Back at my previous blog, this topic was covered extensively. My opinion on this has been the only one that makes sense. The CDC wanted to fudge data regarding the fact that the vaccine NEVER was capable of, nor tested for it’s ability to impede transmission.
Here’s latest: Propublica
“Meggan Ingram was fully vaccinated when she tested positive for COVID-19 early this month. The 37-year-old’s fever had spiked to 103 and her breath was coming in ragged bursts when an ambulance rushed her to an emergency room in Pasco, Washington, on Aug. 10. For three hours she was given oxygen and intravenous steroids, but she was ultimately sent home without being admitted.
Seven people in her house have now tested positive. Five were fully vaccinated and two of the children are too young to get a vaccine.”
“It’s like saying we don’t count,” said Ingram after learning of the CDC’s policy change. COVID-19 roared through her household, yet it is unlikely any of those cases will show up in federal data because no one died or was admitted to a hospital.”
Meggan, you don’t count. You and all the others who breakthrough because of a leaky, non sterilizing vaccine. A known leaky, non sterilizing vaccine.
“They are missing a large portion of the infected,” said Dr. Randall Olsen, medical director of molecular diagnostics at Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas. “If you’re limiting yourself to a small subpopulation with only hospitalizations and deaths, you risk a biased viewpoint.”
And that biased point of view is desired. It’s a lie by ommission strategy. It’s intentional in my opinion.
You may recall this article from the NY Inelligencer featured at my former blog?
“The vaccines were never (NEVER) tested to prevent transmission, only symptomatic disease, and those who knew the science expected, from the outset, that we would see some number of such cases, and that they would be, overwhelmingly, mild“
But nevertheless a closer look at the data reveals that some of the public-health communication may be overstating the vaccine effect on transmission and understating the scale and risk of breakthrough infections, which, while far from predominant, do appear prevalent enough to be helping shape the course of the disease. “The message that breakthrough cases are exceedingly rare and that you don’t have to worry about them if you’re vaccinated — that this is only an epidemic of the unvaccinated — that message is falling flat,” Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina told me in the long interview that follows below.
“The breakthrough problem is much more concerning than what our public officials have transmitted,” Topol continued. “We have no good tracking. But every indicator I have suggests that there’s a lot more under the radar than is being told to the public so far, which is unfortunate.” The result, he said, was a widening gap between the messaging from public-health authorities and the meaning of the data emerging in real time. “I think the problem we have is people — whether it’s the CDC or the people that are doing the briefings — their big concern is, they just want to get vaccinations up. And they don’t want to punch any holes in the story about vaccines.
They just want to get vaccinations up. Why?