CDC Limits Reviews of Vaccinated but Infected - Spurring Concerns

Federal health officials this month decided to limit how they monitor vaccinated people who have been infected with Covid-19, drawing concern from some scientists who say that may mean missing needed data showing why and how it happens.
...
“We shouldn’t be narrowing the focus, we should be broadening and develop a systematic plan,” said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla.
...
At the start of May, the CDC shifted from monitoring all reported breakthroughs to only those that result in hospitalization or death, Tom Clark, head of the vaccine evaluation unit for the CDC’s vaccine task force, said in an interview.

CDC Limits Reviews of Vaccinated but Infected - Spurring Concerns

While we're on the subject of trustworthiness of agencies like the CDC, I figured I'd post this intriguing case of ....data cleanup? .....narrative refinement? .....alternative facts? (WHOOPSIE that one was only trotted out for the previous POTUS administration).

So it turns out, one CAN in fact develop COVID even after administration of either the mRNA novel spike protein therapy or the traditional inactive virus vaccine from Johnson and Johnson. This should really be a shock to nobody, and to be honest, is an expected outcome of any preventive therapy like vaccines. But as we will talk about, as always, the problem never seems to be the uncovering of troubling information, the cardinal sin is always, ALWAYS the lack of honesty and attempted deception (i.e. the coverup) after the information is discovered/

We will leave aside the cost/benefit analysis of subjecting oneself to the mRNA treatment, which has existed as an actual non-hypothetical technology for less than 20 years (the clear majority of that time spent in animal testing, and aside from experimental cancer treatment for those will few alternatives left, mRNA has NEVER previously been used in a therapeutic capacity in humans). If one could still develop COVID even after taking the jab, and the virus itself is only lethal in a very small slice of the population, and on top of that there have been (lightly) documented cases of side effects from the COVID treatment themselves, then we have some people that have a very poor grasp of risk/reward analysis. The media has abjectly failed, or willfully abrogated, their responsibility in helping people reason through a risk/reward analysis. But, again this is a digression, and on that has been pounded to death here.

What fascinates me is, we have a clear-cut case of the CDC and "fact-based" public health officials...discarding a piece of the data pie. As cited above in the article, the CDC is now limiting their tracking of "breakthrough" cases (i.e. vaccinated folks who still get sick) from //anyone// in that category to "only those that result in hospitalization or death".

How strange, and in fact, not very scientific behavior. To the credit of some folks, who are both paying attention and have not discarded their integrity as members of the scientific community, this is a troubling turn of events. Also from the article:

Michael Kinch, a former drug developer who’s now associate vice chancellor at Washington University in St. Louis, says as much information as possible should be recorded on breakthroughs. Cases that don’t rise to hospitalization are still important to track, he said, since symptoms that aren’t as severe for someone could eventually lead to hospitalizations. Non-life-threatening symptoms can impact someone’s life greatly, and evolve over time, Kinch said.

“It’s essential that we stay on top of this,” he added. “If we let our guard our down, we will pay the price.”

The problem is, the CDC seems to feel differently about the vital need to develop a holistic model of what's happening with administration of the COVID medications, including ALL outcomes. Here is the rational given by Tom Clark, head of the vaccine evaluation unit for the CDC’s vaccine task force, on excluding components of the full spectrum of vaccine outcomes.

The CDC made the shift because the data collected so far on breakthroughs don’t show worrying patterns, suggesting the focus should be on the most severe cases, Clark said. He added that the agency has planned other vaccine studies, including one with a network of health centers, to compare disease severity and frequency of variant infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

“I don’t think we’re missing out on this data,” Clark said. “It’s just sort of a package of how we’re looking at these questions.”

Interesting. "A package of how we're looking at these questions." I've heard something like this before, I'm quite sure. I believe the "packaging" of questions related to how, at the pinnacle of the pandemic, reports were trickling in of victims of seemingly incidental trauma events, heart attacks, accidents, even gunshot wounds, were reported as COVID fatalities.

So.....developing a picture of micro-level data granularity for COVID /cases/ in 2020 was vital.....but for "breakthrough" cases in '21, post-vaccine..."I don't think we're missing out on" data.

This is what one would expect from a bureaucratic organization that is striving to politicize information, not collect it, analyze it, and form the most unbiased, objective picture of what is happening to patients in this pandemic.

If you read through the article in detail, you can read quotes from patients of so-called "breakthrough" cases that convey a sense of abandonment and dismay at being effectively disregarded and deflected by public health officials after their ordeals.

Is it any wonder why conspiracy theories abound, and trust of public officials and government agencies is so low.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Is it any wonder why conspiracy theories abound, and trust of public officials and government agencies is so low.

Well no it's not but turns out the CDC is not exclusively government controlled and does receive private funding through its 5013c foundation listed on the Dun & Bradstreet database.

Apparently 'almost all the top donors are vax producers' and it has a private lobbying arm that financially motivates politicians.

Some people have questioned my concern over both the CDC and John Hopkins University is a PRIVATE organization where the CDC accepts private funding – NOT ONLY GOVERNMENT! The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Just because the CDC and the WHO and Fauci and the whole
political environment. As well as Main Marxist Media venues
and people who view such venues as credible. Everything in
this age of deceit that has manifested to reality.

There's no reason to mistrust a vaccine in the hands of Quacky
little NAZI Doctors or any micro soft eugenicists.

Not when the technology has evolved to a point that would surely
embolden them. In their quest to meet the aspirations of their
wicked hearts.

Nobody wants to enslave, rape, murder or sacrifice you so
go on. Let em vaccinate you with a fake vaccine. Have fun!

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Is it any wonder why conspiracy theories abound, and trust of public officials and government agencies is so low.

Well no it not but turns out the CDC is not exclusively government controlled and does receive private funding through its 5013c foundation listed on the Dun & Bradstreet database.

Apparently 'almost all the top donors are vax producers' and it has a private lobbying arm that financially motivates politicians.

Some people have questioned my concern over both the CDC and John Hopkins University is a PRIVATE organization where the CDC accepts private funding – NOT ONLY GOVERNMENT! The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers.

Excellent and very astute observation, karl12. You put down in written form what was rattling around my brain.

The incestuous relationship of CDC and BigPharma is one of many 'complicated' relationships in society and government, such as...

- cozy relationship between the financial industry and the regulatory body (SEC) tasked with keeping tabs on them
- propensity of politicians (particularly congress people) ending up working at lobbying firms after leaving government

The colloquial term I'm familiar with to describe such scenarios is something about foxes guarding the hen house.....

1/3 of all US Covid deaths have occurred in Biden’s first three months versus Trump’s last ten months. Since it is not a flattering figure, Covid deaths are very rarely discussed on the news in favor of percentage population that had one shot of the two shot vaccines (when only the number of fully vaccinated with both shots matter).

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Just because the CDC and the WHO and Fauci and the whole
political environment. As well as Main Marxist Media venues
and people who view such venues as credible. Everything in
this age of deceit that has manifested to reality.

As I've come to understand it, "doctor" Fauci, in a previous professional capacity (director/decision maker for US-based pathology research group), had a hand in relocating "gain of function" study of SARS family virus that was encountering push back in the US to certain laboratories in China (one lab in a place called Wuhan, if I remember right). I read that here on ATS; please correct me if I'm mistaken on this point.

There is an eerie similarity in this "doctor's" name with a certain renowned character in a famous work of fiction. Now that you think about it, the circumstances of real life mirror the plot of this story to an uncanny degree. Perhaps someone else has already coined this term on ATS, not sure, but if this is not so, please allow me to introduce the concept of a

Faucian Bargain

originally posted by: Ahabstar
1/3 of all US Covid deaths have occurred in Biden’s first three months versus Trump’s last ten months. Since it is not a flattering figure, Covid deaths are very rarely discussed on the news in favor of percentage population that had one shot of the two shot vaccines (when only the number of fully vaccinated with both shots matter).

A very true and perplexing fact, Ahabstar. I seem to recall COVID "death odometers" were quite popular in the previous year.

It does seem now as if the emphasis on COVID mortality figures has diminished in the current year. And now we are on the cusp of re-opening, as planned. It was a very common trend, at around the February/March '21 time frame, to read comments from state and city politicians stressing the need to "get back to normal" and "open up the economy". This seemed quite at odds with positions from those same folks a mere 3 months earlier.

The Power of the Narrative (tm) can never be underestimated.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Yes indeed mate, great thread and there are some relevant Venn diagrams here in case you hadn't seen them.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

How strange, and in fact, not very scientific behavior.

Think a lot of folks are beginning to realize their steering agenda doesn't really give a toss about objective science.

Ha! You put "trustworthiness" and CDC in the same sentence.

That was damn bold of you. Those two shouldn't even be in the same paragraph.

Not vaccines, never were vaccines.

originally posted by: panoz77
Not vaccines, never were vaccines.

If I'm not mistaken, the J&J treatment is a vaccine in the traditional sense (i.e. contains an inactive copy of virus against which your body produces antibodies).

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Not really, the J&J jab is designed to produce spike proteins just like the others, although it doesn't use mRNA to do it. Many current theories are that the spike protein generation itself is causing the adverse reactions in many people.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

posted on May, 9 2021 @ 05:48 PMlink quote reply

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened


There is an eerie similarity in this "doctor's" name with a certain renowned character in a famous work of fiction. Now that you think about it, the circumstances of real life mirror the plot of this story to an uncanny degree. Perhaps someone else has already coined this term on ATS, not sure, but if this is not so, please allow me to introduce the concept of a

Faucian Bargain

That's a puzzle piece!

And it jarred a memory loose in my head.
I had a great ancient history teacher in seventh grade who
included this as a lesson. I loved that class and always paid
close attention. It was the only class I ever got straight A's in.

Think I'll read up on this a bit. Thanks

If the vaccines are nothing more than a placebo, wouldn’t this make for an interesting conspiracy theory?
- a virus that for the most part isn’t dangerous to the larger part of the population.
- many people don’t even know that they they contracted the virus.
- pass around a vaccine that is not effective at all, people still contract the virus, most not even knowing that they have it.
- the vaccine producers get mucho dinero for all of their help to society.
- their politician friends push for everyone to get the vaccines, adding to the profit for the pharma guys.

Also, once enough people are vaccinated, they can call off all the shutdowns and put things back to normal..... until the next virus comes along.

It will be like agent white where our government does not allow anyone to test the chemical if they ever get federal grants for research. They also are not accepting evidence that can lead to the chemical being banned, because we may need to use it in wars. Which kind of makes sense.

They are limiting any research that could show that the vaccine is not working as they are promoting it to work. Evidence that is not accepted is not real...that is how the FDA works. That practice has been used more on chemicals added to food and used evaluating agriculture chemicals quite a bit, but rarely has it been used on Pharmaceuticals. Maybe they are starting to deny evidence on med side effects or inefficiency now too.

The terms CDC or WHO shouldn’t appear in the same article as any topic that could be considered ‘medical’ by nature

The CDC is not relevant in any way when discussing diseases/virus and the control thereof

and the WHO is not relevant in any way when discussing people’s health

Those who look to these organisations for answers and guidance are just as THICK as those who believe fauci is a medical professional

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

This will basically show less covid cases for vaccinated patients vs non vaccinated.
All of the shutdowns were justified by the federal and state governments using the data collected early on and during the pandemic. Why would the methods change now?

Hmmm

It makes absolutely no sense to track the numbers differently unless you are trying to manipulate the final totals.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

This will basically show less covid cases for vaccinated patients vs non vaccinated.
All of the shutdowns were justified by the federal and state governments using the data collected early on and during the pandemic. Why would the methods change now?

Hmmm

It makes absolutely no sense to track the numbers differently unless you are trying to manipulate the final totals.

Precisely; manipulation of the data to build a particular narrative or reinforce a pre-forumlated hypothesis.

I think this is why other members of the scientific community are speaking up: fudging the data makes /everyone/ in the field suspect.

Its intent is evil on many levels... The bottom line is that this has all been talked about for several years and its history has been well documented... A one eye man is king amongst blind people..a reply to: Randyvine

originally posted by: Bigbrooklyn
Its intent is evil on many levels... The bottom line is that this has all been talked about for several years and its history has been well documented... A one eye man is king amongst blind people..a reply to: Randyvine

At least we we're and still are able to talk about it. But I doubt
we could've done anything about either way. They walked us right in
to a trap only they new was waiting for us. When the research has
finally produced the technology that has made us obsolete in their
eyes. They were always headed where we are now.