Epidemiologists Uncover Dozens of Basic Data Errors by the CDC on COVID
The CDC was found to be a hoist with its petard, making 25 fundamental statistical and numerical errors in relation to COVID-19, especially with regard to children. purporting to expose COVID vaccine misinformationAccording to an analysis by University This is California San Francisco epidemiologists.
The preprintThe peer-reviewed article only documented 20 errors. “exaggerated the severity of the COVID-19 situation” Three of them. “simultaneously exaggerated and downplayed” One was severe, and one was either neutral or exaggerated in terms of vaccine risks.
More They found that more than half of the 2022 census was made from 2023, and nearly as many were made within the first two months in 2023 than in all of 2021. Several The errors were due to COVID data tracking by the agency, which was not in line with its. National Center For Health Statistics (NCHS), and at the CDC, the CDC corrected at most part 13 out of 16 errors brought to their attention.
The This paper highlights the extent to which CDC errors can spread despite being corrected with YouTube and other media. Spotify It links to its website for podcasts and videos that discuss COVID.
“The errors are damning,” Coauthor Vinay PrasadA former National Institutes This is Health fellow, said on Twitter. “Basic counts of dead kids, causes of childhood death. Unacceptable incompetence.”
Just OUT @SSRN
By @KelleyKga, AH, @TracyBethHoeg @vkprasadlabAn Analysis of Statistical and Numerical Errors Made by the US @CDCgov
The errors are damning. Basic counts of dead kids, causes of childhood death.
Unacceptable incompetence 👇https://t.co/szmB78lfDC
see 🧵 pic.twitter.com/P9RMA2KywH— Vinay Prasad MD MPH (@VPrasadMDMPH) March 23, 2023
UCSF’s Alyson Haslama former CDC Fellow who now works in Prasad’s lab made the final call regarding CDC errors Prasad, Tracy Beth Hoeg Independent Georgia Analyst COVID Kelley Krohnert Collectively agreed “were indisputable and incorrect, as a matter of fact, and not preference or opinion.”
The trio conducted “real time” Examine news sources Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices (ACIP), meetings and materials, agency Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report The Twitter Accounts of the CDC’s director and reports sent by them to others going back as far as 2021
The Errors were heavily weighted toward exaggerating COVID’s danger to children. Fifteen The 16 data relating to children’s information are “enhanced the perceived risk” CDC data tracker shows that more than half of all errors were related to mortality statistics. “consistently” Children and adolescents are reported to have died at higher rates than NCHS.
Perhaps The most serious error was made by the CDC in promoting a preprint deemed COVID a. “top 5” cause of death in childrenThe agency corrected the error in one location months later.
That Paper compared 26 months worth of COVID deaths to determine where the virus was. “one of several contributing causes to deaths,” To 12 months of death from other causes “identified as the single underlying cause of death … which by design exaggerates” According to the paper, COVID is a risk for kids.
It’s just so striking to see all these errors at once. Reckless incompetence from @CDCgov.
Thank you for your work! 👏 👏 👏 pic.twitter.com/59XjKWOBn7
— Kristen Mag (@kristenmag) March 23, 2023
Not ACIP, FDA did not make the claim. Vaccines Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meetings, but also at a White House Briefing by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky At the next meeting, ACIP’s chair will be taken by him “after the errors were identified.” Only ACIP’s webpage on “vaccination evidence for young children” Includes the correction.
The The authors claim that agency was simply negligent in making other errors. It The COVID definition of pediatric death was 4%. However, it was actually 0.04%. This gave an estimate of a lower rate of pediatric infection than symptomatic illnesses. There were some errors that remained live for seven years.
“These errors have been made repeatedly and were likely to have affected discussion of pandemic policies,” Particularly, the CDC’s guidance calling to “school closures, mask mandates, and strong recommendations for vaccinations and multiple boosters even among children who have recovered from the virus,” The authors conclude.
The The CDC didn’t respond to questions regarding its response to this paper.
The FDA evidence supporting full FDA approval Pfizer’s Antiviral drug COVID PaxlovidThe same was true for the advisory committee on antimicrobial drug drugs.
The Voting for advisers in the middle-March Two-drug treatment for high risk adults was approved by the FDA. However, it was criticized by many patients as potentially dangerous. harmful drug interactions, CNBC reported. The Agency will make the final determination May. (Pfizer Long ago, it was recognized Paxlovid is not useful against household transmission.)
While The FDA’s briefing packet The infrequentity of Paxlovid “rebound” infections — which hit the president, his COVID adviser, first lady and both FDA and CDC commissioners, all up to date on COVID jabs — its cited evidence only applies to a sliver of potential Paxlovid patients.
The Pfizer Studies provided five-day treatment to unvaccinated high risk patients (EPICHR) as well as vaccinated high and low-risk patients. Omicron variant wave (EPIC SR). Only EPIC-HR was found “any meaningful difference” Comparing to a placebo, a 5.6% absolute and an 86% relative decrease.
"Data supports the efficacy of Paxlovid regardless of Covid vaccination status or prior infection."
What?!? Their study concluded the exact opposite. There is ONLY statistical benefit if you are BOTH unvaxxed and high-risk. It's right in their own data!🤬https://t.co/bMfnH4I9eS
— Theo Jordan (@Theo_TJ_Jordan) March 16, 2023
The FDA stressed the importance of “symptom rebound” Rates were comparable between Paxlovid Across both studies, the placebo arms were approximately 10-16% This This is a great example of how to make a. “subset” Regardless of the cause, infections can occur. Paxlovid, “virologic and/or symptomatic rebound may occur as part of the natural progression and resolution of COVID-19 disease.”
A different graph on “viral RNA rebound,” However, rates in the Paxlovid Arm in EPIC – HR and EPIC -SR Omicron period.
In You can find more information at lengthy review of the FDA evidence, University This is Minnesota Infectious disease researcher David Boulware It actually shows Paxlovid It is “likely near zero benefit” A great option for those below 60 years old with a “normal immune system” vaccination- or infection-induced immunity.
#Paxlovid effect on reducing #COVID19 hospitalizations in vaccinated population finally revealed to the public by FDA. #IDTwitter
0.9% (3/317) paxlovid vs. 2.2% (7/314) placebohttps://t.co/fO0hTWq168 pic.twitter.com/78MTXDN9rZ— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) March 16, 2023
Before The Paxlovid vote, National Institutes This is Allergy Infectious Diseases Scientist Margery Smelkinson questioned Its emergency use authorization begins at 12 years old, despite the dramatically different COVID risks by age. She Not noted Pfizer After finding no, EPIC-SR was terminated early “statistically significant evidence of benefit.”
Member of the Norfolk Group Recent publications by scientists, doctors, and policy experts “blueprint” for a potential COVID truth commission, Smelkinson Observed the Paxlovid section of their reportThe lack of data to prove who is actually benefiting from the treatment is highlighted in the following:
Prasad They also questioned the validity of the evidence. PaxlovidIncludes a Lancet Infectious Diseases observational study That is what we found “the curves already split” There is no difference between placebo and treatment groups “Day 0,” He said this to indicate that immortal time bias.
“Non randomized evidence will forever be plagued by differences in people who get pax and those who do not (likely being rich, health literate and well connected gets you more pax!),” he wrote in his newsletter In February.
The FDA refused to comment on criticisms of the evidence it provided. “We can’t comment on pending applications,” Press officer Chanapa Tantibanchachai Send it as an email
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
