FRAUD: CDC showing again they are a political/propaganda arm and not practicing science...

I didn't actually plan on posting a second post today. This information I just stumbled across is huge though. I feel compelled to speak up.

The first thing I want to state is that if you understand the scientific method you know it requires a consistent non-biased method of measurement. You don't measure one way in one circumstance and measure a different way in another and then try to show the results of those measurements having any form of equivalence.

If you are familiar with the PCR tests used to test people for COVID-19 then you are likely aware it uses a process of cycles. Each cycle amplifies a substance. The person that invented it actually won a Nobel prize for it. He died before COVID. However, he had stated that they should not use the PCR test for testing for illnesses like they are COVID. Why? If you use sufficient cycles you can find ANY substance on any person. If you test 20 cycles on one group, and then you test that same group on 21 cycles the test using 21 cycles is going to show more positive results.

If you are in a state that tests 30 cycles and there is another state that tests 35 cycles you a pretty much guaranteed the results are going to be a lot higher in the state that tests for 35. Likewise, if there seems to be a lull and things seem to be improving when testing at 35 cycles if you then bump it to 36 or 37 cycles it will suddenly look like a surge.

When talking about the results it is difficult to find the number of cycles used in each test situation but it is extremely important to the truth. If you do not report this then you can make things appear to be worse or get better at the whim of the politicians or those giving orders to the testers. This is not science. This is fraud.

Now if there was a mandate that EVERYONE use exactly the same number of cycles in all circumstances that would at least be consistent with the scientific method. That hasn't happened.

That was all lead up to what I found out...

You needed to understand the above information before the ramifications of this new info can fully be comprehended.

The CDC has announced new guidelines for testing ONLY people who have been vaccinated. That is to test them at 28 cycles which is lower than pretty much anywhere else is testing.

image.png
That is a clip from the linked PDF (28 cycles). It is actually LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 28 cycles. So they are fine with the vaccinated people being tested with 28 or less cycles but NOT MORE.

image.png
That is the header of the PDF and under objective clearly states this is for people that have received the vaccine.

Do you understand what that means?

It is guaranteed to produce artificially lower positive test results ONLY for people who have been vaccinated. If you haven't been vaccinated they will test you with the higher number of cycles. That is guaranteed to make the vaccine appear effective purely through test manipulation.

It also is a good example of why the guy that invented the PCR test said it shouldn't be used this way.

Do you still trust the CDC?

Do you still blindly fall for the argument from authority fallacy?

If you do, why?

This is not science. This is political, money grubbing, power over others, and fraud.


EDIT: This may be in response to some locations reporting as many as 60% of the new COVID cases they were seeing were people that were vaccinated. If they lower the cycles they can artificially make this go away while still testing everyone else at the previous number of cycles.


EDIT 2: I can say I was expecting the down votes... 26 added at once though. That is something to behold. I am sure people have studied what this group of people allows to trend and be rewarded. No big deal. I was fully expecting it. I can admit to being a little excited when I saw the post hit $140 in potential rewards but I was also thinking "Yep, get ready for the downvotes". :) I guess it is good my expectations are properly attuned. It at least appears not as bad as steemit was getting before I decided it was no longer worth the time or effort.

If this stabilizes the market and helps keep things running well I am okay with it. I only have issue if people do it for those reasons and then vote themselves large payouts. I appreciate the stated goal, but I do not like hypocrisy. As long as that is not the case then I am okay with it.

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
51 Comments