Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The CDC's Bogus Kentucky COVID Research
American Thinker ^ | 13 Aug, 2021 | Ron Pillman

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 ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Society
KEYWORDS: communism; covidvaccines; propaganda; researchinquotes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: MtnClimber

I think this article has some misleading information.....dis-information to be exact.

They claim the CDC used a different cycle threshold for vaccinated (>28) vs non-vaccinated (set at 34+ cycles to be more sensitive such to detect dead virus particles).
Don’t think this would fly with doctors and labs.

We don’t specify on the test order if the patient was or was not vaccinated. Pretty sure they run them all the same way.


21 posted on 08/13/2021 10:07:36 AM PDT by consult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
Why do these anti-Covid vax articles always have to lie in an attempt to convince? Isn't it possible to disparage the vaccines with truth?

"In July, 2021 the CDC revealed that it will be phasing out the Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel test because they found that the test is unable to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and other influenza viruses."

That's an outright, bald-faced lie and the author is using it to play his audience (you) for suckers.

The CDC retired this test because there are now broader-spectrum ones available.

They didn't "find" that the test wasn't able to differentiate, they "designed" it that way intentionally.

This kind of deception only solidifies the assumption that these bitter-enders can't defend their position honestly and instead have to rely on deceit and misinformation.

22 posted on 08/13/2021 10:18:25 AM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Oh this boy’s going to hell for questioning the great god of the follow the science church of covid! He—he—he questioned the CDC! How dare he! It’s simply not allowed! Be silent of this heresy and blasphemy or thou shalt be excommunicated from the follow the science church of covid and condemned as a conspiracy theorist or flat earther! We are the Catholic Church of the 1500’s now and proud of it!


23 posted on 08/13/2021 12:36:31 PM PDT by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson