Biden Administration Using CDC to spread propaganda and fraud explained succinctly by professor Vinay Prasad with obvious examples.

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,420
14,329
1
Dr. Prasad, an epidemiologist and professor, is extremely concerned with the politicization of science and goes through several examples of how the CDC cherry picked data in small time periods to advance its political agenda. The first example involved a comparison of Kansas counties, some of which had cloth mask mandates and some which didn't. CDC cherry picked short time frame which didn't take into account which counties were on an upswing and which weren't and published a study claiming that cloth mask mandates were effective. Later an MIT graduate data scientist looked at the data over a longer time frame and found that the mask mandates had virtually no effect. See 2:20 of video. Next the CDC tried to spread the idea that Covid caused diabetes in children 5-11 yrs. old. (Even CDC study showed that supposed overall risk was very low) However, CDC study didn't bother to separate out the overweight kids from normal weight kids. See discussion beginning on 5:00. Later study showed that Covid didn't cause diabetes in these kids. Essentially CDC spreading fear porn and disinformation in support of Biden political goals.
Essentially he documents that the CDC has been transformed into an anti-science institution by Biden. Here is his summary from article in tablet magazine: "Throughout this pandemic, the CDC has been a poor steward of that balance, pushing a series of scientific results that are severely deficient. This research is plagued with classic errors and biases, and does not support the press-released conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives; as such, these papers appear more as propaganda than as science. " https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/how-the-cdc-abandoned-science
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
18,617
23,687
1
2020evidence.org
Here's a good take down of the CDC by Dr. Prasad re: some of their recent mask propaganda:

 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
18,973
21,482
1
Dr. Prasad, an epidemiologist and professor, is extremely concerned with the politicization of science and goes through several examples of how the CDC cherry picked data in small time periods to advance its political agenda. The first example involved a comparison of Kansas counties, some of which had cloth mask mandates and some which didn't. CDC cherry picked short time frame which didn't take into account which counties were on an upswing and which weren't and published a study claiming that cloth mask mandates were effective. Later an MIT graduate data scientist looked at the data over a longer time frame and found that the mask mandates had virtually no effect. See 2:20 of video. Next the CDC tried to spread the idea that Covid caused diabetes in children 5-11 yrs. old. (Even CDC study showed that supposed overall risk was very low) However, CDC study didn't bother to separate out the overweight kids from normal weight kids. See discussion beginning on 5:00. Later study showed that Covid didn't cause diabetes in these kids. Essentially CDC spreading fear porn and disinformation in support of Biden political goals.

Essentially he documents that the CDC has been transformed into an anti-science institution by Biden. Here is his summary from article in tablet magazine: "Throughout this pandemic, the CDC has been a poor steward of that balance, pushing a series of scientific results that are severely deficient. This research is plagued with classic errors and biases, and does not support the press-released conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives; as such, these papers appear more as propaganda than as science. " https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/how-the-cdc-abandoned-science
All very true.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
18,973
21,482
1
Dr. Prasad, an epidemiologist and professor, is extremely concerned with the politicization of science and goes through several examples of how the CDC cherry picked data in small time periods to advance its political agenda. The first example involved a comparison of Kansas counties, some of which had cloth mask mandates and some which didn't. CDC cherry picked short time frame which didn't take into account which counties were on an upswing and which weren't and published a study claiming that cloth mask mandates were effective. Later an MIT graduate data scientist looked at the data over a longer time frame and found that the mask mandates had virtually no effect. See 2:20 of video. Next the CDC tried to spread the idea that Covid caused diabetes in children 5-11 yrs. old. (Even CDC study showed that supposed overall risk was very low) However, CDC study didn't bother to separate out the overweight kids from normal weight kids. See discussion beginning on 5:00. Later study showed that Covid didn't cause diabetes in these kids. Essentially CDC spreading fear porn and disinformation in support of Biden political goals.

Essentially he documents that the CDC has been transformed into an anti-science institution by Biden. Here is his summary from article in tablet magazine: "Throughout this pandemic, the CDC has been a poor steward of that balance, pushing a series of scientific results that are severely deficient. This research is plagued with classic errors and biases, and does not support the press-released conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives; as such, these papers appear more as propaganda than as science. " https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/how-the-cdc-abandoned-science
People lack common sense and they either have not done enough "stuff" or they have had a very narrow niche education which means they learned a lot about a little. Again, they didn't do enough "stuff".
Jr. went to school at Lehigh and made some friends from very well off families. One fellow owned a ranch in Texas but his primary business was helicopter and private jet leasing. The family were Texans and would fix fences, shoot deer for supper, run equipment. Let's say they were educated but very well rounded.
Anyone who has done work knows certain masks don't work against particles that are dust size so if you want serious protection you use anything but those cloth or paper masks. Guys from wood shop, auto body shop, or some other trade knew that you need an N95. Ask your friend who does dry wall is those cloth or paper masks will for work for them.
Are they scientists? Nope, but is their science settled? Yep.
Hence the push back by many on masks. We knew they wouldn't work. And didn't need any advice from the CDC.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,420
14,329
1
Senator Johnson is asking for answers considering horrible CDC masking study in Arizona that was used multiple times by Walensky to justify masking 2 yr-olds and older. More pathetic disinformation by the CDC and Biden administration. See https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/0...wed-study-used-to-justify-masking-schoolkids/

All 8 experts who reviewed the "study" for the Atlantic Magazine found the study to be worthless. "the Arizona study at the center of the CDC’s back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading. “You can’t learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study,” Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me. His view echoed the assessment of eight other experts who reviewed the research, and with whom I spoke for this article. " https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/12/mask-guidelines-cdc-walensky/621035/

Maybe Twitter and Facebook could do some good here by banning the CDC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted and WeR0206

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
3,958
6,215
1
I have a serious question. Did you honestly graduate from PSU with a degree in engineering?
No, but my brother, Kane did. He's no Smithton, but he's OK.

I'm not as good as either of them, but close.

The only hard calculation I've done in this entire thread was the conditional probability calculation for herd immunity.

That calculation requires you to really understand statistics. For those who have an interest, I repost it here. Other than this one, I agree, all the remaining math is pretty easy.

Cletus, I went back and reworked it from scratch.

The formula for probability of being immune is as follows: P(natural) + P(sick&recov) + P(vac) - P(nat + sr) - P(nat + vac) - P(sr + vac) + P(nat + sr + vac).

That formula simplifies because NO ONE can have natural immunity AND get sick and recover. Therefore P(nat + sr) = 0, and P(nat + sr + vac) =0.

So, P(immune) = P(natural) + P(sick&recov) + P(vac) - P(nat + vac) - P(sr + vac).

And since the probability of an individual getting vaccinated is not influenced by natural immunity (how would he know?), then P(nat + vac) = P(nat)*P(vac).

However, many people who got sick know they have natural immunity, and so they decline to get the shot, so P(sr + vac) is not equal to P(nat)*P(vac). Let's agree for the sake of argument that this number is 0.75*P(nat)*P(vac), since many people who we will include in the "sick and recover" category won't know they were even sick, thus.....a stronger factor.

So, with that said, and using your figures, I think:

P(natural) = 0.2, P(s&r) = 100m/320m = 0.34, P(vac) = 0.52*.85%effec = .44, we then get:

P(immune) = 0.20 + 0.34 + 0.44 - (0.20*0.44) - (0.75*0.34*0.44) = 0.78.

That's herd immunity, very little question about it. But I must say, I think two numbers are high.

I don't think 20% of the people have natural immunity (even if they have some immunity where the infection isn't so bad for them, they can still spread it, and thus for herd immunity numbers, they shouldn't count). So, maybe 5-10% have natural immunity is a better number.

Then, 52% is too high also, because even though they get no harm from it, kids still count for spreading the virus. So, I think 52% should be 41% or so.....0.85*0.41 give P(vacc) = 0.350.

If I go with those numbers, we have P(immune) = 0.075 + 0.34 + 0.35 -(0.075*0.35) - (0.75*.075*0.35) = 0.72%, which is still very close to herd immunity.
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
30,081
34,618
1
This was always the best, most common-sense analogy about masks:

a74cc8a92f9dfa0586940c5f23ff269b.jpg