Sossupummit ja muut yhteiskunnan loiset

perjantai 2. heinäkuuta 2021

A Beginner and Intermediate Guide To Options: Everything You Need To Know To Stop Losing Money Like A Complete Tard

Introduction

For those of you that are living underneath a rock, options represent the contractual right to purchase or sell blocks of 100 shares in the underlying security. Because each option represents 100 shares, they often provide volatile leveraged like returns and are often used by either professional investors as part of a sophisticated investment strategy or by retail ~~gamblers~~ investors as a way to potentially gain massive amounts of money while putting up a relatively small amount.

In this post, I will walk you through the pricing fundamentals, the Greeks, and common option strategies. Hopefully, by the end of this post, you will stop losing all your money like a bunch of half-wits. Well, you probably still lose money, but at least you can act like a smartass about it.

Pricing Fundamentals

This section is going to be focused on the fundamentals and theoretical aspects behind what gives an option value. Aka, that boomer shit.

There are two types of options: American and European. American options give the holder the right to exercise the option at any given time prior to the expiration date (cause freedom, that’s why). These options are the ones you typically buy from your broker. European options on the other hand are fucking gay because they only let you exercise at the expiry date and since none of you cucks ever bought an option from a Europoor before, I will focus solely on American options for this DD post.

Value Breakdown

Every option, regardless if it’s a chad call or a gay put has two pricing components that justify it’s current market value: the intrinsic value and the speculative value. Let me explain via this equation:

Value = Intrinsic + Speculative Value

Intrinsic value is how ITM an option is, and the speculative value is the chances of it becoming even more ITM by the time to expiry. For example, assume a call option has a strike of $10 and the current price of the stock is $12. That would mean the intrinsic value is $2. However, the option expires in let’s say 3 months, and is being traded at $3. That would mean the additional 1-dollar difference above the $2 is the speculative value of the option. That $1 represents investors speculating the option will become even more ITM within that three months time frame.

Taking that logic further we can derive the fundamental value for a call and put option as:

Call = stock price – strike + speculative

Put = strike – stock price + speculative

Leverage

Now that you know that a single option grants you exposure to multiple shares and the returns are therefore leveraged, you might be thinking to yourself oh gosh, I hope there is a way for me to calculate exactly how leveraged this option will be. Don’t worry, there is. You can calculate exactly how leveraged an option is via this equation:

(Option Delta x Share Price) / Option price

To give you an illustration, let's assume you buy a long-term SPY call trading at $10 a contract with a delta of 0.5 while SPY is being traded at $340 a share. Putting these numbers into the equation you get the following:

(0.5 x 340) / 10 = 17. What this means is that this option lets you be leveraged 17:1 on a single call option. So if you put let's say $1,000 into this call or purchase 1 contract, you have a position that is equal to $17,000 on the SPY.

Given this example, you should now come to realize why options are extremely risky and should not be taken lightly. If there is one thing to take away from this is that you need to be aware of the amount of risk options carry and you need to allocate your capital effectively.

Volatility

This is the big one. If the market is a casino, then this is the bookie playing around with the odds on the board. So if you want to leave the casino with money and not another man’s dick in your hand, you need to know volatility cold. For options trading, there are two kinds of volatility: realized and unrealized.

Realized

All you need to know is that realized volatility is the historic price movement of the stock. It is measured as the standard deviation (or deviation from average price) from the average price of a stock in a given time frame.

Unrealized Or Implied Volatility

This is the most important of the two. To put it in simplest terms, IV is the expected magnitude of a stock’s future price changes expressed as an annual percentage.

This expected yearly price change can be expressed as the following:

1-Year Expected Range = stock price +/- (stock price x IV)

What is important with this formula is that it shows the riskier stocks usually have higher IVs which will result in a larger annual expected range. Taking this a step further we can also visualize the expected stock price changes via standard deviations.

Assuming most of you passed high school, a fair amount of you must be somewhat familiar with the normal distribution graph and the confidence interval (if not, don't worry about it, I'm going to baby you through this). We can demonstrate expected stock volatility with a graph of a normal distribution that shows a 1 standard deviation of the price movement of a stock that is trading at $100 with an IV of 25%. In statistics, when we have a standard deviation of 1 we can say that we have a confidence of 68% that the stock will trade within this range. Plugging in the stock price of $100 with an IV of 25% into the equation we get:

100 +/- (100 x 0.25 ) = 125 and 75.

This means that with a standard deviation of 1 we can say that there is a 68% chance the stock will trade within the range of $75 - $125.

We can also take it a step further and do a 2-standard deviation which will give us a representation of a stock’s fluctuation with a 95% confidence interval. In the chart below, still assuming a stock price of $100 and an IV of 25%, the range has doubled to $50 - $150. Remember, in statistics, we can go all the way to 3-standard deviations which is a confidence interval of 99.7% and that will mean a range of $25 - $175.

Now that your high school nostalgia is out of the way, there is one more useful tidbit of knowledge I will show you.

We can also calculate the stock’s expected move over any period via this equation:

**19.1 is the square root of 365 or the days in a year. For Simplicity’s sake, I simplified the denominator.

This way whenever you buy an option that doesn’t expire in one year exactly, you can still map out the expected price range as stated by option traders. That way, you know what you are getting into and be all surprised when a dick is shoved up your ass (unless you’re in to that, then call me).

Greeks

What you all need to know is that within the premiums of every option that you buy there are certain assumptions that are priced in, much like there are certain assumptions that are priced into a stock price. These assumptions are often represented by certain Greek letters and by understanding what they are and how they influence the option’s value, you can better understand what you are betting on and whether or not the risks are tilted in your favor.

In this part, I am going to talk about the four Greeks every last one of you degenerates must know by heart: Vega, Delta, Gamma, and Theta. And no, they aren’t the name of the fraternity your girlfriend goes to so that she can blow half the chads on campus. These guys are the ones that will determine whether you make actual life-changing money or move back to your mother’s basement while your new stepdad subtly judges you.

Vega (V): This represents the change in option price per change in the option’s implied volatility. Vega is highest when the stock price is at the strike price and when the option is farther out from the expiration date.

Ex: Let’s assume the premium of an option is 7.5, IV is at 20% and vega at 0.12. If the IV moves up from 20 to 21.5, that is a 1.5 increase. The option price will increase by 1.5 x 0.12 = 0.18. 0.18 + 7.5 = 7.68

Delta (Δ): Delta is a change in the option’s price due to a change in underlying stock price. Assuming we have a delta of 0.5, that means per every dollar the stock price goes up by, the option premium will go up by 50% of that change. Delta is often highest the farther ITM the option is and will often be the most volatile the closer the strike price is to the stock price. Call options have a delta of 0-1 while Puts have a negative delta of 0 – (-1). The absolute delta of an option also tells you the probability that the option will finish in the money.

Gamma (T): Gamma is the rate of change in an option’s delta per 1-point move in the underlying’s share price. It is essentially the first derivative of delta and is used to gauge the price movement of an option relative to how far OTM or ITM it is. Taking this further, gamma is also the second derivative of an option’s price with respect to the underlying share’s price. This is because the delta is the first derivative of share price and since gamma is the first derivative of the delta, it is, therefore, the second derivative of the share price.

Whenever you long an option, you have positive gamma exposure and when you short, you have negative gamma exposure.

It is also important to note that gamma approaches 0 the farther an option becomes OTM or ITM. Gamma is also at its highest when the strike is ATM.

Ex: assume an option has a delta of 0.5 and a delta of 0.1. This means per every dollar increase of the underlying stock, the delta would increase by the gamma amount. So in this case it is 0.5 + 0.1 = 0.6. Conversely the opposite happens as well if the stock price go down by a dollar which will bring the new delta to 0.4. The change in an option's delta is better illustrated in the next section where the delta curve is discussed.

Theta (O): This Greek is probably the easiest to understand. Theta is the time decay of an option as it approaches its expiration date. This means that theta measures the constant and steady decrease in the extrinsic value for an option on a daily basis. If the theta for an option is -0.02, then every day, as sure as the sun rises in the east, your option is going to lose $2.

Delta Curve:

For those of you that don’t know, the delta of an option is not stagnant, and its rate of change in accordance with share price changes is represented by the option’s gamma. You can actually map out the expected change in an option’s delta in accordance with the underlying share price via the delta curve.

Let me show you the delta curve for a call option:

Note that the delta becomes more volatile as the option becomes ATM as the stock price rises before slowing that rate of change as the delta approaches 1 the deeper the option goes ITM. The delta will approach 1 because the absolute value of a delta represents the market’s expectation that the option will expire ITM so it makes sense that the more ITM an option becomes, the higher that percentage will be as it approaches 100%.

When you look at the delta curve for a put option, you will find a lot of similarities with the call option delta:

Just like with call options, the delta becomes more volatile as the option becomes ATM; however, remember that put options have a negative delta and because it becomes more ITM the lower the stock price is, a rising stock price will result in a delta approaching 0.

Equations

*** I got these equations from my CFA textbooks so the nomenclature for these option strategies might be different than what you are seeing on your brokerage page. Either way, you can just look at the descriptions I have made and figure out which strategies I am talking about.

To wrap this up I am going to go through some popular options strategies that are often mentioned in investing subreddits. These descriptions will include what the option strategies entail, what will be their value at expiration, how much profit you can make, your maximum possible gain, how much money you can lose, and what price you need to be at in order to break even.

First here is a list of the variables I will be using and what they represent.

S0 : stock price at open

ST : stock price at close

X : strike price

Co : call premium

Po : put premium

XH : higher strike

CL / PL: premium on call/put with a lower strike

CH / PH: premium on call/put with a higher strike

Covered Call

This is longing for a stock and selling an OTM call option on it. People often do this in order to increase the “yield” on investment, meaning they get to haul in some additional cash flow on their stock holdings. Benefits to this strategy include the cash flow you receive from selling calls and its ability to reduce the overall volatility in your portfolio. The downside is that because you sold calls, you limit your upside potential because if the stock price goes over the strike price, it would be assumed that the option you sold will be exercised; therefore, there is a ceiling on how much money you can earn.

Expiration value: ST – Max[(ST – X), 0]

Profit at expiration ST – Max[(ST – X), 0] – So + Co

Max Gain (X – So) + Co

Max Loss So – Co

Breakeven Price: So – Co

Protective Put

This is longing a stock and a put option on the stock that is usually OTM. The idea here is that the put option serve as a kind of insurance on your stock holdings. By purchasing puts, you limit yourself on how much money you can possibly lose which will serve you well whenever the market decides to hit the shitter and enters a correction. Another benefit to this strategy is that unlike covered calls, you still have unlimited upside potential on your stock holdings. The downside is the money you have to spend in order to insure your positions.

Expiration value ST + Max[( X – ST), 0]

Profit at expiration ST + Max[( X – ST), 0] – So – Po

Max Gain ST – So – Po

Max Loss: So – X + Po

B.E price So + Po

Bull Call Spread

This is a directional play with options. Meaning in this case you are betting that the stock will go up. Bull Calls is longing for a call option with a lower strike and at the same time selling a call option on the same stock with the same expiry date at a higher strike. Here you are trying to profit off the deltas in which the positive delta for the option with the lower strike will be greater than the delta for the option with the higher strike and as the stock price goes up, you can profit from the delta difference. A benefit to this strategy is that because you are selling an option as well as buying one, you can limit your cash outflow. A downside is that you also limit the amount of money you can gain with this strategy. You can also do this strategy with put options in which you sell puts with the higher strike and buy puts with the lower strikes. For simplicity’s sake, I will just list the equations for the strategy with call options.

Profit at expiration Max( 0, ST – XL ) – Max(0, ST – XH) – CL + CH

Max Profit XH – XL – CL + CH

Max Loss CL – CH

BE XL + CL – CH

Bear Put Spread

Similar direction play just like Bull Calls but in this case you are betting the stock is going down. Here you are longing put options with the higher strike and selling puts with a lower strike. The expiration date must be the same for both options. The rationale of profiting off the Greeks and the pros and cons remain similar to Bull Calls.

Profit at expiration Max(0, XH – ST) – Max(0, XL – ST) – PH + PL

Max Profit XH – XL – PH + PL

Max loss PH – PL

Breakeven XH + PL – PH

Collar

This strategy is used when you think a stock is going to trade in a certain range. Here you are longing the stock, longing an ITM protective put, and selling an OTM call. The idea is that the put will provide downside protection while the call provides a ceiling on how much money you can earn. The main benefit is that it allows you to buy protection while limiting your cash outflow since you sold a call. The downside is that upside is limited just like a covered call strategy.

Profit at expiration (ST – So) + (XL – ST) – (ST – XH) – (Po – Co)

Max profit XH – So – (Po – Co)

Max loss So – XL + (Po – Co)

Breakeven So + (Po / Co)

Straddle

This is a directional play except over here you have no idea what the direction is. This strategy is ideal when betting on the general volatility of the stock without any idea on where the direction of the stock will go. Here you are longing both a call and a put on the same stock at the same expiration and at the same strike. The idea is that as the stock goes up or down, the delta of one option will slowly go to 1 while the other goes to 0 and you can profit off the gamma. The benefit to this is that you don’t need to bet as much in a certain direction, the downside however is that you are longing volatility and if the volatility does not reach high enough to what is priced into the premium, then you will lose money on both the call and the put as they both expire to 0.

Profit Max(0, ST – X)

Max profit = Co + Po

Max loss Co + Po

Breakeven X – (Co + Po) and X + (Co + Po)

from https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/o8wqjy/a_beginner_and_intermediate_guide_to_options/

maanantai 28. kesäkuuta 2021

Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex Is World's Greatest Threat

In the January 22, 2021, lecture above, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., discusses what he has dubbed the pandemic virus industrial complex — who they are, how they function and interact with elements within the academic, military and commercial complexes, and how they have been trying to obscure facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that originated in a lab.

I have previously interviewed Latham a few times. He is the publisher of Independent Science News, a website that provides critical commentary on food, agriculture and biotechnology. It's part of the Bioscience Resource Project, an educational nonprofit public interest group co-founded by Latham and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., that provides independent research and analysis of genetic engineering and its risks.

Latham points out that there are currently no data to suggest a natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence and data suggesting the virus was genetically manipulated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Much of the related research was done by a scientist called Shi Zheng-Li, Ph.D.

He goes on to summarize the Mojiang miners passage theory. This theory postulates that the virus evolved inside the bodies of six miners who became ill with a suspected novel coronavirus infection in 2012. Some of the miners were sick for several weeks — a sufficient amount of time for the virus to mutate, Latham believes.

Viral samples from the miners were sent to the WIV. Latham and Wilson believe research on these samples was what led to an accidental release of the virus in late 2019.

The Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex

Latham describes the pandemic virus industrial complex as "an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way." It is an enterprise that leverages public money for private profit. He also notes that many of these participants play unexpected roles. For example:

Philanthropic organizations act as string-pullers, influencers and profit centers
The Defense Department is both a cash cow and a provocateur
Academia provides public relations via legacy media controlled by philanthropic organizations and the drug industry
Academic nonprofits act as money launderers

"These nontraditional roles are intended to confuse and camouflage the various moving parts of what is a complex situation," Latham says, "thereby protecting the whole from scrutiny." While there are many similarities between the military industrial complex and the pandemic virus industrial complex, there's an important difference between the two.

The pandemic virus industrial complex is public facing, and is expected to be beneficial and transparent. As such, it has an image of respectability that must be maintained, and that is why academics and philanthropic and nonprofit organizations play such important roles in this scheme.

Together, they help obscure the real agenda under a veneer of respectability and public good. In essence, they maintain the illusion that everything that's taking place is for the betterment of mankind when, in reality, it's a profit-making scheme.

Latham believes the pandemic virus industrial complex has played a decisive role in the effort to obscure the likely origin of the pandemic. He also believes this is the missing framework that helps explain the politicization of the pandemic.

Previous Obscuration Attempts of Manmade Outbreaks

In his lecture, Latham reviews some of the history of this viral pandemic industrial complex. In 2014, an Ebola outbreak in West Africa was decisively blamed on zoonotic transfer from infected bats. According to a report in EMBO Molecular Medicine,¹ a 2-year-old boy playing with bats in a tree stump was Patient Zero.

However, while the paper failed to produce conclusive evidence to support its conclusion, Western media ran with this story. In West Africa, however, the rumor was that the real source of the outbreak was a hospital in Sierra Leone, which housed a biological laboratory where research on Ebola and related viruses, such as the lassa fever virus, was being done.

This research was largely funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. The reason for this funding was a recent upgrading by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the lassa fever virus as a Category A infectious substance, meaning a pathogen likely to be used as a bioweapon by terrorists. The research was carried out under the auspices of the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium, led by Harvard University.

The Consortium is also tied to other academic institutions, including Tulane University, Scripps Research Institute, the University of California, San Diego, the Broad Institute of Boston and the University of Texas, as well as a number of private drug companies. According to Latham, statements made by some of the people involved in the research suggest they were taking advantage of West Africa's lax and inferior biosecurity standards.

In his book, "The Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Corporate Gangsters, Multinationals & Rogue Politicians," Chernoh Bah provides evidence showing the Patient Zero story was a fraud. The young boy died at 18 months of age, far too young to play with bats, and he was never diagnosed with Ebola. Neither was anyone in his family. The first recorded case of Ebola was actually found in Guinea, some three months after the little boy had died.

Bah also found other gaping holes in the narrative. For example, despite widespread sampling, no Ebola virus was ever found in any animal, and no animal die-offs occurred before the outbreak, which tends to be typical in natural zoonotic spillover events. Despite the obvious problems with the official narrative, no formal investigation of the lab leak theory was ever performed.

Follow the Money

According to Latham, we can learn a number of things from this story. First of all, lab escapes are likely more common than we think, and widely considered zoonotic outbreaks may not be zoonotic in origin at all. Another example is the AIDS epidemic, which you can learn about in the book "The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS."

The second thing we can learn from the West African Ebola story relates to the money trail. The U.S. Department of Defense funded the research done by the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium. Other oft-used alternative sources are public health funding and international aid. Whatever the case, be it biodefense, public health funding or relief aid, the money comes from We the People.

Thirdly, corporate members of the Consortium had a specific business model in mind, and it had nothing to do with protecting vulnerable Africans from lassa or Ebola. The goal of drug companies is to sell vaccines, drugs and diagnostic tools, primarily to the U.S. or European militaries.

The fact that the 2014 Ebola outbreak narrative went unchallenged shows a disturbing lack of academic rigor, and it was certainly not the first time. As noted by Latham, scientists are failing in their role to pursue and promulgate knowledge and understanding.

"Instead, more and more frequently, academia creates fictions," he says. They create "convenient, self-serving narratives." Legacy media works hand-in-hand with such academics, acting as a megaphone for their dubious scientific claims.

Science Used for PR Purposes

One example of how businesses use academics to shape a narrative and manipulate public opinion was when, in May 2020, 77 Nobel laureates signed a public letter urging the U.S. government to reinstate funding to EcoHealth Alliance, which has subcontracted gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to the WIV. Earlier that year, then-President Trump had ordered the National Institutes of Health to cancel that funding.

The letter was organized by Sir Richard Roberts, a molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner who also happens to be a senior executive with New England Biolabs, a manufacturer of laboratory equipment and reagents.

"Cutting funds for biotech virus research threatens their core business," Latham says. So, is Roberts really a disinterested party? Or does he have a very keen interest in keeping dangerous gain-of-function research going, risks be damned?

Back in 2016, Roberts organized a similar campaign, in which 107 Nobel laureates attacked Greenpeace for supposedly blocking the approval of GMO golden rice.

The National Press Club in Washington D.C. brought nationwide attention to the letter with a formal press conference. One of the organizers of that press event was a former Monsanto PR executive, and the website created to promote the campaign was traced to the biotech industry.

"The point here is that there's nothing spontaneous about these letters," Latham says. "They're carefully choreographed PR gambits … What is really being defended is the overlapping interests of companies like New England Biolabs and Monsanto. In this world, science and scientists are useful pawns with which to shape public opinion."

Propaganda Now Coming From the Most Unlikely Sources

One of the latest propaganda tactics employed in an effort to shape public opinion and discourage inquisitiveness is that if you're concerned about the potential for lab leaks, you're anti-science and a racist pro-Trumper.

If you file freedom of information act (FOIA) requests with scientists, you're anti-science. If you question Dr. Anthony Fauci, you're anti-science.^2,3 If you're against GMOs, you're anti-science. If you're against gain-of-function research, you're anti-science. If you're anti-nuclear energy, you're anti-science. This is a ploy and nothing else. Sadly, this propaganda is now being spewed by even the most unlikely of sources, such as Mother Jones.

June 14, 2021, Mother Jones published a hit piece on the Center for Food Safety, penned by Kiera Butler.⁴ In May 2021, the Center for Food Safety sued the NIH in an effort to force the agency to reveal its funding of gain-of-function research.

"Virologists say this kind of research is vital and has led to many important medical discoveries, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. But Center for Food Safety argues that gain-of-function research is too dangerous to pursue," Butler writes.

"Why would this lefty food and farms group … rail against high-level virology research? The key to the answer has to do with the Center for Food Safety's long opposition to the practice of genetic engineering. In a recent phone call, I spoke to CFS's Kimbrell, who explained what he sees as the connection.

'You genetically engineer bacteria and plants, then you genetically engineer animals, then you genetically engineer embryos — all that has happened, with some promise, but also a tremendous amount of danger and threat,' he said.

'Now, viruses are not technically an organism, but they are living biological elements. So, they fit certainly within that narrative: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do something.'

Kimbrell said he 'absolutely' thinks the pandemic was the result of an accidental lab release. Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he believes, used gain-of-function to enhance a coronavirus. The virus then escaped out of the lab, spread uncontrollably, and caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, in effect, gain-of-function research caused the pandemic."

Butler also discusses the Organic Consumers Association, the U.S. Right to Know, the International Center for Technology Assessment, and Children's Health Defense — all of which have raised questions and concerns about this kind of dangerous research on pathogens. According to Butler, they have no business questioning such research, and their involvement could put us all in jeopardy.

"With tens of thousands of followers on social media, anti-GMO groups have the potential to turn the tide of public opinion; hanging in the balance is science that could potentially help prevent the next pandemic," she writes.

Butler Accused of Journalistic Malpractice

In true propagandist fashion, Butler goes on to rebut gain-of-function concerns with commentary from EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., one of the most conflicted individuals you could possibly find. Indeed, his conflicts of interest have become so widely known, he was recently removed from the Lancet commission charged with investigating the origin of COVID-19 because of it.^5,6

Butler also goes to great lengths trying to paint the issue in political partisan colors, and quotes Dr. Peter Hotez, another highly compromised industry-funded player who has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives.

In a scathing rebuttal, Center for Food Safety founder attorney Andrew Kimbrell accuses Butler of "journalistic malpractice,"⁷ and rightfully so, in my opinion. She clearly tries to confuse readers by stressing that "gain-of-function" is a broad definition and that much of the gain-of-function research being done is both harmless and valuable.

However, that's not the kind of research the Center for Food Safety or anyone else is concerned about. The Center for Food Safety's lawsuit specifically pertains to the manipulation of pathogens in order to make them more virulent and dangerous to humans, and she didn't interview a single mainstream scientist who has warned of the dangers associated with this practice, even though there are dozens of them.

Overall, Butler's piece reads like classic propaganda, created by the very people with something to hide. As noted by GM Watch:⁸

"The Gates-funded Alliance for Science was quick to promote Butler's article. They're a PR campaign based at Cornell that pushes agrichemical industry views and tries to undermine the industry's critics, particularly those critics concerned about GMOs.

As part of this effort, the Alliance for Science has been posing as an expert body on myths about the pandemic, even though they have no such myth-busting expertise. An early example of this was a piece they published by their employee Mark Lynas that branded GMWatch, among others, as conspiracy theorists for saying the virus may have accidentally leaked from a lab.

On Twitter, Mary Mangan, who sits on the Alliance's advisory board, has been carefully tracking and commenting on exactly which 'anti-GMO groups' have been calling for the lab leak hypothesis to be taken seriously …

Interestingly, a reporter told HuffPost in relation to a court case involving Monsanto that she thought Mangan had tried to 'play' her to do a hit job on one of the expert witnesses critical of the company's Roundup herbicide. Could it be that Ms Butler wasn't so resistant to being played?"

Gain-of-Function Research Poses Very Real Threat

Another clear propaganda piece was published by Hotez in The Daily Beast, June 21, 2021.⁹ In recent weeks, Fauci's role in the pandemic has become increasingly clear, and it's far from flattering. He funded dangerous research that may in fact have resulted in a global outbreak. Now, he's trying to deflect blame by saying that personal attacks on him "represent an assault on American science," and Hotez is doing what he can to strengthen that ridiculous notion.

To do so, Hotez takes it a step further, linking attacks on Fauci to attacks not only on science but also on the very foundation of democracy. According to Hotez, "moral courage and standing up for democratic values demands that the American people throw their full support behind scientists and scientific institutions. To do otherwise is to capitulate to the forces of insurrection."¹⁰

Like Butler, Hotez spends an inordinate amount of time trying to paint concerns about dangerous research on pathogens that have the potential to kill us all as a far-right, racist, anti-science, anti-democracy issue, when it's nothing of the sort.

When dangerous science has the potential to wipe out mankind, it is cause for concern among thinking individuals of all political persuasions. It's not anti-science. It's anti-recklessness, and to prevent another disaster, those responsible must be held to account for their actions. Clearly, not all science is dangerous. Being against recklessly dangerous science does not mean you're against all science or science in general.

If we want to prevent another pandemic like this from occurring in the future, we must first determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and how it ended up in the population. If it can be proven that it came from a lab, then we need to identify and hold those responsible for its creation and release accountable for their actions and/or neglect and, lastly, we need to prevent a reoccurrence by banning research in which pathogens are purposely manipulated to make them more dangerous.

To get to the bottom of it all, we need to look at the pandemic virus industrial complex. We need to dissect how it functions and how its members interlink and work together to obscure the truth.

tiistai 15. kesäkuuta 2021

Pori :DDDDDD

Hybridikeskus tiedottaa

maanantai 14. kesäkuuta 2021

Sinuna menisin töihin

sunnuntai 13. kesäkuuta 2021

Absolute Risk Reduction vs Relative Risk Reduction: How to Deceive With Statistics

You probably heard the claim that the mRNA vaccine drugs have a 94% or 95% efficacy. This is a public relations trick based on "vaccine efficacy" or "Relative Risk Reduction" (RRR) meant to deceive the public. The Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) from these drugs can be calculated or easily seen in The Lancet publication ( https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247(21)00069-0 ):

Moderna: 1.2%

Pfizer: 0.84%

J & J: 1.2%

AstraZeneca: 1.3%

That doesn't sound as impressive, that's why public relations firms/media don't use it. But even the FDA recommends using the Absolute Risk Reduction in

1) An Evidence Based User Guide: https://www.fda.gov/files/about fda/published/Communicating-Risk-and-Benefits---An-Evidence-Based-User's-Guide-(Printer-Friendly).pdf (Page 60: "Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used."); and

2) in a proposed policy change for dissemination of information to the media and the public: https://www.fda.gov/media/117573/download Page 3: "Firms presenting quantitative efficacy or risk probabilities in DTC promotional materials should convey the information in terms of absolute frequencies ... or percentages." An excellent interview of Dr. Ron Brown explaining the difference between Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) and Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) can be found here:

https://youtu.be/Jkwn5I8tLmE

but the picture for his explaination does not show up well on the video, so you can look at the picture while watching the video interview by going to his paper on the subject and scrolling down a tiny bit: https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199

ARR for some treatments:

Hydroxychloroquine 21%

Ivermectin 5%

Povidone-iodine 24%

Zinc and Vitamin C 23%

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221003453

torstai 6. toukokuuta 2021

DMT:n erottelu ja ekstraktioprosessi

Moi,

Kerron sinulle mistä saat ja mitä tarvikkeita tarvitset DMT:een valmistukseen ja erottelu prosessin.

Tarvittavat materiaalit:

-DMT sisältävä materiaali, itse olen käyttänyt Mimosa Hostilis juuren kaarnaa jota saat tilattuu halpaan hintaan ja tukulla osoitteesta, "mimosahostilis.com.mx" (näköjään pitää lähettää niille sähköpostiin että saat hinnat) Sähköposti taitaa olla "sales@mimosahostilis.com.mx" Englannin kielellä mitää kirjoittaa. Juuren kaarna tulee meksikosta ja sisältää noin 2% alkaloideija verrattuna etelä ameriikan 1%. Suosittelen tilaamaan pulveroitua juurrenkaarnaa vaikka kokonainen on halvempaa, aika työllästä on itse jauhaa se. Minulla on tullut läpi isoja eria ihan hyvin, kerran 3kg, toisen kerran 6kg ja myös yks 18kg erä. Jos onnistut hyvin erottelussa ni saat noin 20g DMT:tä per KG mimosaa.

-Lipeää(Rae muodossa oleva viemärin avaaja, löytyy esim robinhoodista tai rautakaupasta) Varmista että ei sisällä metalli palloja ja että on pelkkää lipeää. Joka grammalla mimosaa tarvitset gramman lipeää, ni 1kg mimosa=1kg lipeää

-Nafta(Zippo bensiini) Pitää olla pelkkää Naftaa, ni merkit "Newport" ja "Zippo" ovat toimivia, mutta älä osta "Mustang" merkistä, siinä on raskasöljyä seassa. Naftaa tarvitset 200ml per 100g mimosaa, ni 1kg mimosaan tarvitset 2L Naftaa. (Voit käyttää uudestaan Naftat toisiin erotteluihin)

-Lasipurkkeija jossa on tiivis kansi, itse käytin 1.5L kokoisia, jokaisee pistin 100g mimosaa ja 100g lipeää per erottelu.
-En ole varma mikä suomeksi on mutta englannin kielellä löydät googlettamalla "turkey baster"

-allas, Noin 90L kokoinen musta amme jonka voit ehkä löytää robinhoodista. Pitäis olla neljön muotoinen ni purkit mahtuu sinne parhaiten.

-Etikkaa(Jos vahingossa kaadat lipeä sisältävää vettä ni voit neutralisoida sen etikan kanssa.

-Kaasu/maali naamari ni et hengittele bensiinin höyryjä.

Prosessi:(Selitän määrät jota tarvitset 1kg mimosa eroteluun)
1. Ota 10kpl lasi purkkeija jotka ovat 1.5L kokoisia ja täytä 1.2L vettä jokaiseen.
2. Punnitse 100g lipeää ja kaada 100g jokaiseen purkkiin.
3. Sekoita niin että lipeä liukenee veteen( vaikka isolla lusikalla, kunhan ei sisällä alumiinia)
4. Lisää 100g pulveroitua Mimosa Hostilis juuren kaarnaa jokaiseen purkkii ja sekoita taas.
5. Lisää jokaiseen purkkiin 200ml Naftaa.
6. Jos on vielä tilaa purkissa ni lisää vettä niin että on melkein kokonaa täynnä, noin 3cm voi olla vaijaa täydestä.
7. Ravista varovaiseti purkkeija noin 10sec/purkki(niin että nafta sekoittuu vesi/lipeä/mimosan sekaan) ja pistä ammeeseen.
8. Täytä amme kuumalla vedellä niin että purkit ovat pinnan alla. (Kuuma nafta pitää enemmän DMT:tä kun kylmä)
9. Noin 2-3 tunnin jälkeen mene taas ravistaa purkkeija ja pistä uudestaa kuumaa vettä altaaseen.
10. Noin 45min-60min jälkeen pitäis olla Nafta kerros pinnassa. Nyt ota turkey baster ja ime ylin kerros päältä pois ja pistä se toiseen tyhjään puhtaaseen purkkiin. Tee sama kaikille purkeille. Lopussa sinulla pitäis olla purkissa noin 1.5-2L Naftaa purkissa. Jos purkin pohjalla on yhtään mustaa/tumman punaista nestettä ni se pitää ottaa pois. Jos on vain pari tippaa ni toimii hyvin kun kaadat toiseen puhtaaseen purkkiin naftat paitsi ihan pohjan missä musta nesti sijaitsee.
11. Sitten kun sinulla on purkki täynä hieman kellertävää naftaa mutta ei mitään epäpuhtauksia purkin pohjalla ni pistä kansi päälle ja
Anonyymi 2018-06-12 (Ti) 14:xx:yy No. 13411
12. Anna purkin olla pakastimessa yli 12 tuntia, kun katot sitten purkkia ni pitäis olla pohjalla sekä reunoissa kiini DMT kiteitä ja naftan ihan kirkasta/läpinäkyvää.
13. Ota toinen purkki esiin ja kaada varovaisesti naftat sinne niin että DMT kiteet jää pakaste purkkiin.
14. Nyt pistä purkin kansi kiinni joka oli pakastimessa ja hitaasti lämmitä se. (Yritetään estää se että kosteutta tarttuu kiteisiin koska tuli just kylmästä pakasesta huoneen lämpöö ni kosteus kondensoi lasin pintaan)

15. Kun purkki on huoneen lämpönen ni avaa se ja pistä kyljelleen haihduttamaan loput naftat jossain missä on hyvä ilmanvaihto (Naftahan on tosi syttyvää ni ole varovainen sen höyryjen kanssa)
16. Kun kiteet ovat kuivija ni lusikan kanssa hankaa ne pois purkin reunoilta ja kaada pois purkista vaikka lautasen päälle viel kuivumaan pariks tunniksi. Hyvä on varmistaa että kaikki nafta on haihtunut pois ennen käyttämistä tai säilytystä.
17. Kaada ne naftat jotka kaadoit pakastin purkista toiseen purkkiin takasin tasaisesti niihin 10kpl purkkii jotka ovat ammeessa ja toista ohjeet 1-16 niin monta kertaa ennenkö ei enää DMT:tä irtoa Mimosa/lipeä/vesi liuoksesta. Yleensä noin 3-5 vetoa pitää tehdä että saa sen 20g DMT:tä per 1kg Mimosaa.

**TÄRKEETÄ: LIPEA ON SYÖVYTTÄVÄÄ, NAFTA ON SYTTYVÄÄ! Ole varovainen.

No tossa on nyt DMT:een valmistus ohjeet suomeksi. Jos on kysyttävää ni kysy ihmeessä ni ei mene materiaalia hukkaa. Suosittelen ensin koittaa 100g testin, eli 1 purkki ja 100g mimosaa+100glipeää+200ml Naftaa. Sitten kun olet varma että osaat hommat ni tee isompia eriä.

Harmaline/Harmine HCL ohjeet ovat sitten ihan toinen juttu jonka voin myös sulle kertoa mutta etköhän ole ihan kädet täynä ton DMT:een kanssa nyt. Opi se ensin ni sitte jos viel haluat MAO estäjän erotella ni voin selittää miten se tehdään ja mitä tarvitset.

Iloa erotteluun! Toivottavasti innostut! =)