Lies, Outrageous Lies, and CDC Weekly Reports?

Can anyone explain this to me?

Joel, Igor, anyone? What is going on in the latest CDC report from Feb. 9, 2023 titled “COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality Among Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Persons Aged ≥12 Years by Receipt of Bivalent Booster Doses and Time Since Vaccination — 24 U.S. Jurisdictions, October 3, 2021–December 24, 2022”?

This is what the CDC claims to be the case with unvaccinated still dying in droves compared to the jabbed, unlike anywhere else in the world:

Whadda?! To this day?!

It’s as if the USA is on another planet, populated by other kind of people. Or else, the CDC has no qualms or scruples rigging the stats. Which one is more likely to be the case?

Here’s what even the official hard evidence from around the world has shown beyond a reasonable doubt - the more jabs, the more Covid cases and deaths you catch:

“Demystifying the Swedish Data...” (Jessica Rose, 2022.05.22):

New South Wales, Australia:

“Denmark Pandemic of the Vaccinated” (Joel Smalley, 2022.05.08):

“All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status - UK Office of National Statistics” (Excess Burden, 2022.04.14):

Deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2022 edition of this dataset (UK ONS):

“Ontario Booster Buster” (2022.04.05):

And even in Cleveland, OH, “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine” (2022.12.19), the higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19:

Nice try, CDC! The reader handyman explains thus the simple mechanics behind the CDC “number”:

Dr. Pierre Kory documented in a substack article in June 2022 that patients are either entered as vaccinated or unknown, rather than vaccinated, unknown, and unvaccinated. For almost everyone in the hospital they are listed as unknown, which the CDC turns into "unvaccinated"

https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/nursing-reports-from-the-front-lines

The reader B Nox adds to this:

The CDC also - as of May 2021, intentionally limited both the testing and reporting for hospitalized patients, if and only if, they had been injected. What they did was limit the PCR test administration to A) only those injected patients presenting with clear respiratory symptoms, and B) every single non-injected patient regardless of why they were at the hospital. Given that even the left-wing propagandists at the Atlantic and the BBC admit that 50+ - 70% of COVID hospitalizations are "secondary" (meaning not showing up due to respiratory distress but for other issues, including acute trauma); intentionally limiting the testing of the injected injects deliberate data bias / error. They further, and with obvious intent to defraud the data, limited the reporting of COVID hospitalizations in the injected+respiratory distress patients to 28 Ct of less. Meaning you could be jabbed, clearly suffering from ILI/CLI, go to the hospital and come up PCR-RT+ at 29 Ct; and not be counted as jabbed+COVID hospitalization. They quite intentionally did not impose this same Ct limit on the reporting of non-jabbed. Meaning, you could break your arm, show up with zero CLI symptoms, get force tested and come up PCR-RT+ at 35-40 Ct; and get counted as unjabbed+COVID hospitalization. Since many places have been attributing death FROM COVID to all deaths fr any cause + a PCR-RT+ within 28-30 days; you can see how easily they have cooked the books. The CDC Kentucky study that they crowed about - showing that IF hospitalization with CLI, you were 5X more likely to be PCR-RT+ demonstrated how this worked; since if you look at the actual full numbers of CLI patient in hospital correlated to the regional jab uptake level at that time, you were about 25% MORE likely to be in the hospital if jabbed…