Corrupted deceptive CDC once again redefines what being 'fully VACCINATED' is to produce flawed MIS-C analysis to show reduced MIS-C risk if children Pfizer VAXXED; CDC outright OMITs eligible kids

I tip my hat to Igor Chudov who did an elegant job exposing the fraud we come to know now as CDC & I focus on 2 aspects to show their ineptness & corruption; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35924406/

Remember, MIS-C is similar in some manner to Kawasaki, rare illness in children unrelated to COVID etc.

CDC’s source by Zambrano et al. (Clinical Infectious Diseases):

BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination Against COVID-19 is Associated with Decreased Likelihood of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in U.S. Children Ages 5-18 Years

CDC concluded:

‘Vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 is associated with reduced likelihood of MIS-C in children ages 5-18 years. Most vaccine eligible hospitalized patients with MIS-C were unvaccinated.’

First, the CDC starts with 1,016 patients and ends up with only 24 MIS-C vaccinated patients. 24.

Yet this was erroneous and fraudulent due to how the CDC excluded MIS-C vaccinated children from analysis. I am not even looking at re-analysis yet that seems to show increased risk of MIS-C with vaccination. Here I am just by examining the methods and exclusions, and you can see that the CDC engaged in scientific malpractice, omitting eligible children so that they can run calculations to make the vaccination appear to confer greater protection against MIS-C. I leave Igor’s numbers to show the malfeasance with the math and I will focus on what jumps out at me which are two issues:

1)If you go to the Supplemental Online Content on page 9, you see:

Supplemental Figure 2. Number of days from the 2nd BNT162b2 vaccine dose to hospitalization for 29 patients considered fully vaccinated, defined as having received their 2nd dose at least 14 days prior to illness. Two vertical lines delineate the 28 day timepoint, which was used as the primary timepoint for this analysis, and the 120 day timepoint, which was used to assess waning immunity.

Yet this graph is non-sensical and Igor is correct in focusing here. It shows not what they want it to show in case you were not looking closely. It actually shows that most of the MIS-C occurs soon after vaccination which is in line with what we see in VAERS where most adverse effects and deaths accumulate post COVID shot (1-10 days or so post shot). You would think over time with declining vaccinal protection (waning immunity) as we know occurs with these mRNA vaccines, that most MIS-C cases would accumulate in the lower right part of the graph (less in the upper left as the vaccine would be assumed to be providing protection there and more in the lower right as immunity wanes).

What the graph is actually showing is that most of the MIS-C happens soon after vaccine and declines with time as the impact of the vaccine wanes. In other words, it is a good thing that the vaccinal immunity (vaccine’s effect) wanes so rapidly with these shots. For if there was not waning immunity, we would see cases many cases across time. No decline. In other words, it is the vaccine itself most likely causing the surge in MIS-C cases in children, soon after administration and with it’s declining effect, the MIS-C cases decline too. IMO.

2)Let us focus on the gross deception by the CDC in counting MIS-C cases and moving to omit them. This my friends is what the CDC has done all along, since the start of COVID, as it functioned to lie and deceive the public. In doing it here, they produced analysis to defraud you to think the Pfizer vaccine confers protection on MIS-C.

Firstly, the CDC is going against it’s own prior deception to create this new MIS-C vaccine protection deception. Remember, the CDC itself said (redefined it as) you needed to be above 14 days post shot, certainly post 2nd shot, to be considered ‘fully vaccinated’. And then they moved to the boosters with the same deception. So the CDC did this redefinition of being ‘vaccinated’ so that they could place the infections, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the ‘unvaccinated’ bucket. So all of those cases and deaths could be counted as ‘unvaccinated’, when we know they were ‘vaccinated’. This allowed them to go to the media and say ‘we have a pandemic of the unvaccinated’. This was a lie. This is how they pulled off the ‘it’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated’ to get you scared to rush off to take the vaccine.

Yet now, to pull off this MIS-C deception, they are saying the 14 days no longer apply and now it is 28 days:

“Participants were classified as unvaccinated if no vaccine was received before the reference date and fully vaccinated if they had received two Pfizer BNT162b2 doses at least 28 days before the reference date…Patients who received their 2nd 1 dose between 14 and 27 days prior to the reference date (date of admission)…were excluded from the primary analysis.”

Furthermore, CDC then went on an OMISSION vendetta, omitting any and every child so that they would end up with only 24:

“Partial vaccination was defined as having received only one vaccine dose before the reference date or receiving a second dose <28 days prior to the reference date. Patients who received their 2nd 1 dose between 14 and 27 days prior to the reference date…were excluded from the primary analysis. Patients were excluded if they received a different type of COVID-19 vaccine, such as AD.26COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) if they received heterologous doses (e.g., BNT162b2 for the first dose and mRNA-1273 for the second), or if they received >2 doses of any vaccine.”

In other words, MIS-C children were excluded, who were cases and who were indeed vaccinated, because they would have destroyed the analysis and the favorable results:

So CDC excluded children who were cases yet got the booster. Can you imagine that? Who got one shot. Can you imagine that? Who got a shot 14-27 days before admission. Where they felt it is not verified yet if vaccinated or the verification not complete. Who got mixed shots. Except for the 53 above, all others appear to be MIS-C cases who were vaccinated and as such, you can now understand why the CDC omitted them.

This is bogus fraudulent analysis. Typical CDC.

I leave the reading of the paper to you to witness the fraud.

I again lay huge praise at the feet of Igor (his stack is below) and tip my hat for fine work. Igor’s re-analysis shows that vaccinated children have a 43% HIGHER risk of MIS-C relative to unvaccinated. I have not run the data but trust him 100% and this is in line with some back of the envelope numbers I wrote down. The CDC omitted these cases to declare that the vaccine reduces risk. I say do not believe what they concluded. None of it! Nothing the CDC has said since the start of this pandemic has ever been true, nothing! It is not changed for this analysis.

CDC's Own Study Reanalyzed: MIS-C is MORE Likely After Vaccination, not Less