The CDC's Bogus Kentucky COVID Research

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/the_cdcs_bogus_kentucky_covid_research.html

August 13, 2021
On Aug 6, 2021 the CDC presented a paper titled “Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination -- Kentucky, May–June 2021.� Having spent the last two decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I’m well versed in spotting studies whose primary purpose is to sell a product instead of actually advancing science. I believe that is the case here.

On the surface, the CDC’s paper appears to be straightforward: they did a statistical analysis of people in Kentucky who previously had COVID-19 and later were reinfected, finding that people who were unvaccinated had a greater than two-times risk of being reinfected vs those who were vaxxed. This led the CDC to conclude “to reduce their likelihood for future infection, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccine, even those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.�

Since the CDC, Dr Fauci, and their ilk have repeatedly declared that vaccination is better than natural immunity, this research will be incredibly helpful to their cause. But is there more than meets the eye to this study?

1- The CDC’s findings differ from those of other studies

When a doctor wants to prescribe a medication to a patient, he ideally wants to see multiple clinical studies that show similar results.

In the case of the CDC’s KY research, both the findings themselves (unvaccinated patients being reinfected at a high rate) and the conclusion (that natural immunity doesn’t last and therefore patients with a prior infection should be vaccinated) are contrary to multiple pieces of other research -- specifically a June 2021 publication from the Cleveland Clinic, a May 2021 publication from the Washington University of St. Louis, an Aug 2021 publication from the University of Barcelona, the Apr 2021 SIREN study from the UK, and numerous other studies -- unlike the CDC, these groups found that natural immunity after a COVID-19 infection was durable, long-lasting, and provided excellent protection against reinfection.

The CDC’s research is therefore an outlier vs other studies.

2- The sample size of the CDC research is small.

In the KY research, the sample size was a mere 246 patients in the study group and 492 in the control. These numbers are tiny. Why did they not pull from a larger sample size? After all, the larger the sample size, the more likely the results are due to a causal relationship and not random chance. A classic Big Pharma trick involving statistical analysis is to use small sample sizes, because it’s easier to cherry-pick the data and produce a finding that supports your desired result. As a point of reference, the Cleveland Clinic study included 52,000+ people and the UK SIREN Study had over 25,000 people. Was the CDC’s small sample size intentional because it made it easier for them to get the outcome they wanted?

3- There is a potential conflict of interest.

The most respected clinical trials are conducted by academic universities that did not receive funding from Big Pharma, have no conflicts of interests, and are not tied to the success of a product. Research funded by Big Pharma is associated with investigator bias concern. The least respected research is that in which the pharma company itself is involved in the research and/or part of the author group.

The research by the Cleveland Clinic, et. al. had no conflict of interest -- they were pure science studies. But what about the CDC’s KY Research? While the authors declared no conflict of interest, 3 of the 5 authors were scientists at divisions of the CDC. The CDC is also on record many times speaking in favor of the vaccine, therefore the CDC has a strong investigator bias to want to see an outcome favoring vaccines.

The fact is that the CDC funded the research, the CDC helped conduct the research, and the CDC helped author the publication -- is it any wonder that the CDC found the result it wanted?

4- The CDC research relied on the PCR test, however what constitutes a positive case is different for vaxxed vs unvaxxed patients.

On May 1, 2021, the CDC changed the definition of a ‘positive’ case for a PCR test depending on whether the subject is vaccinated. For unvaccinated subjects, the PCR test continued to use the aggressively high cycle threshold of 40+ and if the test came back positive, the unvaccinated patient was considered to have COVID-19, even if they were asymptomatic. However for vaccinated subjects, a positive case was now defined differently -- the cycle threshold was lowered (28 or fewer) which meant far less chance for the test to recognize a viral marker. Additionally, if vaccinated subjects were asymptomatic or had only mild symptoms, the tests were now declared to be negative because under the new rules, a vaccinated subject would only be considered COVID-positive, if they were hospitalized or died.

To compare an unvaccinated asymptomatic subject whose only marker for COVID is a highly upcycled PCR test against vaccinated patients who were hospitalized or died is the very definition of comparing apples and oranges.

In the case of the CDC’s KY Research, the sample period to measure for reinfection was May-Jun 2021 -- this is conveniently after the CDC changed the PCR test definition. Given that the CDC set up a system in which unvaccinated subjects have many more opportunities to be tagged as COVID-positive, it should come as no surprise that their research ‘discovered’ a higher reinfection rate among unvaccinated subjects because the system was rigged to produce this very result.

5 - The CDC recently admitted the PCR Test is inaccurate.

In July, 2021 the CDC revealed that it will be phasing out the Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel test because they found that the test is unable to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and other influenza viruses. The RT-PCR test is one of the tests used in the KY research. As we say in the pharmaceutical industry -- garbage data in, garbage conclusions out. If the CDC knew the RT-PCT/NAAT test was inaccurate in July, why publish research in Aug using bad data?

6- The CDC’s conclusions were based solely on test results and not hospitalization/death rates.

Remember, the CDC decided in May to change the definition of a “positive� case for vaccinated patients. The given reason was to ‘maximize the quality of the data’ by focusing on what matters -- hospitalization and death. If hospitalization and death are the only data that matter for a vaccinated patient, and the mere presence of a positive PCR-test for an asymptomatic vaccinated patient doesn’t matter, why don’t the same rules apply for asymptomatic unvaccinated patients?

7- The CDC’s research shows vaccinated patients experiencing breakthrough infections at a rate much higher than the CDC has admitted elsewhere.

We have been told that COVID infections and reinfections among vaccinated patients are ‘very rare.’ Unfortunately these claims don't hold water against real world evidence that recently came out of Massachusetts (74% of recent infections were vaccinated patients), the data from the Israel Minister of Health (40% of recent infections were vaccinated patients, only 1% were patients with a prior infection), And the KY research that we’ve been discussing that showed a 20-27% reinfection rate among vaccinated patients.

In addition, the authors themselves pointed out numerous limitations, including:

The inability to prove if the reinfection was new or just residual from a prior infection. Result: bad data.
Vaccination data of uncertain quality -- they admitted that people in the original unvaccinated patient or control group categories may have gotten the vax in another state or in between the study periods and therefore if reinfected they should have been counted as a case in the vaccinated group. Result: bad data.
This was a retrospective study design from a single state during a short two-month period; therefore, “these findings cannot be used to infer causation.� This small analysis should not be used to make large-scale assumptions or public health decisions.

Given the CDC’s history of manipulating research to drive their agenda -- (the infamous Mannequin trial on face masks, their attempt to hide ‘unpublished data’ from a peer-rejected paper from India, etc.) -- why should we trust that their KY research is any different?

The conclusion is clear -- the CDC had an agenda and concocted research to support said agenda. This is straight out of the Big Pharma Playbook on how to sell more product. In addition, with vaccine efficacy waning and breakthrough cases rising throughout the world, Big Pharma is salivating over the potential to make you a customer for life by giving you regular booster shots to protect you from a virus that represents minimal risk to a majority of the world.

>>>

Ron Pillman is a pharmaceutical insider who's pulling back the curtain to show you the tricks Big Pharma uses to manipulate the medical system and sell more product - whether you need it or not.

Mad Poet Strikes Again.