“Follow the science.” But what if the science is flawed? It’s a perfectly reasonable question, especially when you have Big Pharma executives and Big Pharma non-doctor shills like Bill Gates driving public health policy and careening us toward a world of vax-or-be-banned-from-society rules.
Indeed, in a climate when even critical thinking and bodily autonomy are maligned by the mainstream media, it’s never been a better time to explore the ways that officials can lie with statistics and manipulate people by using flawed and misrepresented data.
Need an example of how the CDC uses weekly reports to misinform the American public? Take mask mandates, for one thing
After interviewing several senior-level officials from three-letter agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Marty Makary, surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins School Of Medicine, and Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, sports physician, epidemiologist, and biomedical communications consultant, revealed that the CDC is overwhelmingly relying on “weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions,” that these decisions “are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration,” and that they represent little more than a “myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.”
These failings are exactly what Dr. Madhava Setty, M.D. speaks to in a comprehensive July 19 article posted to Children’s Health Defense.
Using careful attention to detail, Dr. Setty offers three examples of how the CDC has used their infamous Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) to broadcast flawed data “to massive audiences through media outlets that don’t hold them accountable for even gross lapses in scientific rigor.”
For context, the MMWR is touted as the CDC’s “primary vehicle for scientific publication of timely, reliable, authoritative, accurate, objective, and useful public health information and recommendations,” according to the CDC website. But maybe we should look at just how “useful,” “objective,” “reliable,” and “accurate” such information is.
Dr. Setty starts by looking at mask mandates:
Ample evidence suggests no clear pattern in the data on the effectiveness of mask mandates. But in the March 5, 2021 MMWR, the CDC claimed that forcing people to wear masks was associated with a significant drop in the daily growth rate (DGR) of COVID cases and deaths.
Dr. Setty succinctly explains why this claim is based on severely questionable study methodology, including the fact that the CDC “did not analyze any of [the U.S. counties that did not implement mask mandates] to test their hypothesis.” In fact, in his own study conducted with a colleague, Dr. Setty used “publicly available data from the CDC and an arbitrary ‘reference period’ of Aug. 6, 2020 (roughly in the middle of the CDC’s study period date)” to calculate the DGR in counties of seven states without mandates and found that the rates “fell to similar levels [as areas with mask mandates] at the end of 100 days.”
Dr. Setty adds that the CDC “authors’ own data and calculations demonstrate the drop in DGR may have had nothing to do with mask mandates at all,” concluding that any change in “DGR [cited by the CDC] had nothing to do with the imposition of mask mandates,” anyway. Instead, the change in daily growth rates “was due to a predictable pattern of any infectious disease as it spreads through a population over time – whether or not people were forced to wear masks.”
This is a classic example of the problem with confusing correlation and causation – and yet the CDC used exactly this flawed reasoning to convince the public that forcing people to wear masks actually works to prevent viral spread.
Mask mandates, COVID shot during pregnancy, and COVID shots for kids – what’s the truth about these hot topics?
Going beyond the “official” reporting of mask mandates and their “effectiveness,” Dr. Setty also uses the same logic and critical appraisal skills to tease apart the misinformation surrounding the so-called “safety and efficacy” of COVID shots for children and pregnant women. As you know, we are told by government officials again and again that expecting women, nursing women, and kids as young as six months old should get the COVID jabs. Yet officials base these recommendations off highly flawed data, says Dr. Setty.
For example, the risk of birth defects, miscarriages, and other “untoward outcomes” in pregnancy is “greatest during the first third of pregnancy, a time when crucial embryonic structures are developing,” Dr. Setty explains. “This is the period of time where maternal health is particularly important and exposure to toxins, infections and certain medicines must be minimized or eliminated entirely if possible.”
Yet, in the study that the CDC cited to support their claim that COVID shots in pregnancy are safe, only 172 out of over 10,000 (1.7 percent) of the vaxxed mothers received a vax in the first trimester. Certainly, this oversight does not allow for an accurate assessment of whether COVID shots are safe for women and their babies early in pregnancy. Even the CDC admits this when they say in their paper that “[b]ecause of the small number of first-trimester exposures, aHRs (adjusted Hazard Ratios) for first-trimester vaccination could not be calculated.”
But, Dr. Setty wonders, if they couldn’t calculate the risk of the COVID shot in the first trimester of pregnancy, “on what basis could they assure the recently pregnant, those who are trying to become pregnant, and those who might become pregnant in the future that this experimental intervention was safe?”
Answer: “They couldn’t – but they did anyway.”
Dr. Setty uses similar, no-nonsense reasoning as he pulls apart the argument that COVID shots are safe for kids. It is the type of thinking we need to hear, platform, and support, especially in the face of such rampant propaganda.
Sources for this article include: