one of the deeply frustrating aspects of covid has been the fact that the data has been so limited.
this is not because much of the data has not existed. it’s simply being cloistered and hidden.
this is not because agencies have been overwhelmed or unable to do so. it has been the systematic suppression and slanting of data in order to support political narratives. and the CDC has been among the very worst.
you can tell that covid is well and truly winding down now that even the new york times is calling them out on it. the busses are getting ready to depart. it’s time to throw some people under them.
it’s pretty clear that wallensky is getting set up as the “fall gal” for this and while she has certainly earned it, the CDC has been dismal from the very beginning. redfield was appalling. they have selected and published what can only be described as pseudoscience: studies that lacked control groups, studies that used truncation to cherry pick total failure into apparent efficacy, and frankly, outright fraud.
that makes claims such as these ring pretty false. (emphasis mine)
Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.
Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”
Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.
there is a name for an alleged science and health body suppressing information because “it might be misinterpreted.”
it is not “open and honest scientific inquiry.”
this is the action of a clerisy or a cabal seeking to suppress analysis.
and after what the CDC has done all year to hide outcomes and push narratives, it’s proof that they have rotted utterly from the head down.
they have been dishonest from the start. they pushed the now infamous “mass general” hospital study to “prove masks work.” it was a hilarity of bad practice and made up conclusions. it lacked any control group whatsoever.
it was not based on regressions or correlations. it was some made up lines drawn on a set of artifact riddled data.
it’s easy to see. the blue lines are theirs. the red lines are mine.
they take the two odd outlier points from march 25-6 and extrapolate an exponential up from them. they chose another arbitrary point to start a downtrend. they ignore the infection period from exposure to detectable disease altogether.
this is the epidemiological equivalent or throwing chicken bones to augur the harvest.
ascribing a p value to it is ridiculous, especially with no control group.
the real trend shift was around april 20th, arguably a day or so prior.
this is the statewide data. it peaked on april 26th for that season in 2020 and, as this is a 7 day avg, we’d expect that peak to lag vs the raw data, likely by 5-7 days. so we’re in extremely tight alignment.
there is no real curve separation here. the mass general study was a rain dance taking credit for what was going to happen anyway.
this is WHY we use control group and why you cannot trust a study that lacks them.
the CDC knows this. they just made a wager that we didn’t.
it blew up in their face.
chastened by this, they next came out with the kansas counties study which purported to have a sound control group. this seemed a good natural experiment as a number of KS counties imposed mask mandates and a number did not. this ought to provide a good comparison.
this is the comparison they chose and used to claim that masks worked.
this study was outright fraud. they cherry picked this period and truncated the data to create an appearance of efficacy. we know this because, at the time that this study was released, the rest of the data below was already available.
the red boxes (added by me) are the period shown in the study.
clearly, covid season came and everyone got the same results.
and this was known when they published the truncated version. a lie of omission is still a lie.
they then pushed the widely derided and debunked “bangladesh study” that i wrote on HERE and HERE.
then, in desperation they cited this study that was literally based on opt in survey data and was so riddled with inclusion and reporting bias as to amount to gibberish.
this is a pattern of either such willful dishonesty or such incapability of assessing studies and data that it renders the notion of the CDC withholding data “to avoid misinterpretation” and to “combat misinformation” impossible to accept.
they are not protecting us, they are protecting their prerogative to control and promulgate the narrative.
this is not a group you can trust to give you the straight picture or to analyze data properly.
they should open their full data to everyone. now.
they should have done this from the start.
there has, since this whole saga began, been a concerted effort by the credentialed classes to smear and exclude all others from analysis. “the experts” did not want to be checked or assessed by “the amateurs.”
many of you may recall the MIT hit piece on “covid 19 skepticism.”
having been called out by name in this missive, certain internet felines took exception and had a bit to say about both science as an ivory tower clerisy
and about the nature of science as a process rather than an institution.
i wrote these quite early in my substackery when the audience was still small. i include them here because i think they hold important ideas and are worth perusing if you missed them.
“most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, not an institution.”“This study forces us to see that coronavirus skeptics champion science as a personal practice that prizes rationality and autonomy; for them, it is not a body of knowledge certified by an institution of experts.”"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph."
“most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, not an institution.”
“This study forces us to see that coronavirus skeptics champion science as a personal practice that prizes rationality and autonomy; for them, it is not a body of knowledge certified by an institution of experts.”
"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph."
it is astounding that such statements could be leveled by by anyone, much less MIT, while thinking them a criticism.
the implicit lack of understanding of science and scientific method reveled thereby is revelatory.
take a look at who they singled out. this will be a list of names familiar to many of you. this is the group that accreted into rational ground and other collaborative efforts and who pursued the data with relentless diligence and clarity. they sought facts, not justification for policy. they sought to engage not to silence those who would debate them for that is and must be the process of science
i am proud to call many of them my friends and to have made such contributions as i was able alongside and in collaboration with them.
and then a funny thing happened: these “amateurs” turned out to be not so amateur after all. sometimes they got it wrong, but mostly and more and more, they got it right.
they trounced the CDC, the FDA, the state agencies.
they made a mockery of these elevated faux experts who became the parroting class for talking points and campaigns of informational suppression, gaslighting, fraud, and self-serving curation.
they had this mostly solved in mid 2020, predicting seasonality, gompertz expression, mask and lockdown failure, vaccine risks and study issues, and all manner of measurement and definition issues from PCR to accounting “covid death” and “covid hospitalization.”
it has taken another 18 months for the “expert narrative” to finally catch up as their narratives became too threadbare to to stop the light any longer.
i would put the track records of that skeptic graph up against pretty much any expert or agency in the world with the possible exception and anders tegnell in sweden who got it right right from the start and frankly, had he been on twitter, he would have been one of us.
imagine what might have been avoided if the CDC has been forthright with the data from the beginning and invited rather than impeded collaboration.
the only people who fear having their work checked and validated are the people who know that their work will not withstand such scrutiny. it is the refuge of the charlatan, not the scientist.
left to its own devices, the credentialed class seeks primarily to protect itself from challenge, to retain tenure and status and we have seen such on vivid display lo these 2 long years.
they could have shared. they did not.
they could have pushed for and enabled research into treatment with existing drugs. instead they suppressed to to push barely tested and badly rushed inoculation modalities.
there is no basis for trust here and it’s time to move beyond this notion of the technocratic tyranny of unaccountable bureaucrats ascribing expert status to their political fiefdoms.
and if you think public health is bad, wait until you meet the “big climate” crowd who have decades of experience in erecting false expertise, adulterating data, and hectoring heretics into silence. they make facui and wallensky look like pikers and they too have big plans for you.
if we take nothing else away from these two years lost to ill conceived covidian policy it ought be this: “the experts™” are not expert. they are merely in positions of power.
this applies in every sphere of policy, not just those elucidated above and so must become the omnipresent lens through which we view these ideas and impositions lest they gather yet more unaccountable power and wreak further mischief upon us.
the road to technocratic serfdom would be better left untraveled.