incompetence or dishonesty?

answering a long-standing question

from the beginning, the manner in which covid has been counted has been bizarre.

using high Ct PCR tests on the asymptomatic at societal scale and counting any positive as a case, a hospitalization, or a death, even when it was not the actual cause of hospitalization or death or whether symptoms were even manifest never made any sense.

there is a reason we never did this before. even the inventor of PCR (for which he won the nobel prize) warned against this.

there was never sound reason to adopt such practices and strong reason not to as there was no idea how to have any idea what one would be measuring.

the question was never “is this a good idea?”

the question was always “are these people incompetent or just liars?”

we got our first real inkling from the vaccine handling. none of those drug trials used PCR alone as a truth standard for infection. all required symptomatic validation.

so, at least the FDA and the drug companies knew better. but maybe the health agencies were not so informed?

this sheds real doubt on such a claim. walensky knows full well that “death with +PCR test” is not “death from covid” and goes out of her way to draw the distinction for the vaccinated.

Justin Baragona @justinbaragona

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, somewhat confusingly, says they are aware of 223 people who have died with covid after being vaccinated. "Not all of those 223 cases who had covid actually died of covid. They may have had mild disease but died, for example, of a heart attack."

yet, oddly, they are not doing anything like this for the rest of the covid deaths or cases.

in fact, they are doing the opposite and slanting the analysis in favor of vaccination by dropping the cycle threshold for post vax testing to 28 vs 40 for general population. that’s 1/4000th the level of amplification. it would likely render 70-90% of “positives” at 40Ct negatives. (read HERE)

so let’s sum up:

• taken together this is clear proof that they seek to move the goalposts now.

• you would only move goalposts if you knew it was to your advantage

• and you would only move them so selectively if you were seeking to lie

now, i know from this proof of mendacity we cannot fully rule out “incompetence” as well, especially from redfield who was clearly about as sharp as a marble and fauci who has never even tried to put on a convincing show of even barest data literacy, much less epidemiological competence, but for current CDC head walensky, it’s clear she knows EXACTLY what she is doing.

walensky is not incompetent. she seems to understand precisely what the key issues are here. she’s just choosing to manipulate the data, the testing, and to erect multiple standards in order to push the preferred narratives of her political patrons.

the fact that it happens to be better science than before gets rendered irrelevant by its deliberately inconsistent application. she’s seeking to occlude the data, not illuminate it.

fauci never had the science chops to qualify for a 3rd grade science fair with a baking soda volcano, but ms walensky clearly does know better. her manipulation of the data is right on point and skillful. this is a new, higher class of propaganda (and note that it sounds just like what many of us have been saying should have been standard practice all along).

if moving the goalposts was cardiovascular exercise, this would be the fittest group of health officials in human history.

but as doing such things for purely political ends is both antithetical to science and inimical to morality, they are instead rendered the least fit to dictate policy.

i just see no plausible alternative explanation. competent enough to manipulate the stats to lie but not competent enough to know you’re lying seems an unlikely confluence.