New Year Kicks Off With High Hopes, Mixed Signals

New Year Kicks Off With High Hopes, Mixed Signals

By Bloomberg commentator Jan-Patrick Barnert

The year that everyone is pinning their hopes on is finally here. After a late 2020 rally, however, market signals are mixed about the potential for stocks to climb the next leg higher. Here’s a quick look at where we are and what to watch for in the coming weeks.

Europe’s stocks ended 2020 with a year-end rally as the Brexit trade deal finally made it across the finish line. It wasn’t enough for the Stoxx 600 to erase its annual losses, however, and the momentum has cooled down considerably. Many argue that a lot of good news is now priced in, at least in the short term.

Looking at Euro Stoxx 50 futures, the picture is rather neutral. While the latest support held and there are no clear sell signals yet, there are also no convincing signs pointing to another leg higher.

The first quarter isn’t short of risk events that could determine the initial market direction. This week’s U.S. Senate run-off election is the first stop, with Jefferies strategists calling it “the obvious risk.”

Later this month, the ECB and the Federal Reserve hold meetings, with fourth-quarter GDP figures following in February. Over in Asia, the China National People’s Congress will start in early March.

Volatility has stayed elevated, indicating some caution still lingers. The VIX Index, while at lower levels than during the sharp selloff in early 2020, has stayed above the 20-point mark for 218 days now. That’s only the fourth time since 1990 that the gauge has remained above that threshold for more than 200 days. The VStoxx Index of euro-area volatility has also held above 20 since late February.

The November rotation that sparked optimism about a long-awaited revival in the value trade got a reality check just a month later as growth stocks took over again. While a sustained switch may be key for Europe to outperform, a key value sector — banks — face hurdles ahead. The fine print of the Brexit may affect London’s financial industry, while the dividend debate is far from over.

Sentiment wise, there’s room for a catch up as markets have rallied harder than a euro-area measure of confidence. Other indicators like the CNN Fear & Greed index have recently retreated from very bullish levels, indicating that while stocks are higher, there may not be too much exuberance in the wider market.

Additionally, the high level of cash still on the sidelines might limit the downside in any short-term setbacks.

Things look smooth on the data front so far, although stricter lockdowns toward the end of the year in some countries may mar the short-term picture. With the consensus treating 2021 as the year of economic recovery, macro data will need to deliver on high expectations.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/04/2021 – 11:41

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Lhm2Q8 Tyler Durden

How does anyone take these people seriously?

Last week, just before the canceled New Year’s holiday, the US federal government released updated dietary guidelines for the next five years.

You know what I’m talking about– these are the government guidelines that recommend we consume a certain amount of Calories, fats, protein, carbs, etc. every day.

I don’t know that anyone actually pays attention to this stuff; taking diet advice from the federal government is about as sensible as seeking moral direction from Congress.

But nevertheless the government still makes a big deal about its dietary standards.

In fact the Department of Health and Human Services convened an ‘expert committee’ of PhD researchers, physicians, nutritionists, and public health officials to come up with the new recommendations.

Here’s where it gets interesting: in its final report to the Department of Health and Human Services, the committee strongly recommended that Americans should reduce their sugar and alcohol intake.

This seems hardly controversial.

Yet the Department of Health and Human Services rejected this recommendation, stating that “there was not a preponderance of evidence in the Committee’s review . . . to substantiate changes to the quantitative limits for either added sugars or alcohol.”

Really? Not enough evidence?

There have been countless studies spanning decades of research showing the harmful effects that excess sugar has on the human body, especially in children. Parents know this from personal experience.

Not to mention there has literally never been a single, credible study which concluded that children should consume more refined sugar.

And yet despite decades of hard evidence, the Department of Health and Human Services still can’t reach the same conclusion. For them, the jury’s still out on whether sugar is harmful.

How is anyone supposed to take these people seriously?

Coincidentally, this is the same department of government that has been telling us the COVID vaccines are completely safe.

So… they can’t figure out if sugar is bad. But they’re 100% positive that the vaccines are safe and everyone should take one.

This is just a tiny example of the truly nonsensical, oxymoronic thinking about Covid-1984. There are so many more.

Here’s another one: the Department of Health and Human Services is also responsible for tracking influenza statistics during the flu season.

For example, during last year’s flu season which began in October 2019, they reported up to 56 MILLION cases of influenza.

Remember, this was the 2019 flu season… so before the Covid hysteria.

How many influenza cases do you think have been reported so far this flu season? 10 million? 1 million? 100,000?

According to the most recent CDC data, the total number of influenza cases reported in the Land of the Free this flu season through December 27, 2020 is a big fat 877.

Not 877,000. Just 877, i.e. fewer than 1,000 people in the US have had the flu.

Seriously? Are we honestly supposed to believe that our infallible public health officials have miraculously eradicated influenza?

Or is it possible that, maybe just maybe, influenza cases are being counted as COVID-1984 ?

We already know the Covid numbers have enjoyed quite a bit of fuzzy arithmetic. Covid reporting standards in many municipalities, states, and countries require that anyone who tests positive for COVID and passes away is automatically counted as a COVID-related death.

Motorcycle accidents, heart attacks, even cancer… they’re being counted as COVID deaths.

Just a few weeks ago there was a murder-suicide in Grand County, Colorado in which the police report listed cause of death as “blunt force injuries due to a gunshot wound”.

But Colorado public health officials listed both of the deceased as COVID deaths.

Even the CDC acknowledges that 94% of all reported COVID deaths were related to some other condition besides, or in addition to, COVID-1984. So only 6% of reported deaths were pure COVID.

The CDC also stated that, “on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes” for every single COVID death reported in the Land of the Free, including (as we now know) murder, suicide, heart attack, and traffic accident.

It’s remarkable that, if someone tests positive for COVID and dies for any reason, the cause of death will often be reported as COVID.

Yet if someone takes a COVID vaccine and dies, the cause of death will never be listed as the vaccine. The vaccines will kill zero people. Listen to the scientists. Obey.

It’s also remarkable that they seem to be making up the vaccine procedures on the fly.

Bear in mind that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine requires two doses, three weeks apart. So you’re supposed to take the first dose, and then, 3 weeks later, a second dose.

And Pfizer (presumably the ‘expert’ about its own vaccine) has flat out said there is zero data to suggest that a single dose would be effective after 3 weeks.

But in the UK, public health officials have suddenly deemed in their sole discretion that the vaccine will continue to be safe beyond 3 weeks. They have conducted zero studies, and no research exists on the matter.

Yet they are now insisting that a single dose will keep people ‘70% protected’ despite the manufacturer’s objections.

And on this basis they decided to delay the second dose until week 12, if not later. (We assume they’re going to mix the first injection with a strong dose of Hopium…)

This sudden change is pretty amazing because, even just before Christmas, they were telling everyone how important it was to have the second injection after precisely 21 days.

Now they’ve completely reversed this and are telling people that 12 weeks is just fine, even though this contradicts what they just said, and what the manufacturer requires.

(And now the US government has said it will consider the same thing.)

They’re clearly just making it up as they go along. But hey– listen to the scientists. Obey.

It’s not just the government either. The private sector is totally on board with this oxymornic thinking.

A few days ago I boarded an American Airlines flight while traveling from Chile to Puerto Rico; as part of the check-in procedure, I had to swear to the airline that I had not tested positive for Covid, nor had I been in contact with anyone who had tested positive.

Yet it’s perfectly fine to board a commercial fight if you have Tuberculosis.

Or Ebola for that matter. Or influenza (not that it exists anymore). Or any other infectious disease… as long as it’s not COVID!

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/3ne1NQP
via IFTTT

Oil Prices Plunge After Russia Seeks Output Hike In February

Oil Prices Plunge After Russia Seeks Output Hike In February

Exaggerated by equity weakness, oil prices have plunged from hope-filled overnight exuberance as OPEC+ meets (virtually) and Russia proposes a 500k b/d output hike for February.

WTI tested up near $50 overnight before plunging back below $47.50 on the Russia headlines…

Bloomberg reports that the opening remarks from Prince Abdulaziz Bin Salman suggest very strongly that Saudi Arabia will oppose any increase in production in February. That could make for another very fraught meeting, if Alexander Novak decides to dig his heels in over the Russian proposal for an increase.

However, as OilPrice’s Irina Slav notes, OPEC has signaled it is concerned about oil demand despite its production control efforts as Covid-19 cases continue to surge in key markets, and the global total is still on the rise.

It seems vaccine optimism has begun to wear off, too, as it has become clear mass vaccinations will take months rather than weeks, so demand will be subdued for longer than some optimists in the trading community may have hoped.

“The outlook for the first half of 2021 is very mixed,” OPEC Secretary-General Mohammad Barkindo said on Sunday, ahead of an OPEC+ meeting later today. “There are still many downside risks to juggle,” Bloomberg quoted the official as saying.

In December, the extended cartel agreed to Russia’s proposal to start adding 500,000 bpd to their daily total from January based on the improved demand outlook and some members’ unwillingness to continue cutting deep. Yet this may change at today’s meeting. Russian Deputy Prime Minister and OPEC coordinator Alexander Novak suggested at the end of last year that the new deal could be tweaked if demand were to recover faster than previously expected.

While this looks unlikely at the moment, prices have improved, which would lend weight to Russia’s support for another 500,000 bpd increase in production in February. It was in its original proposal, which covered the period from January to April, but OPEC+ also agreed in December to meet every month to keep its hand on the pulse of the oil market, which basically means surprises are always possible whatever the original plans were.

According to the Bloomberg report from the preliminary meeting of OPEC yesterday, oil consumption was about to “shift from reverse to forward gear,” soon, thanks to vaccines, Barkindo said.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/04/2021 – 11:26

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hGwCfG Tyler Durden

What’s Behind Today’s Sudden Selloff: The Answer Lies In Georgia

What’s Behind Today’s Sudden Selloff: The Answer Lies In Georgia

There has been some confusion about the catalyst behind this morning’s sudden market selloff which followed promptly after the S&P hit a fresh all time high.

While there has been no single, definitive news catalyst, the answer for the risk weakness is to be found in Georgia, which goes to the polls in special run-off elections for its U.S. Senate seats. As a reminder, if Democrats win both, then the Senate will be split 50-50, and they will control it thanks to the vice president’s casting vote.

So why is Georgia suddenly a concern?

As Bloomberg’s John Authers explains overnight, while there have been few polls over the last two months, and with so much depending on getting people out to vote in the middle of winter during a pandemic, much must be left to conjecture, “but the prices on the Predictit prediction market show it is close.”

First, this is the race between the Democrats’ Raphael Warnock and Republican Kelly Loeffler:

The same trend is at work in the contest between the Democrats’ Jon Ossoff and Republican David Perdue, who is still hanging on to a lead:

Strikingly, while online betting markets priced in a relatively modest 25-30% probability of a blue sweep (i.e., Demorats winning both GA runoffs tomorrow), the Predictit odds for a “blue wave” have soared in the past few days, surging just shy of 50%.

As a further reminder, should Democrats win in GA and regain control of the Senate agenda, that would be a huge deal as “obstructionist tactics would become almost impossible for the Republicans” while the chances of more fiscal spending to alleviate the coronavirus, or a bigger push on infrastructure, would look much stronger. This, needless to say, “would boost the reflation trade” while more aggressive fiscal policy would also mean higher interest rates, while reducing the pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep them low.

It’s also why 10 Year breakevens just hit 2.01% earlier today…

… the highest level since 2018.

This, as Authers concludes “is an outcome for which investors aren’t positioned, so it could cause a market mess.”

Morgan Stanley’s Michael Wilson agrees, and this morning repeats his recent recurring warning that a notable market correction is imminent, writing that “the “risk-reward” of the US equity market has deteriorated materially and the market is ripe for a drawdown” and he lists the Georgia Senate seat run-off election as a potential downside trigger.

To be sure, while one can’t find much fear about a spike in inflation in the otherwise somnolent 10Ys nominals, Wilson writes that “the big surprise of 2021 could be higher inflation than many, including the Fed, expect. Currently, the consensus is expecting a gradual and orderly increase in prices as the economy continues to recover. However, the move in asset prices like Bitcoin suggest markets are starting to think this adjustment may not be so gradual or orderly.

The Morgan Stanley strategist concurs and adds that “with global GDP output already back to pre-pandemic levels and the economy not yet even close to fully reopened, we think the risk for more acute price spikes is greater than appreciated. That risk is likely to be in areas of the economy where supply may have been destroyed and ill prepared for what could be a surge in demand later this year—e.g. restaurants, travel and other consumer/business related services.”

Finally, while the best inflation hedges are stocks and commodities in the intermediate term, “inflation can be kryptonite for longer duration bonds which would have a short term negative impact on valuations for all stocks should that adjustment happen abruptly.”

We may be seeing the start of that adjustment this morning.

 

 

 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/04/2021 – 11:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ncXF3p Tyler Durden

Labeling People as “Robbers” When Police Said They “May Have Been Involved” in Robbery May Be Defamatory

From Anderson v. WBNS-TV, Inc., handed down last week by the Ohio Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge William Klatt joined by Judges Betsy Luper Schuster & Jennifer L. Brunner:

Jason A. Bolt, a detective with the Columbus Division of Police, prepared [and sent the media] a “Media Information” report regarding a robbery that had occurred at the Fort Rapids Indoor Waterpark on November 26, 2015. At the top of the report, Detective Bolt indicated that the individuals the police suspected of committing the robbery were “[u]nknown,” and Detective Bolt did not supply any identifying information, such as sex, race, or age, regarding the suspects. In the narrative section of the report, Detective Bolt wrote:

The victims were walking in the parking lot of Fort Rapids [W]aterpark watching their eight[-]year[-]old daughter ride her “hoverboard.” The suspects approached her on foot, put a gun to the eight year old[‘]s head and demanded her hoverboard. The suspects then ran to a white PT [C]ruiser and fled out of the parking lot.

Anyone that can help identify the persons in the attached photographs who may have been involved are asked to contact the Columbus Police Robbery Unit …. If they wish to remain anonymous[, they] can contact Central Ohio Crime Stoppers ….

Bolt attached … [a] black-and-white photograph[] to his report …, [which] shows three individuals—two men and one woman—entering a hotel hallway…. [T]he facial features of each individual are clearly visible….

Relying on the Media Information report, WBNS staff wrote news items for WBNS’ regular “CrimeTracker 10” news feature. According to the scripts provided by WBNS, the following newscast aired on January 21, 2016, at 5:00 a.m.:

IN CRIMETRACKER 10

… [Notes:show suspect pic]

[C]olumbus Police hope you recognize these two men who robbed an 8-year-old girl at gunpoint!

It happened in the parking lot of Fort Rapids [I]ndoor [W]aterpark in [C]olumbus.[Notes:show parking lot photo]

Robbery detectives just-released surveillance images from the [N]ovember crime.

The girl was riding her hoverboard in the parking lot with her family when they say two men pointed a gun at her head, taking it.

[Notes:show suspect pic]

Columbus Police say suspects– seen here– took off in a P-T [C]ruiser.

[Similar material was aired later. -EV]

This is not a case where the police released a video or photograph of suspects committing a robbery and asked the public to identify the suspects depicted in the video or photograph. In such a case, the video or photograph itself evinces the suspects’ participation in the robbery.

Here, the police provided WBNS a photograph of the individuals who “may have been involved” in the robbery that showed them merely walking in a hallway. Neither the Media Information report nor the hallway photograph established the individuals in the hallway photograph as “robbers.” WBNS, nevertheless, displayed the hallway photograph while conveying the message that the individuals in the photograph—the Anderson siblings—had robbed an 8-year-old girl at gunpoint. Given that WBNS’ reporting deviated from the information contained in the Media Information report, we conclude that a question of fact remains regarding whether WBNS acted reasonably to ensure the accuracy of its reporting….

WBNS does not directly contest this conclusion; instead, it asserts that it should prevail because the statements at issue are not defamatory….. WBNS essentially argues that, at most, its statements only identified the Andersons as suspects in the armed robbery of an eight-year-old girl, and no reasonable broadcaster could foresee the defamatory potential of naming someone a suspect in such a crime.

We do not agree. Robbing a child at gunpoint for the child’s toy is reprehensible behavior. Consequently, publicly identifying individuals as suspects in such a crime conceivably invites public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame, and disgrace as to those individuals. Thus, a question of fact remains regarding whether the harmful potential of WBNS’ statements should have been apparent to a reasonable broadcaster.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hHHVnO
via IFTTT

South Korea’s Military Dispatches Anti-Piracy Unit To Gulf After Iran Seized Tanker

South Korea’s Military Dispatches Anti-Piracy Unit To Gulf After Iran Seized Tanker

South Korea has announced it is sending the military’s anti-piracy Cheonghae Unit to the Persian Gulf after Iran seized a South Korean-flagged tanker off the Islamic Republic’s southern coast Monday, according to Yonhap News.

“The foreign ministry and the South Korean embassy in Iran have found that the crews are safe, and are requesting the early release of the ship,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

File image: ROKS Munmu the Great (DDH-976) destroyer in the South Korean navy.

Iran announced earlier in the day that its IRGC Navy forces detained the MT Hankuk Chemi chemical tanker for what official statements called “oil pollution” – a common excuse Iranian officials often given when they take such action.

Iranian state media also indicated the crew had been placed under arrest, which according to Yonhap includes 20 total crew members – among them 5 Koreans, 11 Myanmarese, two Indonesians and two Vietnamese.

The report notes further that the newly deployed anti-piracy unit will likely liaison with forces of allied navies already in the area:

The defense ministry said that it will deal with the seizure in cooperation with the ministries of foreign affairs and fisheries, and a multinational naval force operating in nearby waters.

The Cheonghae unit has previously operated in an anti-piracy capacity in the Persian Gulf, as recently as a year ago in conjunction with international allies. The operator of the Korean tanker that was seized has maintained the vessel did nothing wrong, but was still ordered to receive Iranian inspections, at which point it was detained in Iranian waters.

“Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps boarded the ship at around 4:30 p.m. (local time) and demanded the ship face examinations in Iranian waters,” an official from the tanker’s operator, DM Shipping, told South Korean media.

The tanker is still said to be in Iranian territorial waters at a moment tensions with the US and Israel are at boiling point. As we noted before, the seizure is apparently in retaliation for South Korea’s previous freezing of Iranian assets in South Korean banks based on US-led sanctions.These assets in South Korean banks are commonly estimated at up to $7 billion.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/04/2021 – 10:59

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3q0coRd Tyler Durden

Labeling People as “Robbers” When Police Said They “May Have Been Involved” in Robbery May Be Defamatory

From Anderson v. WBNS-TV, Inc., handed down last week by the Ohio Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge William Klatt joined by Judges Betsy Luper Schuster & Jennifer L. Brunner:

Jason A. Bolt, a detective with the Columbus Division of Police, prepared [and sent the media] a “Media Information” report regarding a robbery that had occurred at the Fort Rapids Indoor Waterpark on November 26, 2015. At the top of the report, Detective Bolt indicated that the individuals the police suspected of committing the robbery were “[u]nknown,” and Detective Bolt did not supply any identifying information, such as sex, race, or age, regarding the suspects. In the narrative section of the report, Detective Bolt wrote:

The victims were walking in the parking lot of Fort Rapids [W]aterpark watching their eight[-]year[-]old daughter ride her “hoverboard.” The suspects approached her on foot, put a gun to the eight year old[‘]s head and demanded her hoverboard. The suspects then ran to a white PT [C]ruiser and fled out of the parking lot.

Anyone that can help identify the persons in the attached photographs who may have been involved are asked to contact the Columbus Police Robbery Unit …. If they wish to remain anonymous[, they] can contact Central Ohio Crime Stoppers ….

Bolt attached … [a] black-and-white photograph[] to his report …, [which] shows three individuals—two men and one woman—entering a hotel hallway…. [T]he facial features of each individual are clearly visible….

Relying on the Media Information report, WBNS staff wrote news items for WBNS’ regular “CrimeTracker 10” news feature. According to the scripts provided by WBNS, the following newscast aired on January 21, 2016, at 5:00 a.m.:

IN CRIMETRACKER 10

… [Notes:show suspect pic]

[C]olumbus Police hope you recognize these two men who robbed an 8-year-old girl at gunpoint!

It happened in the parking lot of Fort Rapids [I]ndoor [W]aterpark in [C]olumbus.[Notes:show parking lot photo]

Robbery detectives just-released surveillance images from the [N]ovember crime.

The girl was riding her hoverboard in the parking lot with her family when they say two men pointed a gun at her head, taking it.

[Notes:show suspect pic]

Columbus Police say suspects– seen here– took off in a P-T [C]ruiser.

[Similar material was aired later. -EV]

This is not a case where the police released a video or photograph of suspects committing a robbery and asked the public to identify the suspects depicted in the video or photograph. In such a case, the video or photograph itself evinces the suspects’ participation in the robbery.

Here, the police provided WBNS a photograph of the individuals who “may have been involved” in the robbery that showed them merely walking in a hallway. Neither the Media Information report nor the hallway photograph established the individuals in the hallway photograph as “robbers.” WBNS, nevertheless, displayed the hallway photograph while conveying the message that the individuals in the photograph—the Anderson siblings—had robbed an 8-year-old girl at gunpoint. Given that WBNS’ reporting deviated from the information contained in the Media Information report, we conclude that a question of fact remains regarding whether WBNS acted reasonably to ensure the accuracy of its reporting….

WBNS does not directly contest this conclusion; instead, it asserts that it should prevail because the statements at issue are not defamatory….. WBNS essentially argues that, at most, its statements only identified the Andersons as suspects in the armed robbery of an eight-year-old girl, and no reasonable broadcaster could foresee the defamatory potential of naming someone a suspect in such a crime.

We do not agree. Robbing a child at gunpoint for the child’s toy is reprehensible behavior. Consequently, publicly identifying individuals as suspects in such a crime conceivably invites public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame, and disgrace as to those individuals. Thus, a question of fact remains regarding whether the harmful potential of WBNS’ statements should have been apparent to a reasonable broadcaster.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hHHVnO
via IFTTT

2020 Was A Snack, 2021 Is The Main Course

2020 Was A Snack, 2021 Is The Main Course

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

One of the dishes at the banquet of consequences that will surprise a great many revelers is the systemic failure of the Federal Reserve’s one-size-fits-all “solution” to every spot of bother: print another trillion dollars and give it to rapacious financiers and corporations.

Though 2020 is widely perceived as “the worst year ever,” it was only a snack. The real banquet of consequences will be served in 2021. The reason 2020 was only a snack is that systems didn’t break down in 2020. The reason 2021 is the main course is that systems will break down, and once broken, they cannot be restored.

I made the chart below to explain how systems fail and why they cannot be restored. 

Systems have numerous sources of potential fragility:

1. Systems can be tightly bound to other fragile systems, setting up the potential for a domino-like cascading collapse that starts with one system failure that then brings down every connected, interdependent system.

2. Systems can be hollowed out by self-interested insiders who mistakenly believe the system can survive endless looting.

3. Systems can be weakened by perverse incentives that provide strong incentives to under-invest in core functions and divert revenues to profiteering and extraction (stock buybacks, bonuses to managers, etc.)

4. Systems can appear robust to casual observers because insiders cloak the decay of function, accountability and transparency.

5. The decline of functionality / results can be hidden by bureaucratic obscurity (accounting statements in which all the important information is buried in footnotes starting on page 217, etc.) and by complexity thickets that reduce accountability to near-zero: no one is responsible for the decay of function, accountability and transparency.

6. Process replaces results as the Prime Directive of the system. Devoting resources to following processes rather than to getting results generates an illusion of functionality even as the ability to evolve and adapt is lost.

7. Buffers that enabled effective responses to crisis are stripped to the bone as redundancy and resilience are discounted as “hurting profits” or “needless expenses.”

8. Insiders and the public / customers wrongly assume money can solve all of these systemic frailties. But money cannot buy trust, competence, institutional depth, productive incentives or anything else that is essential to robust, anti-fragile systems.

Americans are unprepared for the collapse of core systems. The secular faith holds that corporate ownership of core systems, centralized state control and the relentless pursuit of infinite greed will magically manifest the best of all possible worlds because self-enrichment by any means available is what perfects systems.

Unfortunately for America, this faith has it exactly backwards: self-enrichment by any means available is what hollows out and fatally weakens systems. The relentless pursuit of infinite greed (“investing” in stock buybacks, legalized looting, etc.) has destroyed the moral foundation of society and the economy: there is no civic virtue or public good left. These empty phrases cannot hide that America is a moral cesspool so corrupted by greed and self-interest that the nation can no longer even recognize its own moral dissolution.

The second graphic I prepared a decade ago depicts the lifecycle of bureaucracy which can be either private-sector or public: the initial purpose of the organization that inspired the innovators and initial managers is slowly replaced by self-interest, and those who were willing to sacrifice to serve this purpose quit in disgust or are marginalized as “threats” to self-serving insiders.

The competent leave or are forced out, leaving those of supreme incompetence in power, managers who’ve been selected for loyalty to the Prime Directive, protecting insider looting from outside interference via a mastery of public relations (“managing the narrative”) and obfuscation.

The core function of the organization becomes masking dysfunction, ossification, sclerosis and the looting of insiders. The loss of function, accountability and transparency are hidden from prying eyes, and whistleblowers–the most dangerous threats to self-serving insiders–are hunted down and destroyed.

It is not coincidence that America’s “growth sectors” are corruption and public relations (“managing the narrative”) because the best way to cloak corruption and systemic failure is to manage the narrative by suppressing dissent and eradicating whistleblowers.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, many core systems are already in the first stages of collapse. No corporate sector does a better job of masking dysfunction and profiteering than healthcare, and so the collapse of healthcare systems will surprise everyone who swallowed the sector’s glossy PR.

The entire financial system is hopelessly compromised, corrupt, self-serving and obsessed with maximizing personal gains by any means available. One of the dishes at the banquet of consequences that will surprise a great many revelers is the systemic failure of the Federal Reserve’s one-size-fits-all “solution” to every spot of bother: print another trillion dollars and give it to rapacious financiers and corporations.

I suggest dining lightly on the feast of consequences because the courses of systemic failure will continue being served the entire year. So save some appetite for the really big systemic collapses that are only now being slid into the oven.

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

*  *  *

My recent books:

A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/04/2021 – 10:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ohi60g Tyler Durden

On Genetic Diversity and Vaccine Studies

Last week, I expressed my outrage that Moderna had delayed its Covid-19 vaccine trials to ensure that it had “enough” diversity in its vaccine subjects, a concern I deemed unscientific that cost thousands of lives. I got some pushback to the effect that there is evidence that people of different genetic backgrounds sometimes have different reactions to vaccines, and thus genetic diversity in research subjects is important.

Let’s assume arguendo that such differences are frequently enough medically significant that it is worthwhile to ensure genetic diversity in vaccine research subjects (i.e., the volunteers who receive the vaccines during the research phase). The problem is that Moderna (and other researchers), following FDA regulations, is not looking for genetic diversity, but diversity as defined by U.S. statistical categories–white, Asian, African American/black, Native American, and Hispanic. While regulations ensuring representation from each category may increase the diversity of research subjects, they are very poorly designed to do so.

I noted in my previous post that “Asian American” as used in government statistics is an incoherent category, encompassing everyone from Caucasian Indians to East Asians to Austronesian Filipinos. Similarly, Hispanic is a linguistic/cultural category not a genetic one; African American encompasses everyone from Ethiopians, who are more closely related genetically to Jews than to sub-Saharan Africans, to those sub-Saharans, and includes people with substantial Native American and European heritage; and white includes people with origins everywhere from Ireland to Yemen and Afganistan.

So let’s say a pharmaceutical company is looking to meet FDA guidelines, and also satisfy activists, by ensuring representation from American statistical groups. The company has its subsidiary in Ireland do its “white” testing locally. But wait! DNA researchers conclude that people from the Middle East can be divided into as many as four separate populations, and Europeans divided into as many as eight separate populations. Using Irish subjects provides “whites,” but not a genetically diverse group of whites.

The company also hires the Mayo Clinic to find African-American subjects. Mayo, based in Rochester, Minnesota, sends its team to Minneapolis to recruit, and finds the right number of subjects. But most African Americans in Minneapolis are Somalis. Not only does this not reflect the broader population of Africans and American Americans, Somalis are genetically more similar to people in Saudi Arabia they are to people from other parts of Africa. So Mayo has added “diversity” to the study, but not much genetic diversity, and none that would pick up, say, whether people of West African origin have unique reactions to the vaccine.

Our hypothetical pharmaceutical company also has a subsidiary in Mumbai, India, which recruits “Asian” subjects for the study locally. But Indians are Caucasians, and have no particular genetic relationship with East Asians, who are themselves genetically diverse.

Finally, our company is based in Miami, and recruits its “Hispanic” subjects from the local Cuban-American population. Cubans have the highest percentage of European ancestry of all major American Hispanic groups, and the lowest amount of indigenous ancestry. Are they genetically representative of the Hispanic population? Only to the extent that they are mostly of Spanish origin, and Spain is the dominant genetic contributor to the overall Hispanic population. [Please note: In my previous post, I cited a study suggesting that the average American Hispanic is about 75% European in ancestry. I have been directed to other studies concluding that the percentage is more like 55%.]

Using these subjects would totally satisfy FDA “diversity in medical research” rules, even though they in fact provide limited genetic diversity, and fail to represent large swathes of both the American and general world population. The company would likely have achieved greater genetic diversity in its subject just by trying to get a random sample of volunteers from the broad American population. So if genetic diversity is indeed important, FDA regulations should be rewritten to require genetic diversity, rather than using American racial categories as a very crude proxy.

That said, the FDA regulations did not come about because of scientific concerns about achieving genetic diversity in medical research, but from lobbying by activists who wanted to achieve “representation” in medical research. As Steven Epstein explains in his excellent book, Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research, the push by activists for “diversity” in medical research had the following goals:

(1) Statistical representation. Groups should be included in medical research according to their approximate percentages of the U.S. population. [Note there is no good scientific reason for this to proportional, as opposed, to say, equal numbers from each group.]

(2) Social visibility: Both researchers and research subjects should reflect American “diversity.”

(3) Political voice: Researchers should ensure their research is addressing the needs of less-advantaged groups.

(4) Symbolic representation: Medical researchers must be allies in ensuring that society understands the medically-related problems facing various social groups.

Note that none of these goals are “ensuring that studies are scientifically valid,” nor has the FDA ever really tried to explain why using American statistical categories is a sound scientific way to identify research subjects. For that matter, the FDA does not distinguish between studies clinical studies on disease and the effectiveness and safety of medications and vaccines, where American racial categories have little salience, and studies on sociological factors affecting public health, where they sometimes do. Faced with pressure to require attention to race and ethnicity in medical and scientific research, the FDA took the path of least resistance and simply required researchers to universally adopt the categories used by HHS and the rest of the government. (The FDA does allow, but does not require, companies to undertake more granular analysis.)

These rules make medical research a bit more expensive, which is itself a harm. In the Moderna case, when time was truly of the essence, they cost many lives for no scientific gain. More generally, as an editorial in Nature Genetics argued in 2004, the “use of race as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease.”

Twenty years ago, scientists predicted the use of race would subside in favor of much more scientifically salient DNA-based studies; instead, thanks in large part to the FDA (and NIH, which has similar regulations) “race” is more prevalent than ever. And many scientists believe that rather than advancing medical research, this use of race, leads the medical profession to “(mis)attribute causality and thereby (mis)identify health care needs.” George T.H. Ellison, et al., Racial Categories in Medicine: A Failure of Evidence-Based Practice?, PloS Medicine, Sept. 2007, e287, at 1434, 35.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JItByR
via IFTTT

On Genetic Diversity and Vaccine Studies

Last week, I expressed my outrage that Moderna had delayed its Covid-19 vaccine trials to ensure that it had “enough” diversity in its vaccine subjects, a concern I deemed unscientific that cost thousands of lives. I got some pushback to the effect that there is evidence that people of different genetic backgrounds sometimes have different reactions to vaccines, and thus genetic diversity in research subjects is important.

Let’s assume arguendo that such differences are frequently enough medically significant that it is worthwhile to ensure genetic diversity in vaccine research subjects (i.e., the volunteers who receive the vaccines during the research phase). The problem is that Moderna (and other researchers), following FDA regulations, is not looking for genetic diversity, but diversity as defined by U.S. statistical categories–white, Asian, African American/black, Native American, and Hispanic. While regulations ensuring representation from each category may increase the diversity of research subjects, they are very poorly designed to do so.

I noted in my previous post that “Asian American” as used in government statistics is an incoherent category, encompassing everyone from Caucasian Indians to East Asians to Austronesian Filipinos. Similarly, Hispanic is a linguistic/cultural category not a genetic one; African American encompasses everyone from Ethiopians, who are more closely related genetically to Jews than to sub-Saharan Africans, to those sub-Saharans, and includes people with substantial Native American and European heritage; and white includes people with origins everywhere from Ireland to Yemen and Afganistan.

So let’s say a pharmaceutical company is looking to meet FDA guidelines, and also satisfy activists, by ensuring representation from American statistical groups. The company has its subsidiary in Ireland do its “white” testing locally. But wait! DNA researchers conclude that people from the Middle East can be divided into as many as four separate populations, and Europeans divided into as many as eight separate populations. Using Irish subjects provides “whites,” but not a genetically diverse group of whites.

The company also hires the Mayo Clinic to find African-American subjects. Mayo, based in Rochester, Minnesota, sends its team to Minneapolis to recruit, and finds the right number of subjects. But most African Americans in Minneapolis are Somalis. Not only does this not reflect the broader population of Africans and American Americans, Somalis are genetically more similar to people in Saudi Arabia they are to people from other parts of Africa. So Mayo has added “diversity” to the study, but not much genetic diversity, and none that would pick up, say, whether people of West African origin have unique reactions to the vaccine.

Our hypothetical pharmaceutical company also has a subsidiary in Mumbai, India, which recruits “Asian” subjects for the study locally. But Indians are Caucasians, and have no particular genetic relationship with East Asians, who are themselves genetically diverse.

Finally, our company is based in Miami, and recruits its “Hispanic” subjects from the local Cuban-American population. Cubans have the highest percentage of European ancestry of all major American Hispanic groups, and the lowest amount of indigenous ancestry. Are they genetically representative of the Hispanic population? Only to the extent that they are mostly of Spanish origin, and Spain is the dominant genetic contributor to the overall Hispanic population. [Please note: In my previous post, I cited a study suggesting that the average American Hispanic is about 75% European in ancestry. I have been directed to other studies concluding that the percentage is more like 55%.]

Using these subjects would totally satisfy FDA “diversity in medical research” rules, even though they in fact provide limited genetic diversity, and fail to represent large swathes of both the American and general world population. The company would likely have achieved greater genetic diversity in its subject just by trying to get a random sample of volunteers from the broad American population. So if genetic diversity is indeed important, FDA regulations should be rewritten to require genetic diversity, rather than using American racial categories as a very crude proxy.

That said, the FDA regulations did not come about because of scientific concerns about achieving genetic diversity in medical research, but from lobbying by activists who wanted to achieve “representation” in medical research. As Steven Epstein explains in his excellent book, Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research, the push by activists for “diversity” in medical research had the following goals:

(1) Statistical representation. Groups should be included in medical research according to their approximate percentages of the U.S. population. [Note there is no good scientific reason for this to proportional, as opposed, to say, equal numbers from each group.]

(2) Social visibility: Both researchers and research subjects should reflect American “diversity.”

(3) Political voice: Researchers should ensure their research is addressing the needs of less-advantaged groups.

(4) Symbolic representation: Medical researchers must be allies in ensuring that society understands the medically-related problems facing various social groups.

Note that none of these goals are “ensuring that studies are scientifically valid,” nor has the FDA ever really tried to explain why using American statistical categories is a sound scientific way to identify research subjects. For that matter, the FDA does not distinguish between studies clinical studies on disease and the effectiveness and safety of medications and vaccines, where American racial categories have little salience, and studies on sociological factors affecting public health, where they sometimes do. Faced with pressure to require attention to race and ethnicity in medical and scientific research, the FDA took the path of least resistance and simply required researchers to universally adopt the categories used by HHS and the rest of the government. (The FDA does allow, but does not require, companies to undertake more granular analysis.)

These rules make medical research a bit more expensive, which is itself a harm. In the Moderna case, when time was truly of the essence, they cost many lives for no scientific gain. More generally, as an editorial in Nature Genetics argued in 2004, the “use of race as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease.”

Twenty years ago, scientists predicted the use of race would subside in favor of much more scientifically salient DNA-based studies; instead, thanks in large part to the FDA (and NIH, which has similar regulations) “race” is more prevalent than ever. And many scientists believe that rather than advancing medical research, this use of race, leads the medical profession to “(mis)attribute causality and thereby (mis)identify health care needs.” George T.H. Ellison, et al., Racial Categories in Medicine: A Failure of Evidence-Based Practice?, PloS Medicine, Sept. 2007, e287, at 1434, 35.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JItByR
via IFTTT