"Leaked" CDC communications

4,971 Views | 49 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by HTownAg98
jimscott85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who here really believes this was "leaked"?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/war-changed-internal-cdc-document-235139094.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The delta variant of the coronavirus appears to cause more severe illness than earlier variants and spreads as easily as chickenpox, according to an internal federal health document that argues officials must "acknowledge the war has changed."

The document is an internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention slide presentation, shared within the CDC and obtained by The Washington Post. It captures the struggle of the nation's top public health agency to persuade the public to embrace vaccination and prevention measures, including mask-wearing, as cases surge across the United States and new research suggests vaccinated people can spread the virus.
One strategy is to "leak internal communications" to create the perception that everything is transparent.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If it was more deadly, then we would have seen massive death spikes in Europe and elsewhere.

It never happened.

This is all about setting the stage for a national lockdown, which of course will allow the Democrats to pass more "stimulus" and probably UBI.

And, now they admit the infection rate was much lower than we heard screamed about most of last year. Why would anyone believe them now?
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Kvetch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe if the CDC would approve the therapeutics that work, people would care what they have to say. They are controlled opposition.
Clob94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know who's running the counter Intel ops for the White house, but they really suck at this game.
aggielostinETX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When are they going to admit that people who had COVID previously won't get the Delta VarianT and only those who are vaccinated are at risk?
“A republic, if you can keep it”

AggieKatie2 said:
ETX is honestly starting to scare me a bit as someone who may be trigger happy.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The "data" in the study was complete garbage. They "leaked" it to avoid having to address it formally until they get their dumbass talking points lined up for a Friday afternoon dump.

  • The Provincetown party showed that vax actually work pretty well. Even with 26% unvaccinated at the party, very few actually had severe outcomes, and they didn't break down how many of the hospitalized were vaxed vs. not (that I have seen)
  • The Indian study was rejected in preprint. They claimed a "glitch" and un-rejected it after people started looking it up. It's very likely that it was rejected for good cause. Low numbers, inferring from PCR + and viral load post vax using a vaccine that isn't even approved for EUA in the US.
  • The CDC assumed a 20-30% reduction in spread using masks based on nothing at all. They pulled it out of their ass.

The UK opened when Delta cases were at their absolute peak, and cases nosedived. The actual modelers at the CDC see the same thing coming in a few weeks here and want to claim victory. That's all this is about.
Buying_time
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DallasGrad18 said:

Maybe if the CDC would approve the therapeutics that work, people would care what they have to say. They are controlled opposition.


When the D(ims) politicized and weaponized covid in 2020, all bets were off. Several blue states prohibited treatments.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But it's not more severe. That is a lie.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggieLostinDallas said:

When are they going to admit that people who had COVID previously won't get the Delta VarianT and only those who are vaccinated are at risk?

The purposeful ignorance of naturally immunity is the most compelling story at this point.

There's an alleged leaked Pfizer contract out there, no one is confirming or denying its authenticity, which I infer to mean they are trying to ignore its existence altogether. One of the clauses in that contract states explicitly that the purchaser must acknowledge that Pfizer makes no claim as to the duration of immunity conferred by the vaccine.

Every official description of natural immunity run out by "public health" advocates states that experts don't know the duration of natural immunity. They will not compare that judgement against what we have observed for vax immunity.

It is so glaringly intellectually dishonest, I can't understand how people don't seem to care.
Sully Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

One strategy is to "leak internal communications" to create the perception that everything is transparent.
In this case, by leaking it, they can crank up the fear porn without having to actually produce any data.
Deplorable Neanderthal Clinger
fixer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Highly Transmissible.

Seems current variants of communism are more transmissible and dangerous.
Detmersdislocatedshoulder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Govt and the cdc have lost all credibility and they wonder why? I guess we will need a 10 million dollar study to figure out why the people won't trust entities that lie to them all the time.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well at this point, I sound like a broken record by saying this, but the guys I follow(specifically to make sure the mainstream sources aren't blowing smoke up our asses) are flat out proving nearly everything the CDC says, studies they use, etc., are lies or exaggerations of the truth. No idea why they are doing what they are doing, or using faulty data/assumptions. But they clearly are.
gougler08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chimpanzee said:

The "data" in the study was complete garbage. They "leaked" it to avoid having to address it formally until they get their dumbass talking points lined up for a Friday afternoon dump.

  • The Provincetown party showed that vax actually work pretty well. Even with 26% unvaccinated at the party, very few actually had severe outcomes, and they didn't break down how many of the hospitalized were vaxed vs. not (that I have seen)
  • The Indian study was rejected in preprint. They claimed a "glitch" and un-rejected it after people started looking it up. It's very likely that it was rejected for good cause. Low numbers, inferring from PCR + and viral load post vax using a vaccine that isn't even approved for EUA in the US.
  • The CDC assumed a 20-30% reduction in spread using masks based on nothing at all. They pulled it out of their ass.

The UK opened when Delta cases were at their absolute peak, and cases nosedived. The actual modelers at the CDC see the same thing coming in a few weeks here and want to claim victory. That's all this is about.
It's 100% this
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108 said:

If it was more deadly, then we would have seen massive death spikes in Europe and elsewhere.

It never happened.

This is all about setting the stage for a national lockdown, which of course will allow the Democrats to pass more "stimulus" and probably UBI.

And, now they admit the infection rate was much lower than we heard screamed about most of last year. Why would anyone believe them now?
They found their Cloward-Piven
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?


If you want a detailed breakdown that current journalists are unable or unwilling to compile, read the Twitter thread above. The author is a vaccine/virology researcher that may have been doxxed at some point, but is still reasonably anonymous. He/she is far from any kind of "covid denier" or political right winger. He/she is not even anti-mask or anti-lockdown necessarily, they don't comment on it at all. In short, it's not ideological.

Quote:

Did the CDC partially base their assertion that vaccinated individuals can transmit Delta variant due to similar viral load as unvaccinated individuals on a study out of India that not only utilized models but accounted for vaccines that are not currently approved in the United States and is still currently under review and previously did not pass peer-review and didn't even compare viral loads between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals but rather viral loads between variants?" Yes, yes it did.
Quote:

It also based decisions off smaller breakthroughs that have occurred that give us barely any information at all concerning mean Ct values between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. So why do I take issue with this? Because these are viral loads, NOT ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF TRANSMISSION.
TRADUCTOR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obviously, you don't want to contract COVID just to get all that boffo immunity, but lots of people have already been infected, so why can't we count them the same as vaccinated?

The current research and that's all we have for the vaccines, too indicates that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine immunity it's better! Study after study keeps finding that the previously infected have stronger, broader and longer-lasting immunity than people who've received the vaccine.

When the vaccinated, with their pipsqueak immunity, stop browbeating the already-infected, I'll believe this is something other than a cult.

Why is the only proof of virtue I mean, "Trusting the Science a vaccination card and not a positive COVID test? Why don't sports teams, concert halls and foreign countries accept proof of prior infection the same way they accept proof of vaccination?

Nope. Your prior infection is no good here! We are accepting ONLY vaccination cards.

Whatever that impulse is based on, it's not "science."
https://anncoulter.com/2021/07/28/the-vaccine-karensxx/



Tex117
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fOllow tHe scIEnce!

jimscott85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

Well at this point, I sound like a broken record by saying this, but the guys I follow(specifically to make sure the mainstream sources aren't blowing smoke up our asses) are flat out proving nearly everything the CDC says, studies they use, etc., are lies or exaggerations of the truth. No idea why they are doing what they are doing, or using faulty data/assumptions. But they clearly are.
The CDC was put on a pedestal and given a microphone. THAT is the problem. Scientists in the spotlight after years of research and a perceived lack of credit will sing and dance all night long if you give them the attention.

From then on, every bit of "science" has really been accelerated and forced without thoughtful analysis, peer review and proper communication. "Let's pop these number into a spreadsheet, build a graph, and see what it looks like."
rocky the dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
- Alfred E. Neuman
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rocky the dog said:


Never in doubt, always wrong.

BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YouBet said:

But it's not more severe. That is a lie.


Yep. That would fly in the face of all historical data on respiratory viruses and their mutations.
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obligatory:

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Ag In Ok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
" It cites a combination of recently obtained, still-unpublished data from outbreak investigations and outside studies showing that vaccinated individuals infected with delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated. Vaccinated people infected with delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant."

This is actionable info yet adjusted peer reviewed meta analysis on the use of ivermectin is not recognized. What the hell is going on here - trust the science but not your science. Trust ours that is not published nor peer reviewed.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
gougler08 said:

chimpanzee said:

The "data" in the study was complete garbage. They "leaked" it to avoid having to address it formally until they get their dumbass talking points lined up for a Friday afternoon dump.

  • The Provincetown party showed that vax actually work pretty well. Even with 26% unvaccinated at the party, very few actually had severe outcomes, and they didn't break down how many of the hospitalized were vaxed vs. not (that I have seen)
  • The Indian study was rejected in preprint. They claimed a "glitch" and un-rejected it after people started looking it up. It's very likely that it was rejected for good cause. Low numbers, inferring from PCR + and viral load post vax using a vaccine that isn't even approved for EUA in the US.
  • The CDC assumed a 20-30% reduction in spread using masks based on nothing at all. They pulled it out of their ass.

The UK opened when Delta cases were at their absolute peak, and cases nosedived. The actual modelers at the CDC see the same thing coming in a few weeks here and want to claim victory. That's all this is about.
It's 100% this
And they will puff out their little bird chest, the sheeple will gasp and applaud.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

gougler08 said:

chimpanzee said:

The "data" in the study was complete garbage. They "leaked" it to avoid having to address it formally until they get their dumbass talking points lined up for a Friday afternoon dump.

  • The Provincetown party showed that vax actually work pretty well. Even with 26% unvaccinated at the party, very few actually had severe outcomes, and they didn't break down how many of the hospitalized were vaxed vs. not (that I have seen)
  • The Indian study was rejected in preprint. They claimed a "glitch" and un-rejected it after people started looking it up. It's very likely that it was rejected for good cause. Low numbers, inferring from PCR + and viral load post vax using a vaccine that isn't even approved for EUA in the US.
  • The CDC assumed a 20-30% reduction in spread using masks based on nothing at all. They pulled it out of their ass.

The UK opened when Delta cases were at their absolute peak, and cases nosedived. The actual modelers at the CDC see the same thing coming in a few weeks here and want to claim victory. That's all this is about.
It's 100% this
And they will puff out their little bird chest, the sheeple will gasp and applaud.

Seriously.

If you haven't considered the possibility that decades of underperfomance of Americans in math, science and economics education aren't by design for just such an opportunity, you might let that roll around for a bit.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The adjusted peer reviewed meta analysis on ivermectin relied heavily on a study that was pulled because of plagiarism and raw data that didn't match the findings of the study. So that data is now in question too.
Ag In Ok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

The adjusted peer reviewed meta analysis on ivermectin relied heavily on a study that was pulled because of plagiarism and raw data that didn't match the findings of the study. So that data is now in question too.


The results were adjusted and though the Egyptian study had an impact, the final analysis was the same. I am not sure why that information isn't out there, the outcome still shows positive effects of ivermectin.
Burrus86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108 said:

This is all about setting the stage for a national lockdown, which of course will allow the Democrats to pass more "stimulus" and probably UBI.
Don't forget the midterms in 2022. Delta is so bad, we will need mail-in, drive through, and drop box voting (wink wink) again in 15 more months to keep everyone from catching the "COVID strain of the month."
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag In Ok said:

HTownAg98 said:

The adjusted peer reviewed meta analysis on ivermectin relied heavily on a study that was pulled because of plagiarism and raw data that didn't match the findings of the study. So that data is now in question too.


The results were adjusted and though the Egyptian study had an impact, the final analysis was the same. I am not sure why that information isn't out there, the outcome still shows positive effects of ivermectin.

Because that's not what he said. He said "borderline significant effects still seen for hospitalisation (sic) and survival, but small number of endpoints." That's because one study comprised nearly 20% of the data that was analyzed. He goes on to say that there needs to be evidence from large randomized trials.

There may be evidence that a cheap livestock wormer is effective. But we don't have that yet.
Ag In Ok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The adjusted meta analysis shows it works - after eliminating the single study in question. We have proof it works. The problem is the system won't allow for a large randomized trial. They want one thing only - their solution to the problem, science be damned.
Ivermectin works - pithy to cal it a dewormer given how groundbreaking and life saving it is.

It works. The data shows as much.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

The adjusted meta analysis shows it works - after eliminating the single study in question. We have proof it works.
There is no randomized large scale trial that has shown that. Only small studies have shown that. Plus, the study you're citing only says it "may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease." https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
That's not to say it doesn't work. The issue is we don't know for certain yet.
But it gets better. If you remove the Egypt study already mentioned, and the Iranian study that has its own problems, you get the result that ivermectin didn't show statistically measurable results.


Quote:

The problem is the system won't allow for a large randomized trial. They want one thing only - their solution to the problem, science be damned.
Now you're just making **** up.

Quote:

Ivermectin works - pithy to cal it a dewormer given how groundbreaking and life saving it is.

It works. The data shows as much.


BCG Disciple
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is hygiene theater back on? Is this strain more than one in ten thousand likely to spread by touch?
Ukraine Gas Expert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Been screaming it for months. Data in support of covid, factual or not, is spread like the conspiracy theory it's become, meanwhile data challenging, or wanting to verify via peer review and replication, or hurtful is censored/cut/memory holed/etc.
Ag In Ok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Check with the author of the study and don't use tweets as a reference point. She pulled the study and recalculated. It works. Twitter over the scientist, really?

Of the studies mentioned are looking into ivermectin as a prophylactic. The Iranian website hung up on me but the others appear to rest the efficacy of ivermectin for treatment of covid positive patients across various cohorts. My point stands (i apologize if i didn't articulate it clearly) where are the studies for ivermectins use as a prophylactic? The success of this drug in that effort would run 100% counter to any vaccine.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/darkhorse-podcast-with-tess-lawrie-bret-weinstein/id1471581521?i=1000529189232
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.