“The heresy of heresies was common sense.”
—George Orwell, 1984
According to The New York Times, the CDC is withholding “large portions of the COVID-19 data it collects.”
That’s strange. What sort of data?
“The performance of vaccines and boosters, particularly in younger adults,” The Times reports, “is among the most glaring omissions in data the CDC has made public.” For example: “When the CDC published the first significant data two weeks ago on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65, it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group the data showed was least likely to benefit from extra shots, because the first two doses already left them well-protected.”
Oh, that data. Why would the CDC omit this information?
The Times provides an answer: “Kristen Nordlund, a spokesperson for the CDC, said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data ‘because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.’ She said the agency’s ‘priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable’” [emphasis added].
Curiouser and curiouser…
Not ready for prime time? What does that mean? Does she mean show time?
I wonder why certain data streams can be ready for “prime time” on such short notice, like the data on 50- to 64-year-olds, while others seem to require dress rehearsal and backstage pampering before they are allowed to enter the spotlight, like the data on 18- to 49-year-olds.
Meanwhile, it is hard to reconcile the CDC’s alleged concern for accurate data with its insistence on using a flawed and overly sensitive PCR test to detect “cases” in unvaccinated people. If the CDC is now concerned about accuracy, the concern seems to be limited to the “fully” vaccinated, as I’ve documented here.
Furthermore, as Alex Berenson points out, “most states [following CDC guidelines] classify any death within thirty or sixty days of a positive COVID test as being caused by the virus, even in cases where death is obviously not linked—like someone shot to death weeks after having had a positive test with no other symptoms” (see chapter 2 of Berenson’s pamphlet Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns [Part 4: Vaccines]).
It is hard to take seriously the CDC’s stated devotion to accurate data when, since the beginning of the pandemic, it has refused to distinguish between people who die “with” the virus and those who die “from” the virus. This is an important distinction to make if you’re concerned at all about accurate data. But the distinction has not been made as a matter of policy. Hence, Kristen’s statement about the CDC’s commitment to accurate data is false—demonstrably false. Kristen is either lying or she’s clueless. Either way she has no credibility.
The Times goes on to report: “Another reason [for withholding data] is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Nordlund said.”
Elsewhere in The Times article: “But the CDC has been routinely collecting information since the COVID-19 vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.”
Translation: Actually, these data streams may indeed be ready for “prime time,” but we hold them back anyway. You see… it’s just that—how to put this delicately… —you’re just too stupid to understand, citizen.
Here we see the elitist mentality on full display. Of course, this goes back to Plato and his belief that society should be ruled by a “philosopher-king”—presumably someone like Plato—because most people are just too stupid to govern themselves.
However, as luck would have it, unidentified “public health experts” condescend to explain to us why we must be cautious in interpreting the data (if we’re ever allowed to see the data, that is).
“When the delta variant caused an outbreak in Massachusetts last summer, the fact that three-quarters of those infected were vaccinated led people to mistakenly conclude that the vaccines were powerless against the virus—validating the CDC’s concerns.”
“But that could have been avoided,” The Times continues, “if the agency had educated the public from the start that as more people are vaccinated, the percentage of vaccinated people who are infected or hospitalized would also rise, public health experts said.”
That’s not hard to grasp: As the percentage of the population that is vaccinated continues to rise, we should expect to see a higher percentage of infections occurring in vaccinated people, knowing that the vaccines are not a hundred percent effective.
You don’t need to be a “public health expert” to understand this.
But if these percentages do not reflect the efficacy of vaccines, where were these same public health experts when Anthony Fauci and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy used the same logic in summer 2021, when they claimed that around ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of COVID deaths have occurred in unvaccinated people, thereby implying something about the efficacy of the vaccines?
After all, Fauci and Murthy arrived at their estimates by comparing deaths in vaccinated people to all deaths that had occurred since mRNA shots became available. But most of those deaths occurred in the winter of 2020 -2021, when only a tiny fraction of the population had been vaccinated.
So, following the same logic, we should expect to see a higher percentage of deaths in unvaccinated people, since most people at the time were not vaccinated—a reversal of the situation we have now, especially in highly vaccinated Israel and Britain (where, by the way, we have more transparent and detailed data on vaccine performance). But that did not stop Fauci and Murthy from relying on the same sort of misinterpretation of data to imply something about vaccine efficacy—the same sort of misinterpretation we are now being cautioned against.
Alex Berenson sums it up nicely: “Maybe the vaccines would have protected those people [who died unvaccinated during winter 2021]. Maybe not. No one could know, since they hadn’t received them. The only reason to include their deaths in a comparison purporting to demonstrate how well vaccines were working six months later was to make the vaccines look better—as even the dumbest public health experts surely knew” (see Pandemia, p. 363).
Yet even the smartest public health experts failed to point out the “intellectual error” then being committed by Fauci and Murthy.
It seems odd that these “experts” would now speak out in defense of the so-called vaccines against misinterpretation of data when previously they failed to speak out against the same sort of misinterpretation coming from the likes of Fauci.
This inconsistency fits a pattern of deception. It is deception on the part of the public health establishment—which may or may not be captured by corporate interests—an establishment that has manipulated data and jumped to conclusions in favor of the experimental mRNA injections. (It’s almost as if these conclusions were foregone.) Furthermore, the rising percentage of infections among vaccinated people shows at least one thing. It shows that all the talk about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” during the second half of 2021 was pure propaganda, a bald-faced lie.
In his portrayal of totalitarian mind control of the not-too-distant future, Orwell tells us that “The heresy of heresies was common sense” (1984, p 83). (Orwell’s 1984 arrived a little late, but it’s here!) Now it should go without saying, but since common sense has left the room, tiptoeing past the two-headed, fire-breathing purple elephant, say it, I must: That these so-called vaccines are not performing well is clearly implied in the clamoring for additional doses beyond the initial two-dose regimen. If the jabs are really “safe and effective,” then a third shot, followed by a fourth shot, separated by only a few months, would not be on the table. This is obvious to anyone who has not abandoned common sense.
Where will people draw the line, I wonder? Four shots, five shots, six shots… lucky 13 shots? When will people say, “No more! Enough is enough!”
This, too, should be obvious to any thinking person: If these shots are safe and effective, then what do the vaccinated have to fear from the unvaccinated? Why must vaccinated people be so fearful of others? Aren’t the injections protecting them? If these shots are really safe and effective, why do vaccine manufacturers need to be shielded from legal liability for any damages caused by their products? And why does Team Hysteria insist on pushing these shots on every single person, regardless of varying levels of risk across age groups and health status?
These are all questions a reasonable person might ask. And yet these are precisely the questions that, when asked, are likely to get a person censored on social media by Big Tech (in cahoots with Big Government). (I can still remember a time when people on the left were instinctively suspicious of Big Business and Big Pharma, in particular.)
It seems appropriate to close with a quote from 1984:
“If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. …In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion: the more intelligent, the less sane. …This peculiar linking together of opposites—knowledge with ignorance, cynicism with fanaticism—is one of the chief distinguishing marks of [our] society” (pp. 221-22).
Orwell is speaking of the fictional society of Oceania, of course, but it seems a perfect description of our predicament, this very real “Pandemia” in which corrupt and delusional “experts” wield power over society.
Books:
Berenson, Alex. 2021. Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.
Orwell, George. 2003 [1949]. 1984 (Centennial Edition). New York: First Plume Printing – Penguin Books USA.