data suppression and adulteration or just simple incompetence?
a data series of unfortunate events
a couple weeks ago, i wrote about data adulteration becoming a mainstream process in order to rein in and manipulate both public perception and our ability to have any valid basis whatsoever from which to validate or refute public narrative.
there has been such an intense recent run of this that i wanted to highlight some specific examples because either data is being suppressed and altered to lie to us, or we’re facing an unprecedented epidemic of fundamental incompetence in government agencies. neither instills much confidence.
the EIA has been having “server problems” for weeks. the hilarity of this in the age of cloud computing speaks to either archaic architecture or outright absurdity on the order of “the dog ate my homework.”
this, of course, comes at a time of both great strain, dislocation, and political relevance to oil and energy data.
(and of silly attempts at price suppression by tapping reserves while suppressing supply)
and apparently this disease is going around.
the CDC has been out of whack for 3 weeks.
i wonder what THEY might be trying to hide or change?
to be clear, i have no proof that this is malfeasance and manipulation and not just incompetence but given the number of times the CDC has been caught lying to us and making up and slanting data over the last two years, call me mr cynical paws but it feels like the high probability bet.
how do you trust the people who did THIS:
and then literally ran the same trick again.
“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the authors state.
so there is really no basis for trust here.
and the FDA may be even worse.
look what they are doing for variant based boosters, an idea already known not to work:
they are going to approve them (and move to a system of approving all such products in the future) based on a biomarker, not clinical efficacy. it’s just antibody count. but pfizer has flat out told them “there is no established correlate of protection.”
that means they have no idea if it has any clinical effect.
they did not even check to see if it actually works. (this is probably because they know it doesn’t. see study linked above)
reaching the “we know the data will be bad so let’s not collect it” stage of pharma regulation is not a good thing.
they did the same for remdesivir, which failed its clinical trial. they changed the endpoint post-results to p hack it.
and they have done the same thing for paxlovid which probably never worked at all and was run through rigged trials that did not include vaccinated people.
gatopal™ igor has been on top of this for ages and has a great compilation of data here:
this is worth reading in detail, especially this piece by brian mowrey who nailed the MOA on the fail 10 weeks ago.
paxlovid does not seem to clear covid. it’s just a “pause” button and it’s not a pause the refreshes, it’s the pause that sets you up for a nasty rebound that was worse than your initial infection.
certain snarky cats were heard to crack wise about this. (but just because they are “malo” does not mean they are wrong)
the UK killed the data series that showed expanding risk ratios in the vaxxed and boosted vs the unvaxxed.
when the data goes against the narrative, the data goes away.
either this is widespread and willful, or there sure are a lot of coincidences around here…