and the precise accuracy of
explosive diarrhea.
Posted on 08/13/2021 3:32:00 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The CDC's Kentucky research study of COVID infection was designed to sell the vaccination program.
On Aug 6, 2021 the CDC presented a paper titled “Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination -- Kentucky, May–June 2021.” Having spent the last two decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I’m well versed in spotting studies whose primary purpose is to sell a product instead of actually advancing science. I believe that is the case here.
On the surface, the CDC’s paper appears to be straightforward: they did a statistical analysis of people in Kentucky who previously had COVID-19 and later were reinfected, finding that people who were unvaccinated had a greater than two-times risk of being reinfected vs those who were vaxxed. This led the CDC to conclude “to reduce their likelihood for future infection, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccine, even those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Since the CDC, Dr Fauci, and their ilk have repeatedly declared that vaccination is better than natural immunity, this research will be incredibly helpful to their cause. But is there more than meets the eye to this study?
1- The CDC’s findings differ from those of other studies
When a doctor wants to prescribe a medication to a patient, he ideally wants to see multiple clinical studies that show similar results.
In the case of the CDC’s KY research, both the findings themselves (unvaccinated patients being reinfected at a high rate) and the conclusion (that natural immunity doesn’t last and therefore patients with a prior infection should be vaccinated) are contrary to multiple pieces of other research --
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The CDC has been taken over by the left and has lost all credibility for me.
I’m reasonably sure that natural immunity is at least as good as vaccine acquired immunity. The CDC seems to go out of their way to not encourage testing for natural immunity. That’s a mistake… probably an intentional mistake.
Medical experimentation on a largely unsuspecting population?
Lying to people about what’s going on?
I wonder why blacks have low vaccination rates?
Tuskegee?
Not just the CDC.
Doctors are telling patients the same thing.
Docs are also telling patients that there are no prophylaxes or treatments for CoupFlu.
We now how a Medical Industrial Complex.
A de facto NHS.
And it’s just as corrupt as the CDC.
...now have...
A number of things make this CDC background appear like a 1960s CIA ‘planted-operation’. It would be curious to take the executives involved and lay out their past jobs/backgrounds.
The CDC is to Big Pharma what the big media is to the democrat party: propagandists and apologists. They are not to be trusted.
The CDC along with the FBI need to be abolished. They are not even a medical, disease control outfit anymore. They are propaganda, disinformation and dirty tricks organ of the Democratic Party.
If you asked someone 3 years if they has a bad cold and got over it would they get it again….the answer across the board would be “no”!
Nothing has changed and believe me if people were being reinfected that recovered from covid the media would be all over it!
Bye, I had covid and studied natural immunity to no end.
On May 1, 2021, the CDC changed the definition of a ‘positive’ case for a PCR test depending on whether the subject is vaccinated. For unvaccinated subjects, the PCR test continued to use the aggressively high cycle threshold of 40+ and if the test came back positive, the unvaccinated patient was considered to have COVID-19, even if they were asymptomatic. However for vaccinated subjects, a positive case was now defined differently — the cycle threshold was lowered (28 or fewer) which meant far less chance for the test to recognize a viral marker. Additionally, if vaccinated subjects were asymptomatic or had only mild symptoms, the tests were now declared to be negative because under the new rules, a vaccinated subject would only be considered COVID-positive, if they were hospitalized or died.
—
Stacking the deck, because SCIENCE!
bkmk
which could account for Lollapalooza being declared not a super-spreader event, while Sturgis will be counted as one.
“Why did they not pull from a larger sample size?”
Because out of millions in KY, that’s all the “cases” they could find.
“… However for vaccinated subjects, a positive case was now defined differently — the cycle threshold was lowered (28 or fewer) which meant far less chance for the test to recognize a viral marker…”
*******************************************************************************
I’m pretty sure that the lowered cycle threshold (to 28 or fewer) was the criteria for forwarding the “case’s” sample for sequencing to determine what variant it was. The viral load (in samples that took more than 28 cycles to detect) was frequently too low for successful sequencing. Even though those vaccinated breakthrough cases were not sequenced, they were still counted as “cases”.
Sadly, the folks here who vehemently oppose COVID-19 vaccines misrepresent what this change was to mislead others.
Great way to burnish your image as a purveyor of truth.
Posted article on my FB page. Wonder if it will get censored...
Let us grant for the sake of argument, that the motivations of testing vaccinated people with 16 thousand times less material was as pure as sunlight and innocent as fresh morning dew.
How does this pureness and innocence of motivation help the study from being complete garbage because of the difference?
It doesn’t. No matter what vaccine zealots say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.