Totally agree with VP’s comments here. Unfortunately, doing abysmal science is not new for the CDC.
I worked for the US Dept of Health and Human Services for years - in a different agency, not the CDC, but working closely with them. I was shocked at the complete lack of scientific rigor I saw.
To give one example: They had kicked off a study that they were touting as a “definitive study” on a particular topic. I emailed a fairly high level CDC rep involved with the study to request their data collection plan. She replied, “What do you mean by data collection plan?” I swear, this is verbatim.
After I explained to this senior CDC scientist what a data collection plan was, I learned that - they didn’t have one. They had enrolled numerous clinical sites into the study, and were going to take “whatever data the clinics gave them.” No attention to the fact that the data from different clinics might not be combinable because the data elements were defined differently, and no attention to the many other considerations a careful scientist would attend to in developing a rigorous data plan.
But, my impression was that they already knew what outcome they wanted from the study, and knew that they were going to massage the data so as to produce that outcome. So why be rigorous about collecting it, as it wasn’t a real study anyway?
Everything the CDC has put out for years has been political claptrap to support some agenda. DeSantis said it best when they recently formed a legitimate science panel to review the CDC's generally wrong pronouncements: "The CDC is not serving a useful function; it's really serving to advance narratives rather than do evidence-based medicine."
Vinay is correct -- almost nothing the CDC does would get through a sixth grade science fair (I have judged several). Nor should it get through any kind of peer review except that CDC NEVER peer reviews their stuff (wonder why?) and that ridiculous article about traffic deaths from failing to take a spikeshot did get through peer review. So maybe Vinay is right...perhaps there is no hope.
Or, as Vinay and I and others do, repeatedly pointing out at every possible time that almost everything people are being instructed to do (masking, antisocial distancing, quarantining, spikeshotting) is virtually useless will eventually make a dent. I have to hope so...I have wasted an awful lot of words on it all.
Interesting that my university is hosting a webinar on long covid as a global feminisms initiative. Seems kind of specialized as meanwhile nada re: school closings--also a global feminist issue. As a parent, hard not to feel more alienated than sympathetic.
I'm speechless. Words cannot begin to define my difficulty in suffering stupid. I hope things can only get better for science and specifically medicine.
This kind of study exemplifies the new kind of science that Richard Horton and Marcia Angell have written about, when they refer to the kind of science that bears the mark and imprimatur of the pharmaceutical industry. It is 1/10 science (and bad science at that) and 9/10 advertising. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a charlatan, nonsense and a disgrace to the scientific tradition. The people who create this kind of science are worse than humbuggers, they are miscreants to the human race, sociopaths who care little about the harm they create with their false narratives, They apparently feel no shame at enriching themselves at the expense of others.
The CDC does not investigate the cases it studies, they do not review patient charts, contact treating physicians or patients. They are consistent across every study they do including vaccine adverse event reporting. They did not review all the post vaccine myocarditis cases, Peter Marks admitted this during a recorded meeting. Studies coming out of the CDC are low hanging fruit observational studies. Really disappointing as I had hoped Dr Walensky would change the lack luster approach toward data analysis.
It seems that a major problem that impacts the CDC’s credibility is their lack of real world experience. These so called scientists are not necessarily physicians, so all they need to do is play around with imperfect data and come up with imperfect semi-conclusions. Because it’s the CDC, they also function as their own peer review, yikes!
So many people (like my family members) who read these things believe them, and are still seriously shielding. And all for what, clicks for the NYT? Dark days.
Agree with all in your post today. There is a outbreak of pseudoscience at CDC Headquarters and the "variant" involved seems pretty hard to eradicate. It's actually shameful.
Good work, Vinay. This study is a total embarrassment for the CDC. It should be taught in medical schools about the sloppiness of composition. All experienced clinicians know how sloppily and poorly reviewed death certificates truly are and always have been. A recent study in Lancet looked at a large number of post-COVID compared to a large control group who had other viral respiratory infections. The data showed ZERO excess morbidity or mortality when the groups were compared. As expected, residual symptoms dropped over time. The whole Long COVID phenomenon appears to be exaggerated. On the other hand, there are some good investigations into the nature of uncommon persistent symptoms of COVID like anosmia and possible CNS effects. We await further elucidation of the science.
This must have been what some docs came up with awhile ago. I have heard the "covid does damage to lungs" (not the vax) from a doc, who is very respected and sought after for tx. It is the reason given for just about any damage/AE, but without any supporting evidence.
Totally agree with VP’s comments here. Unfortunately, doing abysmal science is not new for the CDC.
I worked for the US Dept of Health and Human Services for years - in a different agency, not the CDC, but working closely with them. I was shocked at the complete lack of scientific rigor I saw.
To give one example: They had kicked off a study that they were touting as a “definitive study” on a particular topic. I emailed a fairly high level CDC rep involved with the study to request their data collection plan. She replied, “What do you mean by data collection plan?” I swear, this is verbatim.
After I explained to this senior CDC scientist what a data collection plan was, I learned that - they didn’t have one. They had enrolled numerous clinical sites into the study, and were going to take “whatever data the clinics gave them.” No attention to the fact that the data from different clinics might not be combinable because the data elements were defined differently, and no attention to the many other considerations a careful scientist would attend to in developing a rigorous data plan.
But, my impression was that they already knew what outcome they wanted from the study, and knew that they were going to massage the data so as to produce that outcome. So why be rigorous about collecting it, as it wasn’t a real study anyway?
Everything the CDC has put out for years has been political claptrap to support some agenda. DeSantis said it best when they recently formed a legitimate science panel to review the CDC's generally wrong pronouncements: "The CDC is not serving a useful function; it's really serving to advance narratives rather than do evidence-based medicine."
(If you want to see more CDC corruption, this one about defensive gun use, then try this report well backed with receipts: https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/12/15/damning-report-by-stephen-gutowski-reveals-how-cdc-ditched-vital-data-and-bent-over-for-gun-grabbers/)
Vinay is correct -- almost nothing the CDC does would get through a sixth grade science fair (I have judged several). Nor should it get through any kind of peer review except that CDC NEVER peer reviews their stuff (wonder why?) and that ridiculous article about traffic deaths from failing to take a spikeshot did get through peer review. So maybe Vinay is right...perhaps there is no hope.
Or, as Vinay and I and others do, repeatedly pointing out at every possible time that almost everything people are being instructed to do (masking, antisocial distancing, quarantining, spikeshotting) is virtually useless will eventually make a dent. I have to hope so...I have wasted an awful lot of words on it all.
Interesting that my university is hosting a webinar on long covid as a global feminisms initiative. Seems kind of specialized as meanwhile nada re: school closings--also a global feminist issue. As a parent, hard not to feel more alienated than sympathetic.
I'm speechless. Words cannot begin to define my difficulty in suffering stupid. I hope things can only get better for science and specifically medicine.
This kind of study exemplifies the new kind of science that Richard Horton and Marcia Angell have written about, when they refer to the kind of science that bears the mark and imprimatur of the pharmaceutical industry. It is 1/10 science (and bad science at that) and 9/10 advertising. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a charlatan, nonsense and a disgrace to the scientific tradition. The people who create this kind of science are worse than humbuggers, they are miscreants to the human race, sociopaths who care little about the harm they create with their false narratives, They apparently feel no shame at enriching themselves at the expense of others.
The CDC does not investigate the cases it studies, they do not review patient charts, contact treating physicians or patients. They are consistent across every study they do including vaccine adverse event reporting. They did not review all the post vaccine myocarditis cases, Peter Marks admitted this during a recorded meeting. Studies coming out of the CDC are low hanging fruit observational studies. Really disappointing as I had hoped Dr Walensky would change the lack luster approach toward data analysis.
It seems that a major problem that impacts the CDC’s credibility is their lack of real world experience. These so called scientists are not necessarily physicians, so all they need to do is play around with imperfect data and come up with imperfect semi-conclusions. Because it’s the CDC, they also function as their own peer review, yikes!
See Google Trends on Long Covid: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fg%2F11qm6vy88k for some more "Ctrl+F" "science" ;-) - maybe this is where the CDC gets their ideas?
I'm just loving the comment about not using blinkers 😂
So many people (like my family members) who read these things believe them, and are still seriously shielding. And all for what, clicks for the NYT? Dark days.
Agree with all in your post today. There is a outbreak of pseudoscience at CDC Headquarters and the "variant" involved seems pretty hard to eradicate. It's actually shameful.
Good work, Vinay. This study is a total embarrassment for the CDC. It should be taught in medical schools about the sloppiness of composition. All experienced clinicians know how sloppily and poorly reviewed death certificates truly are and always have been. A recent study in Lancet looked at a large number of post-COVID compared to a large control group who had other viral respiratory infections. The data showed ZERO excess morbidity or mortality when the groups were compared. As expected, residual symptoms dropped over time. The whole Long COVID phenomenon appears to be exaggerated. On the other hand, there are some good investigations into the nature of uncommon persistent symptoms of COVID like anosmia and possible CNS effects. We await further elucidation of the science.
This must have been what some docs came up with awhile ago. I have heard the "covid does damage to lungs" (not the vax) from a doc, who is very respected and sought after for tx. It is the reason given for just about any damage/AE, but without any supporting evidence.
💯