How the CDC Alters its Narrative to Align with the Facts

One of the keys to solving the pandemic has been the use of a brand new vaccine technology called messenger RNA better known to most of us as mRNA.  This technology works as follows according to the CDC:

 

Here's another collection of graphics from the European Vaccination Information Portal showing how the mRNA vaccines work:

 

Note this phrase from the second graphic:

 

"The proteins and the mRNA are destroyed and disappear from your body in a matter of days."

  

Here's another graphic from the New York City government with the same information:

 

This narrative has been promoted heavily during the vaccination phase of the pandemic, largely to reassure the COVID-19 vaccine consumers that the mRNA technology would not alter human DNA as shown here:

 

As the purveyor of health information to the American public and as one of the world's most influential medical institutions, narratives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or CDC carry a lot of weight globally.  Here's what the CDC had to say about the persistence of mRNA in the human body on July 22, 2022:

 

The next day, this is what the CDC had to say about the persistence of mRNA after vaccination:

 

 

Is the CDC now recanting on a key part of its COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safety claims that were being used to coerce humans into accepting the vaccines as "safe"?  

The CDC has now completely removed its guidance on the persistence of mRNA and the spike proteins generated by the COVID-19 vaccines which had been part of its narrative going back to November 2020 before the mRNA vaccines had even rolled out and were still being tested by their manufacturers as shown here:

 

Apparently, in the CDC's world, if facts don't align with the narrative, you simply change the "facts" on your website, hoping that the world doesn't notice.  George Orwell would be so delighted to see that his vision of the future has come true as quoted here:

 

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party (or CDC) is always right."

Negating the Rights of the Naturally Immune

With governments completely negating the protective properties of natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, strongly favouring their universal vaccination programs, a recent development involving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CVC) should cause us to ponder the real agenda.

 

Thanks to information released by Aaron Siri, in early September, 2021, a New York-based law firm, Siri & Gimstad submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requesting the following:

 

"Documents reflecting any documented case of an individual who: (1) never received a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered, and then later became infected again; and (3) transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected."

  

Here is the CDC's response:

 

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) received your September 02, 2021, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on September 02, 2021, seeking:

 

“Documents reflecting any documented case of an individual who: (1) never received a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered, and then later became infected

again; and (3) transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.”

 

A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC Emergency Operations Center (EOC) conveyed that this information is not collected."

  

Here are both letters:

 

 

Isn't it fascinating to see that the CDC's advice to governments is to get all people vaccinated whether or not they have natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus which provides significantly better protection than the experimental mRNA vaccines according to this study:

 

...and this study which shows that vaccinated individuals can still transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus:

 

...as does this study:

 

...and this study:

 

So, basically, governments are negating the rights of people who choose to remain unvaccinated but who have developed natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they have been deemed "vectors of disease" based on data that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't even collect.  

As I've said before, the last 19 months have never been about a virus.

How the CDC Cancelled the Definition of Vaccination

Like many other things during the pandemic, even the most basic premises of science find themselves undergoing what can only be described as the "cancel culture."

 

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, let's look at how the CDC defined "vaccination" prior to September 1, 2021:

 

Note that prior to September 1, 2021 vaccinations were introduced to "produce immunity".

 

Here is the newly minted CDC definition of vaccinations which became effective on September 1, 2021:

 

 

Now, vaccinations are introduced to "provide protection".  

 

Undoubtedly, there seem to be a lot of "coincidences" during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Here is another one that also just happened to take place on September 1, 2021:

 

As you can see and as I posted here, Israelis who received the two-dose Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine regimen and who had not previously suffered from COVID-19 (i.e. are SARS-CoV-2 naive) have a far greater chance of experiencing a breakthrough infection with the Delta variant than those who had been infected previously and had not been vaccinated.  This study shows that natural immunity provides a longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 variant than those who had two doses of Pfizer's BNT162b2 vaccine.  In other words, not only does the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination not "produce immunity" even over the short-term (as defined by the pre-September 1, 2021 definition of vaccination), it doesn't appear that it "provides protection" (as defined by the post-September 1, 2021 definition of vaccination) against the Delta variant either.

 

Ins't it interesting to see how the CDC has changed the definition of vaccination to fit the limitations of at least one of the COVID-19 vaccines?  There's nothing like cancelling what doesn't fit the mainstream pandemic narrative.

Social Media, the CDC and COVID-19 Collaboration

During the pandemic, it has become increasingly clear that the main players along with social media platforms are "singing from the same hymn book".  Thanks to Judicial Watch, we now have some idea why at least two of the biggest players are hand-in-hand when it comes to the COVID-19 narrative.

 

In this case, Judicial Watch launched legal actions against the United States Department of Health and Human Services to force compliance with the Freedom of Information Act after Judicial Watch sent an FOIA request to the Centers for Disease Control on September 15, 2020, asking for access to :

"Any and all records of communication between CDC officials and/or employees and employees, agents, and/or representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube concerning, regarding, or relating to COVID-19 related content on company platforms. Such records include, but are not limited to, any advice or instructions issued on disinformation re COVID-19."

 

Since the first request was not fulfilled, Judicial Watch filed a second FOIA request on March 9, 2021 as shown here:

 

In response, Judicial Watch received 2,469 pages of documents from the CDC which clearly reveal close cooperation between the CDC and Facebook about the COVID-19 narrative and so-called "misinformation".  Let's look at some of the more interesting documents which show links between Big Tech and the CDC.

  

Here is a document from Google showing the launching of a COVID-19 alert on its products which provides consumers with the CDC's latest recommendations with most of the information redacted (pages 4 to 8 inclusive with pages 6, 7 and 8 being completely redacted):

 

 

Here is another email showing the link between Google's YouTube and the CDC (pages 14 to 16):

 

Here is an email showing the link between LinkedIn and the CDC (pages 27 to 35):

 

Here is an email showing how Facebook supplied the CDC with $2 million worth of advertising credits (second round) dated March 8, 2020, very early in the pandemic (page 36):

 

According to Judicial Watch, there is another email from mid-2020 showing additional funding from Facebook to the CDC for another $1 million worth of advertising.

 

Here is another email from the CDC to Facebook wondering if Facebook needed any assistance in providing credible content for coronavirus searches on Facebook dated January 31, 2020: (page 39)

 

Here is an email from Facebook and Instagram to the CDC regarding a product solution to support the CDC's efforts to get targeted information to specific populations (page 40):

 

Here is an email exchange between WhatsApp and the CDC offering support for the CDC's narrative on the COVID-19 issue (page 172 - 173):

 

I believe that is enough for this posting.  As you can see, right from the very beginning of the pandemic (and even before it was officially proclaimed by the WHO), the world's most influential social media companies picked their narrative which was in sharp contrast to the narrative of the Trump Administration and worked hand-in-hand with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that the CDC's narrative on COVID-19 remained dominant in their online ecosystem.  This goes a long way to explaining why there has been so little long-lasting coverage of dissenting views (i.e. the heavy-handed use of censorship) on the science of the pandemic from the other side of the narrative and why all of the social media outlets seem to be using the same playbook.

 

RT-PCR Diagnostic Testing - Differentiating Between Seasonal Influenza and COVID-19

A recent announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warrants a closer look since it may explain some of the issues that appeared during the 2021 influenza season.

 

Here is a Lab Alert from the CDC dated July 21, 2021:

 

 

The CDC is pre-warning clinic laboratories and testing sites that, effective January 1, 2022, the CDC is withdrawing its request to the Food and Drug Administration for the Emergency Use Authorization of its CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel which was originally approved for use on February 4, 2020.  Test sites are advised to use one of the other 250 RT-PCR COVID-19 authorized molecular diagnostic tools as shown on this screen capture (which shows only a few of the approved tests) with the soon-to-be withdrawn CDC product highlighted:

 

Here is the key phrase of the CDC's Lab Alert:

 

"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season."

 

It would appear that the CDC's own RT-PCR diagnostic equipment is not capable of differentiating  between influenza and COVID-19 and, as such, is being withdrawn from service before the 2022 influenza season begins.

This issue with the RT-PCR testing equipment may go a long way to explaining why there were very few positive tests for influenza over the 2021 season as shown here:

...when compared to the 2019 and 2020 influenza seasons as shown here (note the dramatic change in the y-axis scale):

 

This begs two questions since the entire narrative of the COVID-19 pandemic was built on the foundation of the RT-PCR tests: 

 

1.) How many of the tests that were positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus were actually detecting the virus that causes seasonal influenza during the 2021 flu season?

  

2.) How many of the other 250 RT-PCR COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tools that have been in use throughout the pandemic have the same issue of differentiating between the two viruses?

 

I'm guessing that we'll never know.

Addendum July 29, 2021

The Food and Drug Administration recently released information regarding RT-PCR tests that should no longer be used and/or distributed for COVID-19.  Here are the most recent tests that have been withdrawn from use:

In addition to these 22 tests which were removed from service on the July 6 and July 15, 2021 updates, the FDA announced the removal of an additional 267 tests on the July 2, 2021 update.

Here's what the FDA had to say about the removal of RT-PCR tests:

"The FDA had previously included them on the website notification list of commercial manufacturers distributing serology test kits under that policy, but they have now been removed from that notification list and placed on the list below. As noted in the guidance, if an EUA request is not submitted by a commercial manufacturer of a serology test within a reasonable period of time, or if significant problems are identified with such a test that cannot be or have not been addressed in a timely manner, the FDA intends to remove the manufacturer and test from the notification list."

Tests may also be removed voluntarily by the manufacturer.

Drug Overdose Deaths in America - Another Unintended Consequence of Government's Response to the Pandemic

In its most recent data release, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outlines one of the most serious health issues facing the United States, an issue which has worsened significantly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic one year ago.  While I have posted on this subject in the past few months, it is important for us to understand how government's response to the pandemic continues to have a negative and far-reaching impact on certain subgroups of Americans.

  

Here is a graph showing the 12 month-ending provisional number of drug over deaths for the entire United States with the circles showing the predicted number of drug overdose deaths and the solid line showing the actual number of overdose deaths:

 

In the 12 month period ending in September 2020, the last month for which data is available, there were 87,203 drug overdose deaths, up from 68,757 in the year prior to September 2019 (i.e September 2018 to September 2020), an increase of 26.8 percent.

  

Here is a graphic showing the 12-month-ending provisional number of drug overdose deaths by drug type or drug class:

 

By drug type or drug class, the month-ending provisional number of drug overdose deaths were as follows 

 

1.) Opioids - 64,472

 

2.) Synthetic Opioids excluding methadone - 53,877

 

3.) Psychostimulants with abuse potential - 21,961

 

4.) Cocaine - 19,239

 

5.) Heroin - 13,780

 

6.) Natural and semi-synthetic opioids - 13,122

 

7.) Methadone - 3,361

  

In comparison, in September 2019, the 12-month-ending provisional number of drug overdoses from opioids was 48,140 and from synthetic opioids was 34,057. 

 

Here is a graphic showing the predicted percent change in drug overdose deaths between September 2019 and September 2020:

 

Here is a table showing the 9 states with the most drug overdose deaths:

 

Here is a table showing the 10 states with the least drug overdose deaths:

 

Here is a table showing the 10 states with the greatest percentage increase in drug overdose deaths:

 

Here is a table showing the 10 states with the lowest percentage increase in drug overdose deaths:

 

 

It is quite clear that the pandemic has had a significant and ongoing impact on the number of drug overdose deaths in the United States, thanks in large part to the government-ordered closures of treatment programs, drop-in centers that provide safe injection sites and naloxone.  For example, a 2020 study by Sara Glick et al found that 43 percent of Syringe Services Programs (SSP) reported a decrease in the availability of services due to COVID-19 including 25 percent that reported that one or more of their sites had closed due to the pandemic.  

  

Let's close this posting with the conclusion from Glick's analysis which clearly outlines the issue:

  

"While SSPs are to be admired for their resiliency and ingenuity in the present COVID-19 pandemic situation, the problems presently facing SSPs must not be underestimated. Clients are likely to have great difficulty social distancing and “staying at home;” most will need to obtain drugs to avoid withdrawal and many remain homeless. Many SSPs have closed and those that remain open have greatly reduced their services, are struggling to procure sufficient PPE for staff, and have been forced to reduce testing for blood borne pathogens, a change that could lead to increasing rates of HIV and HCV among an already vulnerable population."

  

The rising number of drug overdose deaths in the United States over the past year is yet another  in a long line of unintended consequence of the governments' response to the COVID-19 pandemic.