If you can't trust biden*fail, at least you can trust the CDC, eh? Uh...wait...

What do you know about "breakthrough cases"?

If you're like most Americans you've heard the term, but you don't find it alarming because...well, a "breakthrough" has always been considered a good thing, right?

But in this case it refers to people who have gotten the Chinese virus after having been fully vaccinated.

Wait...did you believe biden*fail when he said "If you get the vaccine you can't get the virus!"?  Ah, there ya go then.  I'll bet you also believed him when he said "If you get the vaccine you don't have to wear a mask," eh?

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Well...consider the graph below.  It's got the CDC logo, so perhaps some hard-nosed "reporter" could ask Rochelle Walensky (head of CDC) "Do the percentages in this graph accurately portray CDC data as of May 1st?"  Then if the answer is yes, ask the followup: "Did the CDC create this graph?"  

Next, note the red "CONFIDENTIAL" notice at the bottom.  Nothing conveys openness, transparency  and honesty like a government agency slapping "Confidential" on data for deaths and hospitalization, eh?

Next, consider the slope of the blue line between April and May.  Rising fast, eh?  What do you think the percentage of deaths for fully-vaxxed people would be, say, two months later?  High.

Finally, consider the concerns and "directives" on the following slide:

Notice the CDC's concern:  cases among those fully vaxxed "may reduce public confidence in vaccines."  Gee, ya think?  So what's their solution?  As you see, it is NOT being open and honest, but rather "Important" to describe breakthrough cases as "rare" or as a "small percentage" of cases.

Nothing screams honesty like telling government agencies and news organizations how to report the news, eh?