Connect with us

Spread & Containment

May 2022 Monthly

The general contours of the business and investment climate are being shaped by three forces.  First, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions boost…

Published

on

The general contours of the business and investment climate are being shaped by three forces.  First, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions boost price pressures and slow growth.  It was a supply shock.  Even before the war, countries had begun stepping back from the powerful monetary and fiscal support provided during the pandemic.  Second, China's response to its Covid outbreak is slowing the world's second-largest economy.  It threatens supply chains but also a demand shock.  The knock-on effect has seen a reversal of fortunes for previously favored "commodity currencies." Third, the market understands that the Federal Reserve has made a hawkish pivot.  It now sees the year-end Fed funds target at 2.85%, up from around 0.80% at the end of last year and 2.40% at the end of March.  In addition, a relatively aggressive reduction of the Fed's balance sheet, in the current context, is also tantamount to some more tightening, even if economists differ on how much.  This has helped send the US dollar broadly higher. 

While the fog of war and the impact of China's Covid policies reduce visibility and boost uncertainty, they have spurred an acceleration of rate hikes.  Among the high-income countries, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Bank of Canada hiked rates by 50 bp.  The Federal Reserve is expected to match them in May.  

At the same time, several central banks, including the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Bank of England, Sweden's Riksbank, and the Bank of Canada, have begun allowing their balance sheets to shrink by refraining from reinvesting the full amount of the maturing proceeds.  At the May 4 meeting, the Federal Reserve will announce its starting date.  After a short rolling start, the Fed is seen allowing the balance sheet to shrink by $95 bln a month ($60 bln of Treasuries and $35 bln MBS). This is almost twice the Fed's pace in the 2017-2019 period. 

The aggressive reduction of the Fed's balance sheet spurred an abrupt steepening of the US 2-10 year yield curve in the first half of April.  The inversion that provoked so much discussion was erased, and the 40 bp difference that it reached was the steepest slope since late February.  The curve finished the April near 20 bp. We suspect the curve will become inverted again.  The swaps market shows that the terminal rate for the Fed funds will be around 3.25%-3.50% in this cycle, suggesting that there may be value at the long end of the curve when yields are near 3%.  However, the two-year note yield may need to climb closer to the anticipated peak in Fed funds.  

Our concern is that something "breaks" before the Fed can lift rates to those levels.  The combination of aggressively tighter monetary policy (including the balance sheet), a dramatic decline in fiscal support (the deficit may be halved this year from 10.8% of GDP in 2021 to around 5.3%), and the higher food and energy prices that sap the purchasing power of consumers will slow the economy.  This quarter will likely see better growth than Q1, but starting in H2, a more sustained slowdown may become evident.  Interest-rate sensitive sectors, like housing, may already be seeing some evidence.  

The unexpected decline contraction in Q1 US GDP was bit of a statistical fluke.  The yawning trade deficit and slower inventory accumulation shaved four percentage points off GDP.  Final sales to domestic purchasers, which excludes trade and inventories, rose 3.7% in Q1, which is more than the previous two quarters combined (Q3 21 1.3% and Q4 21 1.7%).  The decline in Q1 GDP is not a prelude to a recession and most economists look for a strong rebound in Q2.  

Yet don't be mistaken.  Growth forecasts are being cut.  The World Bank and IMF have cut their global forecasts.  This year's forecast for the US was cut to 3.7% from 4.0%, which is still higher than the private sector projection (Bloomberg survey median is 3.2%).  Next year, the IMF has the US growing by 2.3% (0.3% less than its estimate in January).  This is also a little optimistic compared with private-sector forecasts.  

Several European countries, including Germany, France, and Italy cut their 2022 growth outlooks.  China's Q1 GDP surprised on the upside, but the details were poor and the full impact of the lockdown in Shanghai (~25 mln people) has yet to be reflected in the data.  Indeed, the pandemic in China threats domestic growth and further disruption in global supply chains.  The IMF trimmed its forecast for China's 2022 GDP to 4.4% (from 4.8%), while China has targeted growth at 5.5%. 

There were four main developments in the foreign exchange market to note.  First, the dollar was broadly stronger, boosted by a dramatic adjustment to the Federal Reserve's now recognized as a hawkish pivot.  Second, the divergence of monetary policy drove the yen to 20-year lows against the dollar.  The BOJ shows no sign of ending its Yield-Curve Control policy that caps that 10-year yield at 0.25%.  Third, the tightening of monetary policy reduced risk appetites, which weighed on the dollar-bloc currencies and Latam currencies. Fourth, the Chinese yuan came under strong selling pressure.  The 10-year premium of 100 bp it offered in early March turned into a small discount. Portfolio capital outflows and boosting currency hedge ratios were drags on the currency.    

Rising rates and weaker growth are challenging equity investors.  Among the G10, only the internationally-heavy FTSE 100 is higher on the year through the end of April.  In Europe, Luxembourg (~2.9%), Norway All-Share Index (~6.5), and Portugal All-Share Index (~4.6%) have shined.  Between the squeeze on the property and tech sectors and the zero-Covid policy, Chinese equities are among the worst performers through the first third of the year. The CSI 300 (top 300 companies list in either Shanghai or Shenzhen) is off nearly 19% year-to-date. 

A couple of markets in emerging economies are proving resilient in the Asia-Pacific region.  The Strait Times of Singapore is up 7.5%, and the Jakarta Composite has risen almost 10%. Most central European equities markets have been sold, but Turkey's BIST 100 Index is up nearly 32% is notable.  The lira is off a little more than 10% this year after a 44% decline last year.   In 2021, Turkey's shares rallied by about 30%.  However, regionally, Latam stands out.  Equities in the region have generally rallied amid rising commodities. The nearly 3.5% decline in Mexico's Bolsa is a notable exception.   South America and Mexico have accounted for five of the top six emerging market currencies in Q1 22, but in April, as we have noted, there were hit by an aggressive bout of profit-taking.  The Mexican peso's 2.7% decline was the best performer in the region.  The Chilean peso lost about 7.26%. The Brazilian real's 4.5% drop trimmed this year's advance to around 12.2%.  

UK Prime Minister Johnson's approval suffered before Russia invaded Ukraine, and the war eased the political pressure.  However, the issue returned last month as the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer were fined by the London police for violating Covid restrictions last year.  Chancellor Sunak also ran afoul of poor press as his wife filed taxes as a non-domicile, which means she did not have to pay UK taxes.  Sunak had been regarded as a likely candidate to succeed Johnson, but his spring budget statement was poorly received, and the fine for being at a party he denied attending sapped his support. In addition, the Tory showing in the local elections on May 5 (Wales, UK, and Northern Ireland's Assembly) may intensify the pressure on Johnson. Still, there may not be a compelling alternative that could lead the party to victory in 2024.  

Germany holds two state elections in May. They may draw interest as a bit of a referendum on the federal government, which has taken at least three measures Merkel did not. First, the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been formally terminated.  Second, After growing increasingly dependent on Russian energy even after the war in Georgia (2008) and the annexation of Crimea (2014), the new German government has set about reversing direction. Third, the SPD-led government committed to boosting military spending after years of under-spending (relative to the commitment to NATO).  Schleswig-Holstein's election is on May 8.  The state is currently led by a CDU-Green-FDP coalition.  North Rhine-Westphalia has a CDU-FDP government, and it goes to the polls on May 15.  

Australia's general election is on May 21.  It is a close contest.  The Liberal-National coalition seeks a fourth term, but voters seem to want a change.  However, Labor has run an uninspired campaign.  Neither may secure 76 seats in Parliament for a majority.  The market anticipates the beginning of what may be an aggressive tightening cycle.  An acceleration of Q1 CPI (to 5.1% from 3.5% in Q4 21) with a 4% unemployment rate, spurred speculation of the first move coming at the May 4 central bank meeting, rather than waiting until after the election.  The cash rate futures market is discounts about 240 bp of tightening before year-end.  

The Bannockburn World Currency Index is a GDP-weighted index of the top 12 economies (recognizing the eurozone as one economy).  Half of the constitutents are from high-income countries and the other half are from emerging market economies.  The index fell almost 2.5% in April, reflecting the decline of the constituent currencies against the US dollar. It was the largest fall since May 2012 and the first monthly decline of more than 2% since Janaury 2015. The 

BWCI hit a low in March 2020 around 93.60 and peaked last June near 102.25.  It finished April near 97.55

None of the currencies in the index gained against the greenback.  The Indian rupee, with a a little less than a 1% decline, was the most resilient, followed by the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso (-2.7%).  The yen was the weakest, falling around 6.2%.  Several of the currencies in the index fell by more than 4%, including the euro, sterling, the Australian dollar, and the Brazilian real.   The Chinese yuan's 4% decline in April appears is the largest monthly depreciation since at least 2005, when the peg formally ended.  


Dollar:  The Federal Reserve has communicated its intent to bring the Fed funds rate to a neutral setting and maybe higher in recognition of the persistence of unacceptably high inflation.  The market has gone a long way toward pricing in 50 bp rate hikes at the next four FOMC meetings through Q3. The message from the Fed's leadership is that the policy adjustment will be front-loaded. The market accepts this and sees Fed funds peaking next year around 3.25%-3.50%.  In addition, the May 5 FOMC meeting is expected to announce an aggressive unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet.  After a short ramp-up period, $95 bln a month of maturing bonds will not be re-invested. Some economists estimate that the balance sheet reduction in H2 could be the equivalent of another 50 bp hike. The dollar's strength is consistent with the tighter financial conditions, and exports are at a record (even if imports have grown faster). There seems to be scope for additional dollar gains but the leg higher looks nearly complete.  The pendulum of market fear of inflation may peak around the same time as the core rate. Corrective and consolidative forces are likely in the weeks ahead.  

Euro:  The European Central Bank will continue to buy bonds through June. The swaps market discounts a tightening cycle that begins in July and is anticipating more than 80 bp of hikes in the second half.  This seems to be pricing in perfection.  We note that only the hawkish members of the ECB are talking about a hike in July.  President Lagarde has been more circumspect.  It is still vulnerable wider cuts in Russian gas shipments.  Moreover, the sanctions will begin covering parts of Russia's energy exports, which may also come at new costs for Europe.  Disputes within Europe have been overshadowed by the war in Ukraine.  However, the fissures cannot be held at bay much longer.  The EC appears to be doing a good job separating Poland and Hungarian issues, and electoral result in Slovakia will see tensions ease, leaving Hungary with one less ally.  Hungary may be the test case for the EC's new power to deny funds to members for contravening EU rules.  The euro fell to five-year lows in late April near $1.0470.  On a near-term view of momentum, it is stretched, but also in terms of the OECD's measure of purchasing power parity.  The euro has not been this undervalued since 2001 (~-37%). 

(April 29 indicative closing prices, previous in parentheses)

Spot: $1.0545 ($1.1065)

Median Bloomberg One-month Forecast $1.0730 ($1.1045) 

One-month forward $1.0560 ($1.1075)    One-month implied vol 9.4% (7.8%)    

 

 

Japanese Yen:   Surveys suggest that Japanese businesses are more concerned about the yen falling to 20-year lows than officials who seem more focused about the pace of the adjustment.  After years of adopting to a strong yen, Japanese businesses suddenly find themselves having to compete in a weak yen environment.  The yen's slide of 6.2% in April brings the year-to-date decline to 11.25%.  Moreover, the yen has morphed from a low volatility exchange rate to a higher one, forcing an adjustment by asset managers and hedge funds.  One-month implied volatility reached almost 13% in late April, almost twice the average over the past 200-day.  Japanese households appear more unsettled by the rise in price pressures, which the Bank of Japan says will not be sustainable and maintains its asset purchases and 0.25% cap on the 10-year yield. Core inflation is expected to jump starting with the April reports as the cut in the mobile phone charges drop out of the 12-month comparison.  On the other hand, according to some estimates,  the government's fiscal support will result in around 0.5% decline in CPI. The IMF's regional head indicated that the yen's weakness is fundamentally driven and that the dollar is strong broadly, making actual material intervention only a remote possibility.  The dollar broke above the JPY130 area in late April after the BOJ strengthened its determination to cap the 10-year yield.  Yet, if we are right about value emerging at the long end of the US curve, some of the downside pressure on the yen may ease and a new trading range may emerge.  Tentatively, we suspect the lower end maybe inthe JPY125.00-JPY126.00 area. 

 

Spot: JPY129.70 (JPY121.65)      

Median Bloomberg One-month Forecast JPY126.70 (JPY120.40)     

One-month forward JPY129.60 (JPY115.50)    One-month implied vol 11.9% (9.2%)

 

 

British Pound:  Sterling fell for the fourth consecutive month in April, and its 4.3% decline was the largest since October 2016. The cost-of-living squeeze is weakening the economy and the Bank of England will be unable to raise rates as aggressively as the US and Canada, for example.  The UK economy is particularly sensitive to the rising interest rates and energy prices.  Excluding gasoline, UK retail sales have fallen for nine of the past 11 months through March.  The BOE is tightening policy gradually. Its balance sheet has begun shrinking. With the anticipated 25 bp hike on May 5, the base rate will be at 1%, allowing the central bank to sell its holdings, not just passively wait for holdings to mature.  However, the BOE has signaled this is unlikely.  At the end of last year, the UK and US 2-year yields were around parity.  Now the US offers about 110 bp on top of the UK, the most since  before Covid.  The UK holds local elections on the same day as the BOE meeting. The polls point to the likelihood of a poor showing for the Tories, which could intensify the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over Prime Minister Johnson.  The political challenge is starker, too, now that the favorite to replace Johnson, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sunak, has taken a drubbing in the polls.  At the same time, Sein Fein looks to take a majority in Northern Ireland's Assembly for the first time. Sterling's accelerated decline in late April leaves it stretched from a technical perspective.  It punched through the $1.25 area, and there may be scope for another couple of cents, but the move looks stretched.  On the upside, the $1.27-$1.28 area may offer a cap now.  

 

Spot: $1.2575 ($1.3140)   

Median Bloomberg One-month Forecast $1.2800 ($1.3200) 

One-month forward $1.2570 ($1.3135)   One-month implied vol 9.7% (7.6%)

 

 

Canadian Dollar:  The underlying fundamentals are constructive.  Monetary policy is tightening through the interest rate channel and the balance sheet. Fiscal policy is less restrictive than anticipated. This did not prevent the Canadian dollar from of succumbing to the strong US dollar.  Instead, it helped minimize the loss. The Canadian dollar declined about 2.70% in April, the least of the major currrencies.  Yet it was still was sufficient to reverse the Q1 gain and leave it off about 1.6% year-to-date.  The Canadian dollar remains sensitive to the general risk appetite as reflected in the equity markets.  The CAD1.24 area offers important support for the US dollar, while the CAD1.29-CAD1.30 area marks the ceiling. The Bank of Canada does not meet in May but when it meets on June 1, it will likely hike by another 50 bp as it did in April.   The swaps market has discounted 50 bp moves in July and September as well.  

 

Spot: CAD1.2850 (CAD 1.2505) 

Median Bloomberg One-month Forecast CAD1.2665 (CAD1.2520)

One-month forward CAD1.2850 (CAD1.2510)    One-month implied vol 8.2% (7.2%) 

 

 

Australian Dollar:   The Australian dollar was pummeled in April.   Its 5.6% decline gave the Q1 gains, and the Aussie is now about 2.8% lower on the year.  The Covid-related lockdowns in China sparked concerns about the demand for commodities.  The risk-off environment also undermined its attractiveness.  The peak on April 5 near $0.7660 marked the culmination of a rally that began in late January slightly below $0.6970.  What might have been a typical correction turned into rout in the last part of April, when China's knock-on impact was most intensely felt.  In three sessions (April 21-22 and 25th), it tumbled by 4.3%. It tested support near $0.7050 at the end of last month, the only thing standing in the way of a return to the January low. Notably, the speculative (non-commercial) position in the futures market has not been net long the Aussie since last May.  Around 2/3 of the net short position seen when the January low was recorded has been covered. The central bank is moving closer to raising rates, and after the sharp acceleration of Q1 CPI (5.1% year-over-year from 3.5%) the market moved to discount a 15 bp hike at May 3 central bank meeting.  Given the strong labor market and the currency weakness, it seems reasonable. The market has the Reserve Bank of Australia launching an aggressive tightening cycle that will lead to a 245 bp of hikes before the end of the year.  That seems exaggerated. 

 

Spot:  $0.7060 ($0.7480)       

Median Bloomberg One-Month Forecast $0.7240 ($0.7455)     

One-month forward $0.7065 ($0.7485)     One-month implied vol 10.0% (10.0%)   

 

 

Mexican Peso:  The commodity story and high-interest rates that saw Latam currencies outperform in Q1 22 reversed last month.  Questions about Chinese demand weighed on metals and energy prices. Perceptions of the aggressive pivot by the Fed may have weakened the interest rate leg.  Leaving aside Argentina, the Mexican peso was the weakest in the region in the January-March period, with a 3.3% gain.  Its 3.4% loss last month was the least in the region.  The combination of stronger than expected inflation and the expected trajectory of US monetary policy could spur Mexico's central bank into bolder action. Banxico hiked rates by 50 bp at each of the last three meetings after beginning the cycle with three 25 bp increases starting last June. The continued acceleration of inflation and the core rate rising above 7% boosts the risk of a 75 bp move at the May 12 meeting to 7.25%. President AMLO is expected to announce an agreement with some producers to limit price increases on as many as two dozen common products in early May, with the hope of restraining inflation. The dollar pulled back after reaching almost MXN21.47 in early March.  It bottomed in early April around MXN19.73 and retested it mid-month. The low held, and the dollar rose a little through MXN20.60, the middle of the this year's range.  The next important chart ares is MXN20.75-MXN20.80.   



Spot: MXN20.4280 (MXN19.87)  

Median Bloomberg One-Month Forecast MXN20.3610 (MXN20.10)  

One-month forward MXN20.55 (MXN19.98) One-month implied vol 12.3% (9.95%)

  

 

Chinese Yuan:  After seemingly defying gravity, the yuan buckled in the second half of April.  A big gap between the central bank's reference rate and market expectation was understood as a signal of official approval or acquiescence.  The divergence of the Chinese and American business cycle has undermined a key attraction of Chinese bonds, the interest rate premium.   It was slightly more than 100 bp in early March and now stands at a small discount. The economic weakness and Beijing's policies may have encouraged foreign investors to reduce equity exposure.  It appears that foreign investors sold around $36 bln of Chinese stocks and bonds in February and March.  In April, the sales continued, and anecdotal reports suggest currency hedge ratios were raised.  Chinese exporters may ease the pressure on customers to pay in yuan, whose market share of SWIFT, the message system,  remains less than 3%. Chinese officials have been reluctant to take bold measures to provide support for the economy, which still is at the mercy of Covid and the lockdowns.  We are concerned that developments will get worse in the period ahead. It would mean a greater risk of supply chain disruptions and slower growth impulses from the world's second-largest economy and the largest exporter.  This could translate into a weaker yuan and higher volatility.   The PBOC cut the required reserve on foreign currency deposits by 1% in April ostensibly to boost the supply of dollars (and other currencies) to steady or slow the yuan's descent.  This was understood as a mild move given that it hiked it in two percentage point increments twice last year.  A move above CNY6.65 may encourage run toward CNY6.75.  

 

Spot: CNY6.6085 (CNY6.3400)

Median Bloomberg One-month Forecast CNY6.5015 (CNY6.3540) 

One-month forward CNY6.6380 (CNY6.3590)    One-month implied vol 7.0% (3.2%)  




Disclaimer

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Sylvester researchers, collaborators call for greater investment in bereavement care

MIAMI, FLORIDA (March 15, 2024) – The public health toll from bereavement is well-documented in the medical literature, with bereaved persons at greater…

Published

on

MIAMI, FLORIDA (March 15, 2024) – The public health toll from bereavement is well-documented in the medical literature, with bereaved persons at greater risk for many adverse outcomes, including mental health challenges, decreased quality of life, health care neglect, cancer, heart disease, suicide, and death. Now, in a paper published in The Lancet Public Health, researchers sound a clarion call for greater investment, at both the community and institutional level, in establishing support for grief-related suffering.

Credit: Photo courtesy of Memorial Sloan Kettering Comprehensive Cancer Center

MIAMI, FLORIDA (March 15, 2024) – The public health toll from bereavement is well-documented in the medical literature, with bereaved persons at greater risk for many adverse outcomes, including mental health challenges, decreased quality of life, health care neglect, cancer, heart disease, suicide, and death. Now, in a paper published in The Lancet Public Health, researchers sound a clarion call for greater investment, at both the community and institutional level, in establishing support for grief-related suffering.

The authors emphasized that increased mortality worldwide caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, suicide, drug overdose, homicide, armed conflict, and terrorism have accelerated the urgency for national- and global-level frameworks to strengthen the provision of sustainable and accessible bereavement care. Unfortunately, current national and global investment in bereavement support services is woefully inadequate to address this growing public health crisis, said researchers with Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and collaborating organizations.  

They proposed a model for transitional care that involves firmly establishing bereavement support services within healthcare organizations to ensure continuity of family-centered care while bolstering community-based support through development of “compassionate communities” and a grief-informed workforce. The model highlights the responsibility of the health system to build bridges to the community that can help grievers feel held as they transition.   

The Center for the Advancement of Bereavement Care at Sylvester is advocating for precisely this model of transitional care. Wendy G. Lichtenthal, PhD, FT, FAPOS, who is Founding Director of the new Center and associate professor of public health sciences at the Miller School, noted, “We need a paradigm shift in how healthcare professionals, institutions, and systems view bereavement care. Sylvester is leading the way by investing in the establishment of this Center, which is the first to focus on bringing the transitional bereavement care model to life.”

What further distinguishes the Center is its roots in bereavement science, advancing care approaches that are both grounded in research and community-engaged.  

The authors focused on palliative care, which strives to provide a holistic approach to minimize suffering for seriously ill patients and their families, as one area where improvements are critically needed. They referenced groundbreaking reports of the Lancet Commissions on the value of global access to palliative care and pain relief that highlighted the “undeniable need for improved bereavement care delivery infrastructure.” One of those reports acknowledged that bereavement has been overlooked and called for reprioritizing social determinants of death, dying, and grief.

“Palliative care should culminate with bereavement care, both in theory and in practice,” explained Lichtenthal, who is the article’s corresponding author. “Yet, bereavement care often is under-resourced and beset with access inequities.”

Transitional bereavement care model

So, how do health systems and communities prioritize bereavement services to ensure that no bereaved individual goes without needed support? The transitional bereavement care model offers a roadmap.

“We must reposition bereavement care from an afterthought to a public health priority. Transitional bereavement care is necessary to bridge the gap in offerings between healthcare organizations and community-based bereavement services,” Lichtenthal said. “Our model calls for health systems to shore up the quality and availability of their offerings, but also recognizes that resources for bereavement care within a given healthcare institution are finite, emphasizing the need to help build communities’ capacity to support grievers.”

Key to the model, she added, is the bolstering of community-based support through development of “compassionate communities” and “upskilling” of professional services to assist those with more substantial bereavement-support needs.

The model contains these pillars:

  • Preventive bereavement care –healthcare teams engage in bereavement-conscious practices, and compassionate communities are mindful of the emotional and practical needs of dying patients’ families.
  • Ownership of bereavement care – institutions provide bereavement education for staff, risk screenings for families, outreach and counseling or grief support. Communities establish bereavement centers and “champions” to provide bereavement care at workplaces, schools, places of worship or care facilities.
  • Resource allocation for bereavement care – dedicated personnel offer universal outreach, and bereaved stakeholders provide input to identify community barriers and needed resources.
  • Upskilling of support providers – Bereavement education is integrated into training programs for health professionals, and institutions offer dedicated grief specialists. Communities have trained, accessible bereavement specialists who provide support and are educated in how to best support bereaved individuals, increasing their grief literacy.
  • Evidence-based care – bereavement care is evidence-based and features effective grief assessments, interventions, and training programs. Compassionate communities remain mindful of bereavement care needs.

Lichtenthal said the new Center will strive to materialize these pillars and aims to serve as a global model for other health organizations. She hopes the paper’s recommendations “will cultivate a bereavement-conscious and grief-informed workforce as well as grief-literate, compassionate communities and health systems that prioritize bereavement as a vital part of ethical healthcare.”

“This paper is calling for healthcare institutions to respond to their duty to care for the family beyond patients’ deaths. By investing in the creation of the Center for the Advancement of Bereavement Care, Sylvester is answering this call,” Lichtenthal said.

Follow @SylvesterCancer on X for the latest news on Sylvester’s research and care.

# # #

Article Title: Investing in bereavement care as a public health priority

DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00030-6

Authors: The complete list of authors is included in the paper.

Funding: The authors received funding from the National Cancer Institute (P30 CA240139 Nimer) and P30 CA008748 Vickers).

Disclosures: The authors declared no competing interests.

# # #


Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Separating Information From Disinformation: Threats From The AI Revolution

Separating Information From Disinformation: Threats From The AI Revolution

Authored by Per Bylund via The Mises Institute,

Artificial intelligence…

Published

on

Separating Information From Disinformation: Threats From The AI Revolution

Authored by Per Bylund via The Mises Institute,

Artificial intelligence (AI) cannot distinguish fact from fiction. It also isn’t creative or can create novel content but repeats, repackages, and reformulates what has already been said (but perhaps in new ways).

I am sure someone will disagree with the latter, perhaps pointing to the fact that AI can clearly generate, for example, new songs and lyrics. I agree with this, but it misses the point. AI produces a “new” song lyric only by drawing from the data of previous song lyrics and then uses that information (the inductively uncovered patterns in it) to generate what to us appears to be a new song (and may very well be one). However, there is no artistry in it, no creativity. It’s only a structural rehashing of what exists.

Of course, we can debate to what extent humans can think truly novel thoughts and whether human learning may be based solely or primarily on mimicry. However, even if we would—for the sake of argument—agree that all we know and do is mere reproduction, humans have limited capacity to remember exactly and will make errors. We also fill in gaps with what subjectively (not objectively) makes sense to us (Rorschach test, anyone?). Even in this very limited scenario, which I disagree with, humans generate novelty beyond what AI is able to do.

Both the inability to distinguish fact from fiction and the inductive tether to existent data patterns are problems that can be alleviated programmatically—but are open for manipulation.

Manipulation and Propaganda

When Google launched its Gemini AI in February, it immediately became clear that the AI had a woke agenda. Among other things, the AI pushed woke diversity ideals into every conceivable response and, among other things, refused to show images of white people (including when asked to produce images of the Founding Fathers).

Tech guru and Silicon Valley investor Marc Andreessen summarized it on X (formerly Twitter): “I know it’s hard to believe, but Big Tech AI generates the output it does because it is precisely executing the specific ideological, radical, biased agenda of its creators. The apparently bizarre output is 100% intended. It is working as designed.”

There is indeed a design to these AIs beyond the basic categorization and generation engines. The responses are not perfectly inductive or generative. In part, this is necessary in order to make the AI useful: filters and rules are applied to make sure that the responses that the AI generates are appropriate, fit with user expectations, and are accurate and respectful. Given the legal situation, creators of AI must also make sure that the AI does not, for example, violate intellectual property laws or engage in hate speech. AI is also designed (directed) so that it does not go haywire or offend its users (remember Tay?).

However, because such filters are applied and the “behavior” of the AI is already directed, it is easy to take it a little further. After all, when is a response too offensive versus offensive but within the limits of allowable discourse? It is a fine and difficult line that must be specified programmatically.

It also opens the possibility for steering the generated responses beyond mere quality assurance. With filters already in place, it is easy to make the AI make statements of a specific type or that nudges the user in a certain direction (in terms of selected facts, interpretations, and worldviews). It can also be used to give the AI an agenda, as Andreessen suggests, such as making it relentlessly woke.

Thus, AI can be used as an effective propaganda tool, which both the corporations creating them and the governments and agencies regulating them have recognized.

Misinformation and Error

States have long refused to admit that they benefit from and use propaganda to steer and control their subjects. This is in part because they want to maintain a veneer of legitimacy as democratic governments that govern based on (rather than shape) people’s opinions. Propaganda has a bad ring to it; it’s a means of control.

However, the state’s enemies—both domestic and foreign—are said to understand the power of propaganda and do not hesitate to use it to cause chaos in our otherwise untainted democratic society. The government must save us from such manipulation, they claim. Of course, rarely does it stop at mere defense. We saw this clearly during the covid pandemic, in which the government together with social media companies in effect outlawed expressing opinions that were not the official line (see Murthy v. Missouri).

AI is just as easy to manipulate for propaganda purposes as social media algorithms but with the added bonus that it isn’t only people’s opinions and that users tend to trust that what the AI reports is true. As we saw in the previous article on the AI revolution, this is not a valid assumption, but it is nevertheless a widely held view.

If the AI then can be instructed to not comment on certain things that the creators (or regulators) do not want people to see or learn, then it is effectively “memory holed.” This type of “unwanted” information will not spread as people will not be exposed to it—such as showing only diverse representations of the Founding Fathers (as Google’s Gemini) or presenting, for example, only Keynesian macroeconomic truths to make it appear like there is no other perspective. People don’t know what they don’t know.

Of course, nothing is to say that what is presented to the user is true. In fact, the AI itself cannot distinguish fact from truth but only generates responses according to direction and only based on whatever the AI has been fed. This leaves plenty of scope for the misrepresentation of the truth and can make the world believe outright lies. AI, therefore, can easily be used to impose control, whether it is upon a state, the subjects under its rule, or even a foreign power.

The Real Threat of AI

What, then, is the real threat of AI? As we saw in the first article, large language models will not (cannot) evolve into artificial general intelligence as there is nothing about inductive sifting through large troves of (humanly) created information that will give rise to consciousness. To be frank, we haven’t even figured out what consciousness is, so to think that we will create it (or that it will somehow emerge from algorithms discovering statistical language correlations in existing texts) is quite hyperbolic. Artificial general intelligence is still hypothetical.

As we saw in the second article, there is also no economic threat from AI. It will not make humans economically superfluous and cause mass unemployment. AI is productive capital, which therefore has value to the extent that it serves consumers by contributing to the satisfaction of their wants. Misused AI is as valuable as a misused factory—it will tend to its scrap value. However, this doesn’t mean that AI will have no impact on the economy. It will, and already has, but it is not as big in the short-term as some fear, and it is likely bigger in the long-term than we expect.

No, the real threat is AI’s impact on information. This is in part because induction is an inappropriate source of knowledge—truth and fact are not a matter of frequency or statistical probabilities. The evidence and theories of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei would get weeded out as improbable (false) by an AI trained on all the (best and brightest) writings on geocentrism at the time. There is no progress and no learning of new truths if we trust only historical theories and presentations of fact.

However, this problem can probably be overcome by clever programming (meaning implementing rules—and fact-based limitations—to the induction problem), at least to some extent. The greater problem is the corruption of what AI presents: the misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation that its creators and administrators, as well as governments and pressure groups, direct it to create as a means of controlling or steering public opinion or knowledge.

This is the real danger that the now-famous open letter, signed by Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and others, pointed to:

“Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?”

Other than the economically illiterate reference to “automat[ing] away all the jobs,” the warning is well-taken. AI will not Terminator-like start to hate us and attempt to exterminate mankind. It will not make us all into biological batteries, as in The Matrix. However, it will—especially when corrupted—misinform and mislead us, create chaos, and potentially make our lives “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 06:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded…

Published

on

'Excess Mortality Skyrocketed': Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack 'Criminal' COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded experimental vaccines were hastily developed for a virus which primarily killed the old and fat (and those with other obvious comorbidities), and an aggressive, global campaign to coerce billions into injecting them ensued.

Then there were the lockdowns - with some countries (New Zealand, for example) building internment camps for those who tested positive for Covid-19, and others such as China welding entire apartment buildings shut to trap people inside.

It was an egregious and unnecessary response to a virus that, while highly virulent, was survivable by the vast majority of the general population.

Oh, and the vaccines, which governments are still pushing, didn't work as advertised to the point where health officials changed the definition of "vaccine" multiple times.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and vocal critic of vaccines. The two had a wide-ranging discussion, which included vaccine safety and efficacy, excess mortality, demographic impacts of the virus, big pharma, and the professional price Kory has paid for speaking out.

Keep reading below, or if you have roughly 50 minutes, watch it in its entirety for free on X:

"Do we have any real sense of what the cost, the physical cost to the country and world has been of those vaccines?" Carlson asked, kicking off the interview.

"I do think we have some understanding of the cost. I mean, I think, you know, you're aware of the work of of Ed Dowd, who's put together a team and looked, analytically at a lot of the epidemiologic data," Kory replied. "I mean, time with that vaccination rollout is when all of the numbers started going sideways, the excess mortality started to skyrocket."

When asked "what kind of death toll are we looking at?", Kory responded "...in 2023 alone, in the first nine months, we had what's called an excess mortality of 158,000 Americans," adding "But this is in 2023. I mean, we've  had Omicron now for two years, which is a mild variant. Not that many go to the hospital."

'Safe and Effective'

Tucker also asked Kory why the people who claimed the vaccine were "safe and effective" aren't being held criminally liable for abetting the "killing of all these Americans," to which Kory replied: "It’s my kind of belief, looking back, that [safe and effective] was a predetermined conclusion. There was no data to support that, but it was agreed upon that it would be presented as safe and effective."

Carlson and Kory then discussed the different segments of the population that experienced vaccine side effects, with Kory noting an "explosion in dying in the youngest and healthiest sectors of society," adding "And why did the employed fare far worse than those that weren't? And this particularly white collar, white collar, more than gray collar, more than blue collar."

Kory also said that Big Pharma is 'terrified' of Vitamin D because it "threatens the disease model." As journalist The Vigilant Fox notes on X, "Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials," and "showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies."

Professional costs

Kory - while risking professional suicide by speaking out, has undoubtedly helped save countless lives by advocating for alternate treatments such as Ivermectin.

Kory shared his own experiences of job loss and censorship, highlighting the challenges of advocating for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine safety in an environment often resistant to dissenting voices.

"I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin and the the genesis of that book," he said, adding "Not only is my expertise on Ivermectin and my vast clinical experience, but and I tell the story before, but I got an email, during this journey from a guy named William B Grant, who's a professor out in California, and he wrote to me this email just one day, my life was going totally sideways because our protocols focused on Ivermectin. I was using a lot in my practice, as were tens of thousands of doctors around the world, to really good benefits. And I was getting attacked, hit jobs in the media, and he wrote me this email on and he said, Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to Ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades..."

"And it's got five tactics. And these are the five tactics that all industries employ when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. And so I'm just going to give you an example. Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign. It threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one. We know that, that everything, all the propaganda censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy."

Money makes the world go 'round

Carlson then hit on perhaps the most devious aspect of the relationship between drug companies and the medical establishment, and how special interests completely taint science to the point where public distrust of institutions has spiked in recent years.

"I think all of it starts at the level the medical journals," said Kory. "Because once you have something established in the medical journals as a, let's say, a proven fact or a generally accepted consensus, consensus comes out of the journals."

"I have dozens of rejection letters from investigators around the world who did good trials on ivermectin, tried to publish it. No thank you, no thank you, no thank you. And then the ones that do get in all purportedly prove that ivermectin didn't work," Kory continued.

"So and then when you look at the ones that actually got in and this is where like probably my biggest estrangement and why I don't recognize science and don't trust it anymore, is the trials that flew to publication in the top journals in the world were so brazenly manipulated and corrupted in the design and conduct in, many of us wrote about it. But they flew to publication, and then every time they were published, you saw these huge PR campaigns in the media. New York Times, Boston Globe, L.A. times, ivermectin doesn't work. Latest high quality, rigorous study says. I'm sitting here in my office watching these lies just ripple throughout the media sphere based on fraudulent studies published in the top journals. And that's that's that has changed. Now that's why I say I'm estranged and I don't know what to trust anymore."

Vaccine Injuries

Carlson asked Kory about his clinical experience with vaccine injuries.

"So how this is how I divide, this is just kind of my perception of vaccine injury is that when I use the term vaccine injury, I'm usually referring to what I call a single organ problem, like pericarditis, myocarditis, stroke, something like that. An autoimmune disease," he replied.

"What I specialize in my practice, is I treat patients with what we call a long Covid long vaxx. It's the same disease, just different triggers, right? One is triggered by Covid, the other one is triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Much more common is long vax. The only real differences between the two conditions is that the vaccinated are, on average, sicker and more disabled than the long Covids, with some pretty prominent exceptions to that."

Watch the entire interview above, and you can support Tucker Carlson's endeavors by joining the Tucker Carlson Network here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending