Heads Up: The Fed--And Spike Protein

Later today, but not much later, The Fed board of governors will hold what sounds very much like an emergency meeting—it’s being held under “expedited procedures” and the public is referred to Rule 261b.7 for clarification on that score:

§ 261b.7 Meetings closed to public observation under expedited procedures.

(a) Since the Board and the Committee qualifies for the use of expedited procedures under subsection (d)(4) of the Act, meetings or portions thereof exempt under paragraph (a)(4), (a)(8), (a)(9)(i) or (a)(10) of § 261b.5 of this part, will be closed to public observation under the expedited procedures of this section. Following are examples of types of items that, absent compelling contrary circumstances, will qualify for these exemptions: Matters relating to a specific bank or bank holding company, such as bank branches or mergers, bank holding company formations, or acquisition of an additional bank or acquisition or de novo undertaking of a permissible nonbanking activity; matters relating to a specific savings and loan holding company or its subsidiaries, such as acquisitions, reorganizations, savings and loan holding company formations, conversions, or acquisition or de novo undertaking of a permissible activity; bank regulatory matters, such as applications for membership, issuance of capital notes and investment in bank premises; foreign banking matters; bank supervisory and enforcement matters, such as cease-and-desist and officer removal proceedings; monetary policy matters, such as discount rates, use of the discount window, changes in the limitations on payment of interest on time and savings accounts, and changes in reserve requirements or margin regulations.

As it happens, The Fed does tell us that the meeting will concern monetary policy matters—specifically the discount rate:

Matter(s) to be Considered:

1.

Review and determination by the Board of Governors of the advance and discount rates to be charged by the Federal Reserve Banks.

That’s it. There are no other matters to be considered.

So with so much going on in the world—wars, rumors of wars, pipeline sabotage, wildfire inflation, looming economic collapse—he Fed is holding an emergency meeting. That doesn’t give one a warm feeling.

Is there a triggering event? It might be what’s going on at Credit Suisse. I read about this the other day and took note of it, but of course didn’t truly grok it:

Credit Suisse Market Turmoil Deepens After Memo Backfires

Backfiring memos on top of pipeline sabotage? As I recall the tweet that I read at the end of last week, the head of Credit Suisse announced something like, Things are not alright, but we’re taking steps that we’re reasonably sure will make things alright again. That’s how I understood it, and that’s what led to the deepening market turmoil. The market got the memo but didn’t believe the memo.

You can read more at the linked article, but for the overall feel here are the introductory paragraphs:

Credit Suisse Group AG was plunged into fresh market turmoil after Chief Executive Officer Ulrich Koerner’s attempts to reassure employees and investors backfired, adding to uncertainty surrounding the bank.

The stock, which had already more than halved this year before Monday’s sell-off, fell as much as 12% in Zurich trading to a record low that values the firm at less than $10 billion. That was accompanied by a spike in the cost to insure the bank’s debt against default, which jumped to its highest ever.

Koerner, for the second time in as many weeks, had sought to calm employees and the markets with a memo late Friday stressing the bank’s liquidity and capital strength. Instead, it focused attention on the dramatic recent moves in the firm’s stock price and credit spreads, and investors rushed for the exit when trading reopened after the weekend.

While acknowledging that the bank was at a “critical moment,” Koerner pledged to send employees regular updates until the firm announces its new strategic plan on Oct. 27. At the same time, Credit Suisse again sent around talking points to executives dealing with clients who brought up the credit default swap, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

“Credit Suisse is a buy for the brave at these levels,” Citigroup analysts including Andrew Coombs wrote in a note to investors.

Does this also play into the financial crisis in the UK?

As it happens, Karl Denninger addresses some of this today, although in a bit sketchy way. Actually, that works for me, since my understanding of all this is definitely sketchy—the only reason I’m writing about it is that I sense that it could prove to be very important. KD focuses on bankster recklessness, lack of accountability, and how that could affect many, many people both here and abroad:

Is The Fed About To Destroy America?

Today The Fed is holding an emergency meeting under "expedited procedures."

The actions to be considered are the discount and advance rate -- in other words, interest rates.

The rumored reason is that Credit Suisse may be in trouble -- specifically due to writing interest rate swaps, along with a number of other institutions which happens to include pension funds both in the UK and US, none of whom should ever be playing with levered instruments for the simple reason that leverage is everywhere and always speculative.

But of course they are because nobody has ever gone to prison for using leverage as a means to evade requiring the underlying organization to fund pensions adequately with actual money.

Investors are heading for the exits because:

Credit Suisse slides 8% as markets fret about the risk of a Lehman Brothers-style collapse
Market Insider via MSN ^ | 10/3/2022 | (George Glover)

Major pension funds in trouble due to playing with fire is big trouble. I’m sure we’ll be reading more about the outcome of The Fed meeting, but we may not get the truth of the matter. Brace yourselves, is about the sum of it. Russia has oil and gas, even if their military is experiencing a bumpy ride lately. We have funny money funding people’s retirements—which may go blooey, or could lead to massive restructuring. What do I know?

---

Anyway, on to Covid and Spike. This has to do with another tweet/article that I saw last week, but I was all written and read out and—as far as I was concerned there was nothing surprising in this. KD points to it as another example of nobody in authority being held to account—and, as usual, he’s right:

the facts of the matter are that nobody has given a damn about holding anyone accountable for anything for the last two decades plus

He’s referring to this:

Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie

mRNA spike protein found in the brain of a man who died just three weeks after his third jab. “Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection.”

Disclose.tv @disclosetv

JUST IN - mRNA spike protein detected in the brain and heart in deceased man, a case report published in the top journal "Vaccines" shows. "The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines." https://t.co/AEvTwjf4mD

Put that in the context of pathologists like Ryan Cole complaining about a lack of autopsies on people who died after vaccination and this:

FDA Refuses to Release Autopsy Results on People Who Died After COVID Vaccines

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it’s barred from releasing the results of autopsies conducted on people who died after getting COVID-19 vaccines, but a drug safety advocate said the agency could release the autopsies with personal information redacted.

The rulers don’t want their subjects to know what’s going on.

More unwelcome news:

‘Fully vaccinated’ people at 44% higher risk of COVID infection than unvaccinated: UK study

Oxford University researchers found that those who had taken the anti-COVID shots stood at substantially higher risk of infection with the coronavirus compared to those who had did not receive any COVID jab.

As the article notes, this “contradict[s] the basis of global vaccine policy, which assumes vaccination significantly cuts incidence and transmission.”

The article gets into statistic, which I won’t attempt to interpret, but this seems notable:

The study was published in June but went largely unnoticed until Alex Berenson wrote about it last month. Alex also draws attention to the fact that vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and death is much weaker than was claimed at the time.

Vaccine effectiveness against death 14 or more days after the second jab is just 61 percent (the first highlighted figure), well below the 90–99 percent claimed by the government. Note that the overall protection will be even lower owing to the vaccinated being more likely to be infected: the 44 percent higher infection rate mentioned above would reduce the 61 percent effectiveness to just 34 percent.