Drug Company PR Reps Are Trolling My Blog

Ramesh has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #62":

After suffering all of my life with depression and then later in life (20-33) with severe anxiety, insomnia, and a general feeling of restlessness to the point I thought I was going to "crawl the walls", I was prescribed Seroquel. I quickly found out I had to take my dose at bedtime due to being so sleepy when I took it during the day. Seroquel has been the ONLY medicine that has worked for me to ease the symptoms of my Bipolar Disorder 1. A Big Thanks to Seroquel for making life easier for me!

Drug company PR reps look for blog posts with the keyword "Seroquel", and then post a favorable comment.

Google is useful! The exact same comment is on this page.iluzzion said:

User Rating: not submitted
After suffering all of my life with depression and then later in life (20-33) with severe anxiety, insomnia, and a general feeling of restlessness to the point I thought I was going to "crawl the walls", I was prescribed Seroquel. I quickly found out I had to take my dose at bedtime due to being so sleepy when I took it during the day. Seroquel has been the ONLY medicine that has worked for me to ease the symptoms of my Bipolar Disorder 1. A Big Thanks to Seroquel for making life easier for me!

102 user(s) found this comment helpful. Did you?

[October 30, 2007]

Here, the user name is "illuzion" and not "Ramesh".

It's nice to catch a drug company PR rep redhanded. Just because a website has pro-drug comments doesn't mean they're accurate!

A pro-drug comment isn't definite proof, but this incident is. Whenever I see someone claiming a psychiatric drug helped them, I'm incredibly suspicious.

Primetime: What Not To Do

On Friday, I watched the Charlie Brown Halloween Special. The 2nd cartoon was about a class election. In sitcoms, elections are usually decided by one vote, and one of the main characters forgot to vote.

Afterwards, I saw the first few minutes of "Primetime: What Would You Do?" It was flagrant pro-State pro-war trolling. It was an interesting reminder. The mainstream media has zero credibility.

They had actors pretending to be antiwar protesters. They also had a paid actor pretending to be a prospective army recruit. The protesters were getting into a fight with the recruit.

They had hidden cameras. People were supposed to come and join the dispute, siding with the army recruit. The announcer was impressed at the patriotic people supporting the recruit.

The fake antiwar protesters weren't even that extreme. They were saying "You're going to other countries and murdering people!" The "over the top antiwar statements" were exactly true! The announcer expressed disappointment, that people express such anti-America sentiment. They played some clips of real antiwar protests, ridiculing the protesters.

I was deeply offended. It was an explicit advertisement for war. It was so pathetic.

Why isn't the opposite viewpoint mentioned in the mainstream media? I'd like to see some comedy show do a bit like this.

guy dressed like Charlie Brown with distinctive shirt (CB): Do we have to do this again?
guy dressed like Uncle Sam (US) holding a football: Come on! Kick the football! You know you want to!
CB: You're going to pull it away and I'll trip and fall. We do this every 2 years.
US: No, it's going to be different this time. I promise. I would never lie to you.
CB: I'm not dumb enough to fall for this again. Do I really look that stupid?
US: I'm going to get it right this time! I'm all reformed!
CB: OK, I'll give it another chance.
(CB tries to kick the football. US pulls it away. CB trips and falls.)
US: What a blockhead! You fell for it again! I can't believe you're that stupid! I fool you every two years! HAHAHAHAHA!!!...
(CB pulls out a gun and shoots US, leaving a bloody corpse.)

The mainstream media would never allow something like the above to air. I really should get a camera and start my own vlog.

Is The BAC Mortgage Bond Buyback A Ponzi Scam Coverup?

Two interesting stories emerged at the same time. Is there a correlation?

First, mortgage bondholders are suing Bank of America and other banks. They are demanding that Bank of America buy back now-junk mortgage CDOs. Those CDOs had a face amount of $47B. Obviously, the fair market value is much less than $47B now.

Surprisingly, the Federal Reserve is joining the party. They are siding with the bondholders, pressuring Bank of America to buy back the bonds. Why should the Federal Reserve care?

Second, some mortgages were sold to multiple CDOs!

You might say "WTF? How does that work? Where does the second payment stream come from?" The answer is that you Ponzi it. You sell a mortgage multiple times. You use the payments from one sale to finance the interest payments on the others. It's accounting fraud. As long as the housing market is booming, you can keep the Ponzi scam running.

One homeowner stopped paying his mortgage. Two different banks tried to simultaneously foreclose! That's how the "same mortgage sold multiple times" scam got caught.

The official reason for the lawsuit is "Bank of America didn't properly administer the mortgages. The mortgage paperwork was bungled. They didn't foreclose in a timely fashion when payments stopped, adversely affecting bondholders."

Is that a lie? Maybe Bank of America executives deliberately sold the same mortgage in multiple bonds. They do *NOT* want a lawsuit and discovery, where this fraud will be exposed.

Normally, when banks sell a crappy product, the buyer is stuck. The banksters usually say "HAHAHA!! We tricked you into buying! You're stuck with the losses now!" In a departure from normal practice, Bank of America will probably buy back the disputed bonds.

One rule of parasite logic is "Never admit wrongdoing!" Bank of America would lose face if they bend over and settle. Every other customer they cheated would come demanding a refund. That would set a bad precedent.

That's why the Federal Reserve is intervening. Bank of America executives say "We don't admit wrongdoing. However, the Federal Reserve asked us politely, so we'll settle." By bringing in the Federal Reserve, this gives a way out.

Executives at Bank of America have enough influence to get the Federal Reserve to do whatever they want. If the Federal Reserve is publicly pressuring Bank of America to settle, Bank of America executives probably approve of the action.

Since the Federal Reserve demanded a bond buyback, they will lend Bank of America money at cheap/free interest rates to finance the buyback. Now, the fraudulent bonds are on Bank of America's books, where nobody will ask questions. Years later, other earnings will offset the loss. Bank of America will quietly write off the loss due to this fraud.

Summarizing my conspiracy theory:

1. Bank of America sold the same mortgage in multiple CDOs.
2. The bondholders realize they were cheated, and are suing.
3. The full extent of the fraud hasn't been publicly exposed yet.
4. Rather than have a trial and discovery, Bank of America *MUST* settle.
5. If Bank of America rolled over without a fight, that would be suspicious. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is pressuring them to settle. That gives them an out.
6. The Federal Reserve will loan Bank of America money at cheap/free rates (less than 1%) to finance the bond buyback.
7. Over time, there will be a bailout via inflation. If you lend someone money at 1%, while true inflation is 20%-30%+, that's a stealth bailout.
   
8. Federal Reserve insiders can lend as much money as they want to whoever they want, without any public disclosure.
9. Bank of America will keep the bonds on their books for the face amount, or do a swap/sale with the Federal Reserve.
10. Once Bank of America buys back the bonds, there won't be any creditors asking annoying questions. They can cover it up.
11. Years later, the bonds are quietly written off as losses. Other earnings will offset the loss.
    

Am I sure this is true? Can I prove it? Of course not. These two stories are incredibly suspicious.

Were Bank of America (and other banks) running a mortgage bond Ponzi scam? Were they selling mortgages multiple times, and using the proceeds of one sale to pay interest on the others? If it is true, the banksters would be very eager to cover it up.

These two stories are incredibly suspicious.

CEO Attitude

At my wage slave financial programmer job, the CEO had a meeting where he gave a speech. He spoke for an hour, but actually said nothing.

That's an important parasite skill. Talk without saying anything, while reciting the correct buzzwords and phrases. It's an imitation of the way a real leader would talk.

I once saw Hillary Clinton give a speech. She spoke for an hour, without actually saying anything. If you speak in vague platitudes, then everyone will be happy. If you are specific, then someone might be offended. If you're a high-ranking State parasite, you have to give the illusion that you're a good leader, while saying nothing.

Some people were smiling and nodding as if it were the most brilliant speech they'd ever heard. I felt like punching them. However, they may have been genuinely fooled.

The CEO had a Q&A period afterwards. I considered asking "What are your plans for after the US financial system collapses?" He probably wouldn't have had a sense of humor. He'll be one of the last to know it's over.

A week later, I saw him around. I tried smiling at him. His reaction was telling. His body language said "Why is a peon like you being friendly with me?!" That's a key CEO attitude. Everyone else is inferior. (I'm not a typical slave, but he didn't notice.)

This is the problem with the US economy. The actual leaders are fake leaders. Their power is backed by State violence. The CEO is selected based on his ability to play the psychopath parasite game, and not based on his ability to be a real leader.

Many slaves believe that their leaders are intelligent and honest and have high emotional awareness. If that were true, then psychopaths would be excluded, no matter what system is in place. If you're sane, it's obvious who's a psychopath.

When the leaders are all psychopaths, then intelligent and honest people are excluded. From the psychopath's point of view, an intelligent and honest person is a punk who doesn't know his proper place.

A government violence monopoly maximizes the parasites' theft opportunities. The biggest psychopaths gain control of the State, so their crimes are cloaked under color of law.

A really free market is the best system for minimizing the damage of psychopaths. Intelligent people would form business that are much more efficient than those run by psychopaths. In the present, the State prevents this. If you have a business that challenges psychopaths, then they will lobby the State to crush you. Existing laws will be stricly enforced. They will lobby for new laws. You would be the victim of frivolous criminal charges, convicted in a sham trial.

Unfortunately, psychopaths won't voluntarily relinquish their power. You can't logically convince them, because they're psychopaths. The best solution is agorism, where intelligent and honest workers build a new system as the old one falls apart.

Market Crop Circles And Pay-Per-Quote

This story was funny. High-frequency traders stuff the market with quotes. Someone drew a chart of quote changes. There are amusing patterns.

The high-frequency traders flood the market with quotes. They change the quote by a penny. They change the quantity. They move back and forth 1k+ times per second.

How does this lead to profit? They may fool poorly-written algorithms.

By flooding the market with quotes, they may slow the server at a stock exchange or trader. If you have a slower connection or a poorly-written algorithm, the large volumes of quotes will hurt your program.

A quote doesn't cost nothing. Everyone must spend computing power processing each quote. Some high-frequency traders are publishing quotes in excess of computing power.

Right now, exchanges charge $0 per quote. To discourage high-frequency trading quote abuse, exchanges could start charging a millionth of a penny per quote. This would only deter people abusing high frequency quoting.

The fee could only be charged if your quote-to-trade ratio exceeds 1k or 10k, so serious traders and market makers would not be affected.

What useful work do high-frequency traders do? None. It's only "useful" in the context of a corrupt market. If the rest of society were interviewing the financial industry for a job, the banksters would not be hired. The State enables banksters and traders to earn high profits, without doing any useful work.

TBA Mortgage Bonds

The mortgage foreclosure scandal is interesting. Summarizing, the legal paperwork for many mortgages is defective. Without proper paperwork, the current mortgage owner lacks legal standing to foreclose. They may even lack standing to collect mortgage payments.

The paperwork was forged at nearly every step. This applies to "liar loans", when the mortgage was sold to a bank, when the mortgage was placed in a CDO, when the CDO was falsely given an AAA credit rating, and now when foreclosing. It's a systemic problem, and not just a couple of lazy/dishonest people. If you're "too big to fail", then there's no penalty for incompetence or fraud. Why be honest and skilled, when you can get a bailout?

There's a widely cited article about "document forging services". One firm had explicit fees for forging mortgage paperwork.

"Create Missing Intervening Assignment" $35

"Cure Defective Assignment" $12.95

"Recreate Entire Collateral File" $95

How can anyone publish a price list like that? That's blatant flagrant fraud. One firm explicitly said "Don't worry if the mortgage paperwork isn't in order! We'll forge and backdate whatever documents you need!"

As usual, the lawyers who organized the "document forging service" will face no penalties. They will get, at worst, a slap on the wrist.

The paperwork was left vague on purpose. This way, if someone asked questions later, documents can be forged as needed. If you have proper paperwork, you can't retroactively change your story.

There's a special type of mortgage bond called a TBA mortgage bond. Here's a source. Big banks trade billions of dollars a day of these.

For a TBA mortgage bond, the bank is buying an *UNSPECIFIED* mortgage bond. It's based on mortgages that haven't been issued/bundled yet. The mortgages are supposed to meet certain criteria.

Who would do that? Who would buy a bond without knowing any of the details? These are still heavily traded.

Is it really that much work to review every single mortgage? If a mortgage is worth $200k+, then wouldn't you hire someone to spend a few minutes verifying each of them before buying? If you figure $30/hr and one person can do 10 per hour, that's only an expense of $3 per mortgage, a negligible expense. The banks don't do this, because they don't really care what's in the mortgage bond. They can trick some fool into buying it. If you slap an AAA rating on it, then insurance companies and pension funds will buy without thinking.

Banks are willing to buy any mortgage bond, without bothering to read the details. That explicitly encourages fraud. All the big banks still heavily trade TBA mortgage bonds.

A lot of investment money is "stupid money". The fund manager is almost always gambling with other people's money. Why should he care?

I was really surprised when I heard about TBA mortgage bonds. Who would buy a mortgage bond where the details are unspecified? That explicitly encourages fraud and incompetence.

The housing bubble and foreclosure scandal are a symptom of a much bigger problem. All the leaders are psychopaths.

If all the leaders are honest and intelligent and emotionally strong, then the psychopaths are excluded. When all the leaders are psychopaths, then the honest and intelligent people are labeled as deviant.

When most/all leaders are psychopaths, they collude to keep out honest and intelligent people. Via State violence, psychopath-led organizations are not subject to market competition. A really free market is the best way to provide protection from psychopaths. With a government violence monopoly, psychopaths seize control of the State. Then, "color of law" provides the illusion of legitimacy for their crimes.

TBA mortgage bonds are a symptom of a much bigger problem. Big banks still heavily trade TBA mortgage bonds. Who would buy a bond where the details are unspecified?

Juan Williams and the NPR Religious Cult

NPR is a dangerous religious cult that's threatening America. Even though the 1st Amendment forbids a State religion, NPR receives some government funding.

Imagine if someone said:

"If I'm on an airplane, and I see someone listening to NPR, I feel threatened. Is he going to raise taxes? Is he going to advocate for laws that cripple my business? Are religious extremists with guns going to kidnap me for violating some obscure law?"

NPR acts like a crazy religious cult. Consider:

1. NPR issued a memo, saying that NPR employees are barred from attending the Stewart/Colbert rally. NPR restricts what cult members may do, even when not at work.
   
2. NPR places restrictions on what NPR contractors/employees may say, even when not at work.
3. By extension, NPR places restrictions on what employees/cultists may think. If you have the "wrong" personal beliefs, you aren't welcome.
4. Many mainstream media corporations bar employees from self-publishing on the Internet, without their employer's consent/censorship.
   
5. NPR says "Journalists must be impartial!", which is parasite-speak for "You must have the bias we want, while pretending to be impartial."
6. If you break the rules, you are excommunicated/fired.
   

If you work for NPR, there are restrictions on where you can go. There are restrictions on what you can say. There are restrictions on what you can do while you are not at work. That makes NPR a crazy religious cult.

There was another issue, "How much State funding does NPR receive?" The answers were conflicted. NPR receives funding at a national level. Each local affiliate also receives State funding. NPR receives another State subsidy in the form of broadcast spectrum. NPR receives the monopoly right to use certain frequencies for their broadcast, another State subsidy.

Even "private donors" may be State insiders. If a CEO gives $1M to NPR, that's a type of State funding. The "donation" may be in exchange for favorable "news" coverage.

Fox also receives State funding. Like most large corporations, the News Corporation has debt on its balance sheet. This debt is at a negative real interest rate, making it an indirect State subsidy. The State cable monopoly carries the Fox channels. If I tried starting my own TV channel, then the State cable cartel would not carry my channel. I can self-publish on the Internet, but that isn't going to be as valuable as having my channel bundled with the others when you buy a cable package.

Juan Williams was working as a freelancer for Fox in addition to NPR. This gave NPR cultists a reason to want to get rid of him. Fox propaganda contradicts NPR propaganda.

This is a very disturbing trend. Someone says forbidden statement X. Then, they are fired, and usually blacklisted from getting another job.

At least Juan Williams isn't unemployed. His value to Fox increases, after being unfairly fired by NPR. Fox gave him a $2M contract.

Surprisingly, there was backlash against NPR this time. People are saying "Is it right to fire someone, just because they said something you didn't like?"

Even more offensive, Juan Williams' boss refused to meet him in person, to discuss his firing! The boss knows, on some level, "I did something wrong." That's scummy, especially since he was there for years. When I was unfairly fired, the person who organized it was never present.

That's a common State parasite attitude. "I'm the boss and you're not. Therefore, all my decisions are correct." In a State corporate monopoly, you become CEO by playing the parasite manipulation game, and not by being an actually skilled worker.

Depending on the contract details, Juan Williams should be owed the remaining amount. However, it may have a general "at will" clause, or a vague "personal conduct" clause. It probably isn't practical for him to sue for payment. Besides, he got a good contract from Fox News. Typically, when someone is excommunicated from the mainstream media, they are blacklisted and never find another mainstream media job.

Juan Williams' forbidden statement was "People in Muslim religious clothes make me feel uncomfortable, because I'm concerned about violent terrorism." The mainstream media plays a lot of anti-Islamic implied hate speech. Juan Williams crossed the line and was explicit.

An actual terrorist would try to wear inconspicuous clothing, rather than religious attire.

The whole "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy is anti-Islamic hate speech. If you support property rights and religious freedom, it's obvious they should be allowed to build whatever they want on their property. When the mainstream media doesn't say "WTF? Respect property rights and religious freedom!", they are promoting anti-Islamic hate speech. Religious freedom means respecting all religions, including the ones that are wrong.

The "guys framed by the FBI for a bomb plot" incident is more anti-Islamic hype. Summarizing that incident, a paid FBI informant talked people in to plotting to blow up a synagogue, when they probably would not have tried it without his prodding.

I have noticed one thing about strict Islamic people. They tend to be more severely pro-State brainwashed than most Americans. That's probably due to a religion that allows less individual freedom. There is a body language difference between strict Islamic people and typical Americans.

This is a disturbing pattern. A celebrity or journalist makes forbidden statement X. Then, he is fired. Usually, the victim never finds another mainstream media job, but Juan Williams was lucky. The mainstream media is a crazy religious cult that demands strict control of its members.