Thread by @RepThomasMassie

THREAD

What do “road kill” and a CDC sponsored COVID paper have in common? By the third day, they’re so picked apart they’re unrecognizable.

This @CDCDirector is shameless for fabricating junk science with findings that stand in stark contrast to every credible academic study.

CDC uses this paper to make the absurd, never before claimed, and already unproven assertion, that the vaccine is 5x more effective than natural immunity at preventing people from testing positive for COVID.

Testing! Not symptoms, death, or hospitalization… testing!

Let’s start with one obvious flaw which the authors recognize but gloss over.

Most of the few cases they characterize as “re-infections” are probably LONG-COVID.

They made no effort to verify recovery or that the infections were genetically unique. They just waited 90 days!

The irony of this study is when they went looking for people hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms they found over 6,000 who were vaccinated and only 1,000 who were unvaccinated and had a prior COVID infection.

I thought they told us 99% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated?

This 6 page paper has over 50 authors. That’s an average of 9 authors per page. Half a dozen of them disclose conflicts of interest with Pharma. But is working for CDC categorized as a conflict of interest? @CDCgov was given $1 billion from Congress to promote the vaccines.

In their data, why does the number-of-vaccinated-people-hospitalized correlate negatively with time-since-vaccine?

Could initial hospitalizations be due to vaccine adverse effects or due to a temporarily weakened immune system from the vaccine? (Or possibly just selection bias)

.@RWalensky’s mischaracterization of the paper conceals what CDC’s original tortured summary exposes:

The study is junk because it only considers those with prior infection who ended up in the hospital, not the ones who didn’t.

Natural immunity helps prevent hospitalization!