhD (who has 86 publications to his name), leaves the cause an open question - suggesting it could either be a "novel phenomenon," Covid-19, or the Covid-19 vaccine.

"The results indicate that from 2021 a novel phenomenon leading to increased neoplasm deaths appears to be present in individuals aged 15 to 44 in the US," reads the report.

The authors suggest that the cause may be the result of "an unexpected rise in the incidence of rapidly growing fatal cancers," and/or "a reduction in survival in existing cancer cases."

They also address the possibility that "access to utilization of cancer screening and treatment" may be a factor - the notion that pandemic-era lockdowns resulted in fewer visits to the doctor. Also noted is that "Cancers tend to be slowly-developing diseases with remarkably stable death rates and only small variations over time," which makes "any temporal association between a possible explanatory factor (such as COVID-19, the novel COVID-19 vaccines, or other factor(s)) difficult to establish."

That said, a ZeroHedge review of the CDC data reveals that it does not provide information on duration of illness prior to death - so while it's not mentioned in the preprint, it can't rule out so-called 'turbo cancers' - reportedly rapidly developing cancers, the existence of which has been largely anecdotal (and widely refuted by the usual suspects).

While the Phinance report is extremely careful not to draw conclusions, researcher "Ethical Skeptic" kicked the barn door open in a Thursday post on X - showing a strong correlation between "cancer incidence & mortality" coinciding with the rollout of the Covid mRNA vaccine.

Phinance principal Ed Dowd commented on the post, noting that "Cancer is suddenly an accelerating growth industry!"

Continued:

Bottom line - hard data is showing alarming trends, which the CDC and other agencies have a requirement to explore and answer truthfully - and people are asking #WhereIsTheCDC.

We aren't holding our breath.

Wiseman, meanwhile, points out that Pfizer and several other companies are making "significant investments in cancer drugs, post COVID."

Phinance

We've featured several of Phinance's self-funded deep dives into pandemic data that nobody else is doing. If you'd like to support them, click here.

 

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 16:55

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending