The ever-changing orthodoxy of COVID
The CDC acts as if COVID bends to its will. When it doesn’t do so, the bureaucrats simply change their rules and manipulate data so the result becomes what they expected. They fit the “facts” to their hypothesis.
A recent CDC document states that, as of May 14th, for vaccinated people, only cases that lead to hospitalization and/or death will be counted as cases of COVID. This is a radical departure from the past 18 months, during which the CDC has been counting every positive PCR test as a COVID case. The MSM and tech giants will, no doubt, ignore such maneuvers.
The CDC document further informs state health departments that, to track variants, “For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing” (emphasis mine). Do you see what they’re doing here? This is a vastly different standard than the far more sensitive 35-cycle threshold for the PCR test, which has been in effect since the beginning of testing.
This means that, for the unvaccinated, “cases” get reported if the test detects even minuscule amounts of the virus, that wouldn’t get anyone sick; there are also a large number of false positives that are not factored out of the statistics.
If you’ve gotten the jab, that sensitivity threshold is decreased to a number that more clearly reflects actually being ill from COVID. The lowered standard is arguably what we should have used from the beginning. But that would have skewed downward the data Democrats used to justify keeping us locked up, keeping schools closed, and destroying the economy, where 200,000 more small businesses than normal closed in a year, and those that tried to stay open were punished irrationally.
If the case statistics were lower (meaning, more realistic), it would have made people less fearful, less compliant, and certainly less likely to line up to take the lucrative vaccine. COVID has demolished Main Street and lined the pockets of a few fat cats.
This change in methodology is explained here. The article also notes a spike in cases in the Seychelles, despite an overwhelming percentage being vaccinated. Is that vaccine less effective? The same goes for India, also experiencing a surge in COVID cases in the vaccinated. They both use different vaccines than we do.
There are many questions that ought to be asked, much information that ought to be exchanged, but anything that doesn’t tow the orthodox line is deleted, and its author canceled.
We developed effective vaccines, which appear to be lowering infection rates, better than the European or Asian versions do. Yet there has been an alarming number of negative health reactions, hospitalizations, and deaths after getting the shots, a fact that the bureaucrats and media suppress so people won’t freak out and say “no” to the shots. They are pushing vaccination on teens, even children. To do so, they need to keep the fear level up. So, they skew the “facts” to fit their hypothesis, to get the result they want. This is, of course, contrary to the way science should work – but, as the lawn signs insist, “science is real.” Just don’t look deeper than the surface, or put any real scientific inquiry into the mix, for fear of cancellation.
The flip side of the equation, the part the vaccine pushers really don’t want anyone to hear, is that places that are treating COVID infections with Ivermectin are seeing a huge surge in people getting well, rather than sicker. In the parts of India that are prescribing it, as you can see from the graphs here, that is certainly true. In Argentina and Brazil, they are using it and getting the same results in areas that embraced the treatment, which is interesting, because the comparison between those areas and the parts of the country that don’t prescribe it is dramatic. Also note that, in Argentina, there has been virtually no vaccination — the article states that only 1.5% of the population has received it. Nevertheless, the use of the drug brought “a reduction in deaths of 7 to 1, which is consistent with all the other trials done around the world.”
The bottom line here? Ivermectin is a drug used for treating parasites like scabies, and illnesses like encephalitis in Third World countries. Its patent has long expired. There’s no money to be made on it, unlike the billions to be garnered by drug companies for the vaccine. In a conversation with my latest doctor (who I will be replacing ASAP), she stated that she’s read the journals and government advisories, and there’s no proof Ivermectin, or hydroxychloroquine, another known treatment that has prevented the virus from decimating Africa, work. All I can say is, if one keeps blinders on a horse, he can’t see what’s right beside him.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.