CDC Has Finally Been Caught by Legacy Media - And Their Stated Reasons Why are Really, Really Bad

Twisting, distorting and warping data can be hidden behind the guise of "science". But hiding data? And claiming they need more funding because you can't report some numbers? Well, you decide.

Last year, IPAK was called out for calling out CDC for over-reporting cases and death rates - a necessary truth given the way that RT-PCR is being misapplied for the question of COVID-19 diagnosis.

I’ve outlined the flaws right from the start - April 2020.

1. Viral presence is not “disease”, and therefore PCR+ cannot equal “COVID-19”

2. The cycle threshold used is too high to avoid a significant risk of false positive diagnoses.

3. Absent negative controls, false-positive results are assured. There should be a negative human genome control per sample to create a null curve, and the delta-delta-Ct method should be used to make the call for a given patient.

I have also analyzed the entire diagnostic framework implied by CDC’s policies and found that due to the inclusion of negative PCR patients as “presumed COVID-19”, and the dual premises of “PCR+ COVID-19” and “died with = died from”, widespread (indiscriminate) testing with PCR will lead to the perverse result of higher false-positive RATES; not just increased absolute numbers of false positives, but rather an ever-increasing percentage of “cases” will - due to mathematical necessity - be false-positives. Given that the more testing conducted, the higher the percentage of “COVID-19 cases” that are actually false positives, the fact that SCOTUS shut down “vaccinate or test” prevented a testing surge of “COVID-19” that would strain credibility.

I sent my manuscript to four different public health journals. Not one of them would dare even put it out for review, so I sent it directly to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky. She did not reply.

Fact-Check Opinion Blog Websites Fail to Correct Their Articles

In publishing the Ealy et al. analysis, IPAK brought the negative attention of so-called “Fact Check” opinion blog websites (‘narrative minders’, I’m told) like Politifact. Even USA Today got into it. But to date, nothing IPAK has published has been found to be false, in spite of claims and misrepresentations by legacy media outlets and “fact-checkers”. To my knowledge, contrary to their own policies, following discovery after discovery that we were correct, none of these blog websites have corrected their articles - which at this point should include retraction and apologies for disparaging our reputation. (Not that I care, but a lot of people would like to see that).

Of course, the fact that we were correct to publish the study was buried in an article on MSN.com entitled “Higher estrogen levels linked to lower COVID death risk; antacid shows promise addressing symptoms”. Citing Rueters, the MSN.com article actually includes an article within the article, with two unadorned subheadings:

“U.S. may have overestimated COVID-19 hospitalizations

U.S. statistics likely overestimate how many patients have been hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a new study.

At 60 hospitals near Boston, Pittsburgh and Chicago, researchers manually reviewed the charts of a random sample of 1,123 patients with confirmed coronavirus infections hospitalized between March 2020 and August 2021. Roughly 1-in-4 patients "actually were admitted for a different problem and should not have been included" in data analytics calculations of the severity of COVID-19, said Dr. Shawn Murphy of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Patients were more likely to have been admitted specifically for COVID-19 when local infection rates were high, his team reported on Tuesday on medRxiv ahead of peer review. When infection rates were low last summer, up to half the patients were hospitalized for other reasons, with SARS-CoV-2 infection found coincidentally on mandatory testing. The researchers were able to identify indicators in patients' charts that admissions were actually due to COVID-19, such as whether doctors ordered lab tests related to inflammation.

‘This study highlights an important weakness in COVID-19 reporting, which might have implications on intensive care utilization, cost analysis, resource planning, and research,’ said Jeffrey Klann, also of Mass General. Adding the identified indicators to data analytics software ‘could help mitigate these problems.’”

The study shows about 25% over-reporting - matching what we found, what Dr. Scott Jenkins showed me in our workshop interview (I saw his audit data), and what two counties in California have found.

We have in our possession an email from HHS acknowledging that any RT-PCR test result with a cycle threshold >35 is “basically useless”. This information is part of an pending grand jury investigation.

If CDC had published hospitalization rates broken down by age, race and other variables, the efficacy of the vaccine would come up as a surprise. We’ve seen negative efficacy in data from Israel and from Barnstable County. So CDC does not want to share it so the public cannot learn about the negative efficacy occurring, driving cases in the vaccinated.

Just publishing the Ct thresholds used for each test kit - and giving patients their PCR Ct numbers for their specific test - will help mitigate these problems, and cost nothing. The fallacy of using RT-PCR without a negative control to determine the curve expected when no virus is present would be even more apparent, and this would force a major policy change: the use of within-kit negative controls.

So, we were right to call them out on over-reporting. So, on to the point of today’s Popular Rationalism article:

CDC Caught Withholding Critical Data by Legacy Media Organizations

Now, in February, 2022, CDC has been called out for withholding critical information on case rates and hospitalization rates in children, as well as booster shots in people under 50. Using the ultimate excuse “sorry, we lost the keys to the internet”, CDC actually had the gall to report that they were not sufficiently able to track all those numbers.

Now, remember, COVID-19 is rare. It’s even rarer in kids. And booster shots in teens must be fewer than the number of teens who have received one, or two shots.

Oh, and CDC did not bring forward the data from the handful of municipalities that reported wastewater data. Too many numbers there, too?

They have the data, they just have not bothered to add it to their existing reporting systems.

So, CDC is lying.

But the thing is, CDC is not satisfied with one lie. No, on these issues, they are not DONE lying.

The SECOND excuse given was that they were afraid that the data might be used to fuel vaccine skepticism.

Which tells us they analyzed the data, and could have reported it, but decided to leave it out.

So CDC is lying AGAIN, and in nature of their lies, we know the truth.

You can read about the data omissions with all the juicy lies-filled quotes in the links provided below.

The point here is that CDC believes its job - reporting health statistics - is OPTIONAL, that they can cherry-pick what the public gets to see. Which is no surprise to anyone who has bothered to pay attention.

The surprise is that the Legacy Media Outlets (LMOs) are actually reporting on it. They try to put a pro-public health police state spin on the situation.

But, as usual, they missed the big picture: CDC has been lying about cases by using RT-PCR tests the way they are using them from the beginning. They’ve had help from the FDA who, in spite of protests from myself and Dr. Sin Hang Lee, went ahead with non-quantitative RT-PCR diagnoses.

And CDC and FDA’s understanding of the efficacy of the vaccines has been 100% dependent on RT-PCR.

So, what is the actual efficacy - by age group - including people who have had 1 shot, 2 shots, and 3 shots, broken down by age, race, gender, etc.?

“We don’t know”… only and exclusively because CDC does not want us to know.

But we know.

And everyone will know more when we complete the IRB-approved NAATEC study.

See:

MSN - CDC Under New Scrutiny For Collecting Wide Variety of Covid-Related Data But Publishing ‘Only a Tiny Fraction’

Arkansas Online (repeating New York Times) - CDC virus data not seen by public; agency says it’s not ready, cites fear of misinterpretation

NYPost CDC withholding COVID data over fears of misinterpretation

FoxNews - 'The Ingraham Angle' on report showing CDC held COVID data from public

Goodtimes.sc - CDC Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the COVID-19 Data It Collects Two years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a fraction of the data collected.

Yahoo News - NYT: CDC withholding COVID data from the public

BizPacReview - and CNBNC CDC refusing to publish data collected on booster effectiveness; FDA expert begs, ‘tell the truth’