Pages

Saturday, May 22, 2021

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?


12 comments:

  1. @Mark
    "So many questions."

    Hah!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lack of transparency isn't exactly a new thing for America, but in the past things seemed to be more or less working for most people. Now that so many things seem either broken or no longer functioning well the lack of transparency--which extends ever more broadly in our society--becomes a more pressing concern. Questions and lots of 'em, but answers?

      Delete
  2. Just a point of reference. 2**40 cycles yields about 1.09 Trillion vs. 2**28 is about 268 million. A 4096 times difference. Quite significant one at that.

    An update to my post of the forced vaxing in FL private universites: I mentioned my son was stressing out on the recently announced school policy to chose to either to take the vaccine or wear a mask known as the "All Clear" policy. I had told him to not worry about it thinking it should go away by the start of the Fall semester. Well, it's only been a couple of days and I was pleasantly surprised that they quickly changed their tune. I'm guessing that the law passed and signed by Governor DeSantis taking effect 7/1 banning Vax passports may have something to do with it. Whatever it was, I'm just glad everyone is moving on and thankful that despite their best efforts, those that have perpetuated this narrative are being rendered irrelevant. Finally

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It still amazes me how such a simple thing, in historically small amounts, is such a joyous occasion.

      Delete
    2. A rare, but still valued commodity these days.

      0311

      Delete
  3. "Anyone who's moderately well informed..."

    And therein lies the problem with virtually every policy problem we face in this country. How about reinstituting poll tests of random sets of questions from the US Citizenship test in order get a ballot and vote. Obviously, all voting would have to take place in person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PD -

      + they don’t teach civics anymore so there’s a couple generations growing up who have no frickin’ idea how the Founders set up the govt & intended it to function. They don’t know the Constitution from the Bill of Rights to the Articles of Confederation. Pretty much everything has been bastardized @ this point. Last night Tucker Carlson finally said it “They’re trying to destroy the country.”

      Yes and they’re doing it @ warp speed.

      Boarwild

      Delete
  4. We need to ban the word transparency. What we're talking about is truth. Somewhere along the way, truth became transparency, which is just another example of dumbing down the English language.

    You can replace a brick wall with a big glass window, but just because you can see what's happening on the other side of window doesn't mean that you're seeing the truth. The problem with government is that it doesn't tell the truth, not that it's hiding information, even though it does that too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Full disclosure: I'm a transparency freak since way, way back, so my opinions and pronouncements below are biased in every way. I get that.)


      I'm going to try and take a different stance on the value of the word "transparency."

      I totally agree that use of the word must be tightly tethered to its end goal of getting truth from government (and all the bounty such a thing would deliver), but is there really a practical way to squeeze truth out of politicians and bureaucrats without first enforcing upon them transparency? (Or as Andrew Breitbart might have asked, isn't government truth-telling downstream of government transparency?) And how the heck do we achieve transparency while eschewing use of the term?

      Looking at it from the other side, if secrecy isn't the number one most vital tangible ingredient in any recipe that allows political players to get away with lying and every other form of deception and dirty political play, then what is? (Intangibles like "moral character" or "the culture" are a whole other ball of wax.)

      Once again, how to fight secrecy without embracing the word "transparency"?

      Just imagine where we'd be now as a country and a people if everything that had no business being kept secret over just the last five (or twenty-five!) years had instead been publicly and punctually revealed. What prevented this wasn't too much emphasis on transparency (the idea AND the word) but too little. If We The People had been armed with all that information, we could have forced reams of extremely useful truth out of those who instead were able to lie or keep quiet every step of the way.

      Even more important to anyone who wishes to see action that actually succeeds in furthering the indispensable cause of truth is this: transparency vs secrecy, when properly understood, is far less abstract and amorphous, far more cut and dried, than truth vs untruth. It's therefore far more amenable to being measured and publicly demonstrated empirically, so directly enforcing transparency on government (which indirectly forces, at a minimum, less untruth) is far more readily achievable than directly enforcing truth. (It'd take me a while to back that assertion up with proper argument but suffice to say I can and happily will if asked.)

      All that said, I completely agree that we must never forget that the reason we must have transparency is because we must have truth, and the reason we must have truth is because only truth can show us which paths lead where by lighting up all that's around us (and not just in politics). Truth is light. Deception is darkness. Enough said.

      But neither should we look away from the fact that a government filled with truthful politicians and bureaucrats who are allowed to operate in secret is a real-world impossibility if ever there was one. Minimizing use of the word "transparency" seems, to me at least, to be doing pretty much that, making it very much a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      ( Church is now over. Thanks for attending ;^> )

      Delete
  5. "What does this say about our constitutional order?"

    Constitutional what? Pretty sure we tossed it out the window somewhere after Exit 911.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To me the major question is, Where are the Republicans in Congress? A minority, I know but minority status doesn't require silent acquiescence. If they aren't raising unholy heck over this then I question whether the party is worth saving.

    ReplyDelete