The Centers For Disease Control's Lies Have Destroyed Its Legitimacy
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On August 6, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that the agency claimed showed "Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection." This assertion came amidst a public battle with Sen. Rand Paul, as the CDC released this data from Kentucky, Paul's home state.
Yet after indisputable scientific evidence continued to pile up in favor of natural immunity, the CDC finally capitulated on January 19, 2022, recognizing the superiority of natural immunity over vaccination alone: "Between May and November 2021, people who were unvaccinated and did not have a prior COVID-19 infection remained at the highest risk of infection and hospitalization, while those who were previously infected, both with or without prior vaccination, had the greatest protection."
The CDC's reversal came after its previous discounting of natural immunity caused mass layoffs, nursing home resident isolation, and hospital staffing shortages. It must not be forgotten or overlooked, and the CDC must be held accountable.
This is travesty. https://t.co/XiLtch2c3g — Helen Raleigh (@HRaleighspeaks) February 18, 2022
Last summer, guided by the CDC, President Biden claimed, "If you're vaccinated, you're not going to be hospitalized, you're not going to be in the IC unit, and you're not going to die." Biden also spread misinformation about vaccinations preventing the spread of Covid-19 by stating, "You're not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations."
Who is harmed the most by health misinformation produced by our president and his agencies? Those with low health literacy. Our rich-poor gap is growing in this country, and lying about health issues only exacerbates it.
A Positive Test Doesn't Always Mean Infectiousness
A deeper dive into the August natural immunity study reveals methodology that can be recognized as illogical, even to those without medical experience. The CDC researchers created two groups. The case group included people who tested positive in 2020 and then tested positive again during a two-month window in 2021. The control group included people who had a positive test in 2020 without another positive test during this artificial two-month window.
The study observed that non-vaccinated group registered a positive test 34.4 percent of the time, compared to 20.3 percent of fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC falsely defined the case group's second positive test as a "reinfection." This is the central lie of the study. This data conveniently omitted data on people actually becoming symptomatic or what a common person would call "reinfected."
To illustrate this point, consider if a Covid-recovered person comes into contact with Sars-Cov-2 in their community. They might test positive on a PCR test. Their body can remember the virus, fight it off, and the person never becomes ill.
However, shortly after the exposure, a PCR swab can detect bits of genetic material (even if it's unviable virus). Therefore, this study could be more of a reflection of people's likelihood of re-exposure to Sars-Cov-2, not reinfection, as the CDC claimed.
By conflating exposure and reinfection, the CDC misled the public. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated, "This study shows you were twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country."
This guidance came when mounting evidence indicated Covid vaccines quickly lose their effectiveness against infection and transmission, which the CDC loathed to admit. Unfortunately, Walensky's guidance undermined the credibility of the CDC for generations to come.
As a physician, it's frightening that a public health official made a policy recommendation based on such a flawed study. We should encourage critical thinking and scientific skepticism, but such a blatantly flawed study design should not be tolerated in our leading health institutions.
Not an Isolated Incident for the CDC
This isn't the only time the CDC has been caught misleading the public. Drawing ire from the medical community, the was an uncontrolled study of students in Arizona that Walensky referred to in discussing the CDC's mask guidance for schools. This study defined a "covid outbreak" as "two or more" positive lab tests among students or staff. So if your school had two asymptomatic third graders, you've got a "covid outbreak" on your hands.
Even worse, the study weighted such an "outbreak" equally to a school with dozens of symptomatic teachers or students. According to the CDC, two equals 50—at least for "covid outbreaks."
In a Georgia study that actually had a sufficient control arm, the CDC minimized the fact that there was no statistically significant difference between masked and unmasked student groups. They've also minimized the importance of diet and exercise during the pandemic. They failed to effectively communicate evidence-based, life-saving outpatient treatment protocols. The list goes on.
Why This Matters So Much
How does minimizing natural immunity cause harm in the real world? There are at least three deadly repercussions.
First, many hospitals following the CDC's guidance mandated that only vaccinated health-care workers be allowed to work at their facilities. This means naturally immune health-care workers were wrongly excluded from the workforce. Based on a toxic lie fabricated by the CDC, hospitals continue to experience staffing shortages, contributing to the hospitalization overcapacity narrative they've used to demonize the unvaccinated.
Second, the same problem arose for nursing homes, where seniors were denied visitation rights from unvaccinated, naturally immune family and friends, even though less protected vaccinated people were allowed in. Lack of care workers also prevents patients from being discharged from hospitals to care facilities.
Third, the natural immunity lie also stripped countless Americans of their health coverage and livelihoods. During the delta wave, for example, a worker at Los Alamos National Laboratories was fired from his job for religiously objecting to vaccination, despite working entirely from home and having recovered from a previous Covid infection.
The CDC now admits this worker's immunity provides protection superior to that of his co-workers who had merely vaccine-induced immunity at that time. He lost his job while the less protected did not. By denying natural immunity's superiority to vaccine-induced immunity, how many others have been fired and lost health-care access the moment we need our population to be at its healthiest?
Punishing People We Should Have Praised
Naturally immune people should have been identified early in the pandemic as the most protected, ushered into hospitals and nursing homes to serve our vulnerable, and certainly should have been allowed to keep their jobs.
By refusing to acknowledge the harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination, the CDC has brought everlasting shame to itself. There is clear evidence these types of interventions carry measurable risk.
A better approach would have been to honestly discuss the risks and benefits with the public, much like I discuss surgical risks and benefits with my patients. This is the very tenet of informed consent, and better communication always results in a better relationship.
Americans need an unbiased, incorruptible, and credible CDC that provides reliable and scientifically sound public health guidance. These lies have de-legitimized and undermined public confidence in the institution of the CDC itself.
The consequences of lying about Covid-19 will spill into other areas of health care. Millions of Americans have lost trust in our hospitals and institutions and are now resorting to "under the table" health care. In health care, loss of trust equals lack of access. The CDC must return to the basics of evidence-based medicine to overcome its crisis of legitimacy.
Tags
Who is online
462 visitors
They didn't want us to know...and still don't.....We might misinterpret it!
Imagine politicizing the CDC?
imagine where we would be now if the pandemic response hadn't been incompetently bungled in the first 6 months of 2020 while the CDC was constantly being overruled by a self serving moron.
The self serving moron was actually deeply involved in dangerous research and btw Trump did everything Fauci suggested.
I beg to differ, but I also realize that the concept of an evolving response to a mutating virus that is the covid pandemic is well beyond the mental grasp of at least 15% of americans.
The CDC began totally unprepared, lied to us about what they didn't know and as this article proves, most recently, lied to us about what they did know.
Incompetent bumbling is extremely kind considering he didn't do dick while knowing how deadly it was.
What dangerous research????
Fauci suggested wearing masks, Trump literally said that he wouldn't. That statement by Trump is what led to the anti-mask issue that has stretched out and worsened the COVID waves.
Ya! It has indeed!
This Op/Ed proved nothing as it is just that, an opinion/editorial.
The CDC aren't the ones who have been lying to us.
The self-serving moron was #45.
You know they don't like facts that go against their narrative.
Perhaps you can tell me what dangerous research Trump was involved in then. I have already proven that Trump DID NOT do everything Fauci suggested.
Gain of function in Wuhan!
They support every lie.
How did you squirrel to that conspiracy theory?
All the while blathering on and on the same unfounded line. It really makes me wonder if they are trying to convince themselves of the bs.
Sometimes I think they work for the CDC.
I don't think they work.
I just had a funny thought. Could there be people who are on NT while at work?
I imagine there are a few. But that is probably a dirt low percentage.
As usual, you are more than likely right.
Ask Vic ...
I'm asking YOU. YOU responded to MY comment not Vic's. If you can't keep your conversations / comments straight then just keep quiet.
The subject was Vic's comment. He's the one claiming Trump was in the middle of "dangerous research", which was the subject of the comment you replied to.
Then you respond to Vic's comment. Don't try to hide by responding to mine with some unrelated shit.
I did, then you jumped in claiming that I don't accept the facts. So I simply asked you what facts you were claiming I didn't accept.
It's in this thread, read if for yourself if you don't remember. You inserted yourself into Vic and my discussion.
You cant even see you fucked up and you expect me to thing you accept facts?
The article is just an op/ed, there is no proof, just opinion.
Has it been a bumpy ride, certainly.
But the previous Administration has more to do with that than the current one.
That WH had HHS change CDC data and reports the WH did not agree with.
HHS Officials Altered CDC COVID-19 Reports to Help Trump (nymag.com)
Trump-appointed officials altered CDC documents for political reasons, health official claims | CTV News
the previous Admin did the same thing to the EPA
Federal Agency Websites Altered | Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org)
No, I expect you to stay out of other people's conversations if you have nothing on-topic to add. понимать ?
I don't care about what you expect. Again, you replied to me. You want me to keep out of conversations then don't put them on a public site like the. Keep your conversations straight. Reply to the correct person. It's that simple.
Only after you commented about me...
Another example of your failure to read properly. Never told you to keep out, I said you should stay out IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THE TOPIC.
You're the one going of topic.
Look for yourself. I did reply to the correct person and directly addressed what you said. Can you not read your own comments?
As this entire seed evidences. And it is not mere misinterpretation, it is malicious misrepresentation.
This is counterproductive and dishonest.
"By refusing to acknowledge harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination"
HARMS = ZERO
Therefore, what . . . exactly? You should skip getting vaccinated and try to get infected? I think it’s great that people who were infected have strong protection against future infection, but it would still be better to avoid the thing entirely by getting vaccinated and wearing a mask. And if you don’t avoid it, at least the vaccine gives you a head start on fighting off the infection and building up that natural immunity.
The credibility of assholes who have been going around claiming the vaccine alters DNA, causes birth defects, or is killing thousands of people is a hell of a lot worse.
There is no natural immunity over vaccination with Co-Vid.
That's a breath-taking announcement.
Could you give us a link?
COVID Natural Immunity: What You Need to Know
Featured Experts:
Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H.
Gabor David Kelen, M.D.
If you had COVID-19, you may wonder if you now have natural immunity to the coronavirus. And if so, how does that compare to protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccinations?
Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H. , senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D. , director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, help you understand natural immunity and why getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended, even if you’ve already had COVID-19.
What is immunity?
Immunity is your body’s ability to protect you from getting sick when you are exposed to an infectious agent (“germ”) such as a bacterium, virus, parasite or fungus.
Immunity is a complex process that involves a lot of moving parts. Your body produces a variety of different cells that fight invading germs. Some of these release special proteins called antibodies into your blood stream. These antibody producing cells can “remember” a particular germ so they can detect its presence if it returns and produce antibodies to stop it.
What is natural immunity?
Natural immunity is the antibody protection your body creates against a germ once you’ve been infected with it. Natural immunity varies according to the person and the germ. For example, people who have had the measles are not likely to get it again, but this is not the case for every disease. A mild case of an illness may not result in strong natural immunity. New studies show that natural immunity to the coronavirus weakens (wanes) over time, and does so faster than immunity provided by COVID-19 vaccination.
What is vaccine-induced immunity for COVID-19?
Vaccine-induced immunity is what we get by being fully vaccinated with an approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccine. Research indicates that the protection from the vaccines may wane over time so additional doses (boosters) are now authorized for certain populations. These boosters can extend the powerful protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccines.
If I have natural immunity do I still need a COVID vaccine?
Yes, the COVID-19 vaccines are recommended, even if you had COVID-19. At present, evidence from Johns Hopkins Medicine and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports getting a COVID-19 vaccine as the best protection against getting COVID-19, whether you have already had the virus or not.
Here are recent research studies that support getting vaccinated even if you have already had COVID-19:
Vaccines add protection.
Immunity varies for individuals : Immune response can differ in people who get COVID-19 and recover from the illness. The FDA-authorized and approved vaccines have been given to almost 200 million people in the U.S. alone, and have strong data supporting their effectiveness.
Delta variant and future coronavirus variants: Hospitalizations of people with severe COVID-19 soared over the late summer and into fall as the delta variant moved across the country. People infected with earlier versions of the coronavirus and who haven’t been vaccinated might be more vulnerable to new mutations of the coronavirus such as those found in the delta variant. To date, the authorized vaccines provide protection from serious disease or death due to all currently circulating coronavirus variants .
Should I hold off getting a COVID vaccine to see if there is new research on natural immunity?
Holding off on getting vaccinated for COVID-19 is not a good idea. Here’s why:
For the reasons above, the CDC recommends and Johns Hopkins Medicine agrees that all eligible people get vaccinated with any of the three FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines, including those who have already had COVID-19.
Johns Hopkins Research on Natural Immunity for COVID-19 and COVID Vaccines
Johns Hopkins has conducted a large study on natural immunity that shows antibody levels against COVID-19 coronavirus stay higher for a longer time in people who were infected by the virus and then were fully vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines compared with those who only got immunized. (The results of the study were published in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association on Nov. 1, 2021.)
The data show that one month after they got their second shot, participants who had had COVID-19 more than 90 days before their first shot had adjusted antibody levels higher than those who had been exposed to the coronavirus more recently than 90 days. Three months after the second coronavirus vaccine, the antibody levels were even higher: 13% higher than those who were exposed to the virus less than or equal to the 90-day mark.
These study results suggest that natural immunity may increase the protection of the shots when there is a longer time period between having COVID-19 and getting vaccinated.
I don't think that says what you were hoping it would. Good article though