I could spend all day, every day, dissecting the garbage that gets published by the CDC. This paper was a doozy. Fortunately, I get by with a little help from my friends.
 |
Posted on 01/02/2022 2:04:15 PM PST by ransomnote
|
Sometimes, the crap coming out of the CDC is too egregious to ignore and litigation is required to fix it.
This is one such case. And credit goes to Del Bigtree, ICAN, and Aaron Siri for both doing the analysis and threatening legal action if they don’t withdraw the paper. This is what I meant in the headline about getting by “with a little help from my friends.”
The paper in question can be found on the CDC website: Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021
The claim: you are 5.49X more likely to be infected if you are unvaccinated but had a previous COVID infection compared to a vaccinated person.
This claim is preposterous.
It is well established in many papers that previous infection is way way better than vaccination. Also, the previously infected don’t spread the virus, unlike the vaccinated. So natural infection is also preferred to vaccination.
You always have to be suspicious when there are only 9 states. Were they cherry picked to give the results that they want? Nah, only a conspiracy theorist would make that kind of assertion!
You may be surprised that this does in fact happen! However, it is rare and the press never seems to notice it. Here’s a rare example that you can read before they notice their mistake and remove it (excerpted from my earlier article “Do masks work?”).
Clinical trials consistently find that masks don't protect people from respiratory viruses. Here is what a multi-year study on masks versus viruses said (it is published on the CDC website):
"We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility."
I bet you weren’t aware of that paper. It is well concealed.
Here’s the full analysis for your reading pleasure.
It makes you wonder if there is a book available at the CDC employee bookstore, only for CDC employees, entitled “50 ways to skew a study to achieve the results management wants.”
PING
Dear Ransomnote, I agree with Steve Kirsch on this, the CDC study is garbage.
A comment posted to Kirsch’s article:
“Debbie1 hr ago
I read the article on the CDC website about masks not working to prevent the spread of viruses. I couldn’t help but note the 3rd paragraph under the “Face Mask” section where it states “However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks work best when they are fit tested, AND THESE WILL BE IN SHORT SUPPLY DURING THE NEXT PANDEMIC. (emphasis added) Amazing how they seem to be sure there will be a NEXT pandemic and what supplies will be like at that time.”
It’s not so amazing when you realize that is what they are planning.
And the results are consistent.
As they say, one is entitled to their own opinion but not facts. Many of these documents have been shared at FR.
I like Kirsch, but this commentary is revealing…
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled The misinformation from the CDC keep on coming, Caipirabob wrote: |
| His premise is incorrect; it is not one paper. It is multiple papers from various states and various hospitals. And the results are consistent. As they say, one is entitled to their own opinion but not facts. Many of these documents have been shared at FR. I like Kirsch, but this commentary is revealing… |
ransomnote: The study is flat out propaganda and they are suing the CDC as a result. Is it really necessary to undermine one of the few people willing to fight for us?
Here's an excerpt of the lawsuit; please explain how the critique of the comparison under section A below is incorrect.
What about the other 41 states?
In a nutshell: CDC compared people who had been hospitalized for covid, but not immunized with people who had been immunized but not ill. The problem is that they chose a suspect cohort for comparing to immunization: that tiny fraction of the sick who were hospitalized (and of course, survived). The study chose only people whose immune systems had been incapable of surviving the first infection on their own, with those who were otherwise likely to be healthy.
Letter-to-CDC-authors_2021.pdf (skirsch.com)
Letter-to-CDC-authors_2021.pdf (skirsch.com)
bttt
It is titled: How to lie with Statistics. It is commonly available.
Of course, at the CDC, they may give advanced classes.
Bookmark. I wish the article had some more documentation to back the author’s premise.
My tl;dr : CDC claims to compare the likelihood of being hospitalized with covid after 1) natural immunity vs 2) getting the vax. However, they make a bizarre choice for the denominator in their calculations, a decision which would be non-sensical except it helps them reach their predetermined conclusion: VAX EVERYONE!
“CDC”? ... Isn’t that the organization that’s run by that woman (or whatever gender she picked) that’s always crying?
What a moron
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.
