CDC refuses to release COVID-19 info because the public may "misinterpret" it

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
The CDC has now surpassed its buddies over at the CIA and refuses to release even public, non-classified pandemic data covering mortality, gender, age, vaccination status, co-morbidities, etc. Why mentioning the CIA? Well, some years ago the CIA refused to release declassified information on the Bay of Pigs invasion as it may "confuse" the public and people may "misinterpret" it. I doubt two of the biggest agencies within the US govt are using identical language in regards to very similarly nefarious events without this being standard procedure and also an indication of the the bombshells the concealed information contains.
"...Fifty-one years after the failed attempt to invade Cuba, the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Justice continue to claim that releasing the final volume of a CIA history of the debacle would “confuse the public” and should therefore remain withheld. "

Without that data CDC is now refusing to publish, it is virtually impossible to judge vaccine effectiveness (and safety) and the only data publicly available are the pharma-sponsored studies. Needless to say, those are not exactly reliable. When asked why it is refusing to release the data, which is public and must be released by law, CDC stated that the information "...might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective." BINGO! To me, the CDC just admitted what we have been discussing on the forum since the clotshots first became available in late 2020.

Furthermore, as it turns out the COVID-19 data published by CDC so far is a tiny fraction of what CDC has collected since the start of the "pandemic" in March 2020. You can safely assume whatever has been publicly released is undoubtedly cherry-picked to favor vaccines, show severity of COVID-19, benefit of lockdowns, etc. Keep in mind that CDC has not yet released even the final raw mortality data for neither 2020 nor 2021. The raw numbers released for those years are provisional and subject to change, in CDC's own words. The only data the CDC considers final is the so-called "excess mortality". That is actually a contradiction of terms, as "excess mortality" is based on a model and can never be truly final since it does not correspond to anything real. Also, such model-based data easily be massaged to show whatever the CDC wants. Unsurprisingly, CDC keeps mentioning only the "excess mortality" in its propaganda materials, and has even dropped the word "excess", so that most people hearing/reading the propaganda would walk away with the impression that those numbers are solid, raw death numbers when in fact they are mostly imaginary (just a model).
So, it looks like CDC is basically keeping all the juicy info on the "pandemic" to itself. Unless somebody sues, just as in the case of Pfizer vaccine data, CDC won't release that information even though it is most likely required to do so by federal law. Even if somebody sues, CDC will probably try to pull the same trick as FDA and claim it can release the data no earlier than 2075 due to staff shortages. And since the court in which that case would be decided is probably different from the one in which the FDA cases was decided there is a good chance the CDC may get its wish.

@Regina @tankasnowgod @Drareg

"...The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has kept reams of its Covid-19 data under wraps for more than a year, the New York Times reports, holding back figures at least partly because it doesn’t trust the public to interpret the information correctly. The agency’s seemingly selective disclosure came to light in an article by the Times on Sunday. Among the data being withheld is a breakdown of Covid-19 hospitalizations by age, race, and vaccination status. The CDC also chose not to report on such findings as the efficacy of booster shots in 18- to 49-year-olds, even though it collected the information, the article added. Although it’s the agency leading America’s Covid-19 response, the CDC has published only a “tiny fraction” of the data that it has collected, the Times said. In lieu of US data being made more widely available, experts were forced to look elsewhere for information – such as Israeli figures on booster shots – that would help them make informed recommendations."

"...Such omissions have included figures on Covid-19 infections among fully vaccinated Americans. According to the media report, the CDC has been reluctant to publish those figures because “they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.” Nordlund confirmed that concern as one of the reasons. Epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera, part of an independent Covid-19 data-tracking project, told the Times that her group had been begging for such information for two years. “We are at much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats,” she argued."
 
Last edited:

Grapelander

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,297
Location
Sonoma County
Live by the FOIA - die by the FOIA.

I heard Governor Newsome say that they were going to stop 'confusing' people with data; and start providing one-minute updates.
So we will get little infomercials of 'key points' to memorize; don't want to worry the little heads of the proles.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Live by the FOIA - die by the FOIA.

I heard Governor Newsome say that they were going to stop 'confusing' people with data; and start providing one-minute updates.
So we will get little infomercials of 'key points' to memorize; don't want to worry the little heads of the proles.

Yeah, I saw that on the news and I think it is not limited to California. At least 10 other states (all on the coasts) have similar plans or legislation already drawn up and ready to vote on. It's the equivalent of having a newspaper reporting actual news replace all of its reporting with op-ed and opinion pieces. I would not be surprised if those states label all other non-sanctioned media as "terrorist" publications and jail both the publishers and the readers.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
You will own nothing and you will be happy - The Great Reset

You will know nothing and you will be happy - CDC
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
You will own nothing and you will be happy - The Great Reset

You will know nothing and you will be happy - CDC

...and add to that "you won't be able to do anything through courts and be happy" too.
See my post above about the blank pages NIH sent to somebody. If they can do that despite a court order, what validity does the court system even have any more. What's to stop FDA/Pfizer to do the same for the lawsuit where they asked for 75 years to release the data? The judge compelled them to release it within a year, so in light of what NIH did (above), why couldn't the FDA just send back 500,000 blank pages?
 
P

Peatness

Guest


 

Fred

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
487
Operating on the premise that the media is part of the deception, this all sounds like the setup for a limited hangout. "Yeah, the vaccines may have killed around 100 people or so. So you can stop looking into it... ". If they were smart about this, the real data wouldn't exist.
 

TheSir

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
1,952
I don't disagree with the notion at its face value: the public is painfully inadept at interpreting statistics. Something which we all have had to witness throughout the pandemic. In this context, however, the decision will not produce much good.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
I don't disagree with the notion at its face value: the public is painfully inadept at interpreting statistics. Something which we all have had to witness throughout the pandemic. In this context, however, the decision will not produce much good.

The same argument can be made for every other aspect of life though. Let's say voting - most people are painfully inadept at making good political choices. Does that mean they should not vote? What about living their lives independently? I mean so much potential for things to go wrong, and they do. I doubt the to put everybody in an assisted-living facility where the walls are covered in mats to prevent self-harm, the utensils are plastic, the AC outlets are sealed, etc., right?
It is not the govt's job to decide on what is true and what is not. There is always a potential for misinterpretation, even of indisputable facts. That's just how life works. However, if we cannot even have the raw (and public, by law) data released then we don't live in a real world, but a curated fairy-tale. And if this is not resisted/fought, eventually the powers that be will decide on how much reality we get to see in regards to every aspect of our lives.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
499
There will come the moment where a large fraction of Europeans will bite their **** for letting the governments restrict weapons
 

TheSir

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
1,952
The same argument can be made for every other aspect of life.
And for most of these things you would be right.
Let's say voting - most people are painfully inadept at making good political choices. Does that mean they should not vote?
Most definitely. The value of democracy is measured in the competence of the voting population. In present, there exists no sufficiently competent populations in the west, not to an extent that would justify the continued existence of democracies.. The evidence of our incompetence is seen in the sorry and confused state of our societies.
It is not the govt's job to decide on what is true and what is not.
It is the goverment's job to decide what information the public has access to. In an ideal world, inhabited by an ideal population, very little would need to remain hidden. Unfortunately, as you must know, we are far from living in a such world.
However, if we cannot even have the raw data released then we don't live in a real world, but a curated fairy-tale.
Yes, in this case hiding information is a particularly harmful approach, considering the message it will send.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Scotland has done the same.


If the US and Scottish decisions stand and are not overturned in court, then I think the medical industry is done for good. Public health officials (like Fauci) lying throughout the pandemic was bad enough, but if we now cannot trust or even have access to basic population health stats, then the entire public health system is nothing but fraud.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
And for most of these things you would be right.

Most definitely. The value of democracy is measured in the competence of the voting population. In present, there exists no sufficiently competent populations in the west, not to an extent that would justify the continued existence of democracies.. The evidence of our incompetence is seen in the sorry and confused state of our societies.

It is the goverment's job to decide what information the public has access to. In an ideal world, inhabited by an ideal population, very little would need to remain hidden. Unfortunately, as you must know, we are far from living in a such world.

Yes, in this case hiding information is a particularly harmful approach, considering the message it will send.

So, in a world where all of these aspects of life are restricted/regulated, who watches the watchers/regulators? I would agree that the current state is like giving knives to toddlers, but swinging too far in the other direction produces dictatorships and personality cults that have so far not ended well, even once.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
499
Operating on the premise that the media is part of the deception, this all sounds like the setup for a limited hangout. "Yeah, the vaccines may have killed around 100 people or so. So you can stop looking into it... ". If they were smart about this, the real data wouldn't exist.
and who guarantees that the data they would be writing is actually true. They could tell some interns to write some low numbers and they would get their FOIA sites done easily
 

TheSir

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
1,952
So, in a world where all of these aspects of life are restricted/regulated, who watches the watchers/regulators? I would agree that the current state is like giving knives to toddlers, but swinging too far in the other direction produces dictatorships and personality cults
These are valid concerns. What I wrote was not meant to suggest that we should catapult ourselves into the opposite end of the spectrum.
that have so far not ended well, even once.
Heh, when you get down to it, nothing we have done as a species has conclusively ended well. Cults and dictatorships just get there sooner. Perhaps that is a merit unto itself: to delay the eventual collapse for as long as possible.
 

Makrosky

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
3,982
If the US and Scottish decisions stand and are not overturned in court, then I think the medical industry is done for good. Public health officials (like Fauci) lying throughout the pandemic was bad enough, but if we now cannot trust or even have access to basic population health stats, then the entire public health system is nothing but fraud.
They probably find some kind of sadistic pleasure on mocking people that much. It is no a rational thing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom