282

MORE Flagrant Data Manipulation from the CDC New report is further evidence the CDC is deliberately hiding post-vaccine “breakthrough cases”

Kit Knightly

A new report, published just yesterday, has provided yet more evidence that the CDC is manipulating data to conceal the number of “breakthrough infections”.

A “breakthrough infection” (or “breakthrough case”) is defined as a person who tests positive for Sars-Cov-2 infection, despite already being fully vaccinated. And this new report finds that the CDC’s official record of breakthrough cases is:

likely a substantial undercount.

Going on to explain:

The national surveillance system relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data might not be complete or representative. Many persons with vaccine breakthrough infections, especially those who are asymptomatic or who experience mild illness, might not seek testing.

Which is partially accurate, but also a pretty major lie by omission.

It is probably true that vaccinated people with no symptoms are unlikely to seek testing, but it is also true that, on March 17th, the CDC updated their advice on testing policy to specifically exclude such people from testing protocols:

Screencap of CDC’s testing guidelines

So, while it’s certainly true that “breakthrough cases” are likely a substantial undercount, it is dishonest to pretend that this is just an accident of the system. Rather, the system is specifically designed to hide such cases.

Of course, this report only goes up to the end of April, the “undercount” will only have gotten worse since then, because the CDC changed their rules AGAIN to make it even harder to keep an accurate count of breakthrough cases.

As we wrote last week, as of May 1st the CDC will no longer be counting mild or asymptomatic cases as “breakthrough infections”, choosing to focus only on hospitalisations and deaths.

According to the CDC’s own report, though, over a quarter (27%) of breakthrough infections were asymptomatic, and a further 61% were only mildly ill. Conversely, only 10% of them were ever hospitalised, and only 2% died:

Based on preliminary data, 2,725 (27%) vaccine breakthrough infections were asymptomatic, 995 (10%) patients were known to be hospitalized, and 160 (2%) patients died.

So, the CDC has taken their “substantial undercount”, and then slashed it by 90%. The official figures, moving forward, will be so inaccurate as to be completely useless.

The CDC claims these changes “will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.” But that is an obvious and absurd lie.

Statistical studies have shown up to 86% of Covid “cases” never experience symptoms. To exclude such cases from your vaccine effectiveness studies is to poison your data in order to prop up a pre-determined conclusion. It is, at the very best, extremely poor science.

Of course, the truth is far more cynical even than that.

From the beginning of the so-called “pandemic”, waves of asymptomatic “cases” were deliberately created by running unreliable PCR tests on 100,000s of perfectly healthy people every day.

The entirely predictable false positives were called “cases”, and these manufactured “cases” of Covid19 were used to build up the illusion of a global plague.

This was a prolonged campaign of deception in order to bring about sweeping changes in the construction of our society.

To this point “asymptomatic cases” have been the backbone of the Covid narrative. But now the CDC has attempted to remove them from the reckoning by instructing medical labs and hospitals around the country to stop looking for them, but only in those who have had the “vaccine”.

This is a new prolonged campaign of deception, spinning the narrative that these untested, experimental “vaccines” truly are “effective” against a “pandemic” that was built on statistical smoke and mirrors.

In short: before the vaccine they needed “asymptomatic infections” to create a “problem”, after the vaccine they are actively hiding “asymptomatic infections”, because their existence undermines their “solution”.

“Breakthrough infections”, existing in anything approaching large numbers, effectively means one of three things is true: either the tests are unreliable, the “vaccines” are ineffective…or both.

To anyone interested in the truth, keeping an accurate count of these “breakthrough infections” is therefore vitally important.

The corollary of that, of course, is that anyone attempting to conceal, minimise or ignore them is NOT interested in the truth. Such behaviour is, in fact, a tacit admission of deception.