Transparency And Constitutional Order

I'm not aware that the word transparency appears anywhere in the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure that most people would agree--in principle--that there is firm understanding that the government of our republic is supposed to deal with the people on the up and up. That understanding may be tacit, but my impression is that it's pretty firm. We all know that it's often honored in the breach, but it's the point behind the regular exposures of "hypocrisy" on the part of politicians and other public officials. If transparency in matters that affect the general public were not accepted as a fundamental principle nobody would be outraged by the lack thereof.

That understanding is also behind what's going on with the audits--or, attempted audits--of the 2020 election. The attitude is: If they don't have something to hide, then why are they jiggering with the process?

Then there's the Covid casedemic.

Just the other day I wrote a post about the VAERS reporting on vax deaths and injuries. It's well known that the VAERS data--being voluntary and not widely advertised among non-medical persons--is not terribly reliable, erring very much on the low side. Today, Off-Guardian has an interesting article that expose what can only be described as deliberate deception in constructing and applying statistics to measure what's going on with the Covid regime:

How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”

New policies will artificially deflate “breakthrough infections” in the vaccinated, while the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.

Many testing experts--including the now deceased inventor of the PCR test--have repeatedly pointed out the fact that the PCR test is being misapplied to identify Covid cases, both in principle and in the actual application. None other than Tony Fauci has openly admitted this. In fact, the author argues, the Covid pandemic is essentially a casedemic--a figment of bureaucratic statistical ingenuity:

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.

But now, with the supplementation of the Covid regime with a vax regime, a new problem has arisen: "Breakthrough cases." It seems that people who have been fulled vaxxed continue to become infected by Covid--which should come as no surprise, since these gene therapy treatments aren't intended to prevent infection per se but rather to attenuate the infection. Of course, most of the public doesn't get that, and so "breakthrough" cases are an embarrassment to the Covid regime. The new method of dealing with "breakthrough" cases--very much to be distinguished from cases involved the non-vaxxed public--is revealing. Here's how it works. First, the term "CT value" refers to the threshhold settings for the PCR test. That threshhold setting is being lowered--but only for those who are vaxxed. The obvious result is that "breakthrough" cases will become much less frequent for statistical purposes, while the same inflated standards are being applied to the non-vaxxed:

Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected “breakthrough infections”.

...

Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

...

Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no longer count as a “Covid case” but only if you’ve been vaccinated.

The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.

...

The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.

If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the only possible result can be that the official records show “Covid” is much more prevalent among the latter than the former.

This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other.

What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?

Yes, this raises many questions. So many questions. But the first and most obvious is: What do they have to hide?

None of this is rocket science. Anyone who's moderately well informed--including politicians and other public officials--should be able to understand that the fundamental principle of transparency has been totally violated. So a second question, which isn't really so different from the matter of our elections, is: What does this say about our constitutional order?