Here’s how the CDC tried to use bad science to convince people to wear masks during COVID

As we approach June 2026, it becomes disturbingly clear that there are still many religious people on social media and in the real world. wearing a mask in public places. One such post about

Really. As if anyone wearing a mask in half of 2026 has any IQ points left to lose.

But this devotion, which continues to disguise itself in all its forms, is not merely the result of lack of intelligence, misplaced hypochondria, or even allegiance to a particular political party. But of course not all of this hurts…

This is the result of a concerted effort to promote masks, courtesy of the media, politicians, and most importantly, studies conducted or published by the CDC.

RFK JR. HE DEFENDED THE FIRE FRENZY AT CDC, HE DOES NOT EAT ‘NEW BLOOD’ AT THE AGENCY

And we have some data on how to do this harm this application Actually it was.

Three researchers, Vinay Prasad and Tracey Beth Hoeg, two of whom have since gone on to bigger and better successes, detailed how committed the CDC is to promoting masks.

their work The study, titled “Analysis of studies on masks in the Weekly Morbidity and Mortality Report: Characteristics and quality of all studies from 1978 to 2023,” looked at the CDC’s weekly publication over 45 years and how it covered data and evidence on this subject.

In case there was any doubt that masks don’t have even the slightest chance of stopping respiratory viruses, the studies that met the inclusion criteria all came after 2019. None were released before 2019.

“77 studies, all published after 2019, met our inclusion criteria,” they write. “75/77 (97.4%) studies were from the United States only. All geographic regions and age groups were represented.”

Here’s another remarkable fact they discovered. Approximately 30% of studies included in the reference set did not have a comparison group.

BILL MAHER CALLS COVID COMMISSION: ‘THE POWERS’ REFUSE TO ADMIT THEY ‘MISUNDERSTOOD’

“The most common study design was observational study with no comparison group, 22/77 (28.6%),” they explain. We would like to remind you that observational studies are among the least meaningful types of evidence-based research.

However, the fact that a significant number of these observational studies do not even have a comparison group makes the situation even worse. The CDC was publishing studies based on observations with nothing to compare them to. And they use this as proof of their position. Really.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky testifies at a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on January 11, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)

They also found that nearly half of this research was conducted in the community, but literally zero was randomly selected.

“The most common setting was community (35/77;45.5%). 0/77 were randomized trials,” they explained.

So zero randomized studies, and 30% of all the research the CDC published was an observational study with nothing to compare it to. This is the very definition of low quality research. This is where things get good. Only 30% of studies, or 23/77, even attempted to test mask effectiveness. And only 14.3%, or 11/77, contained a “statistically significant result.” However, a very large rate of 75.3% (58/77) stated that “masks are effective”.

The CDC cited low-quality studies that were often observational in nature, with no comparisons and zero randomized trials. But still, 75.3% of these low-quality studies claimed that masks were effective at stopping COVID.

And incredibly, 71% of studies used “causal language” to sell their work; basically states that their research shows that masks cause less spread of Covid-19, although there is no scientific justification for such a statement. This is the formula for how to get to 2026 with people still wearing masks.

But wait. There is more.

There is not a single study that references randomized data. And while only one dummy study correctly discussed the lack of causal relationship, only 1/77 studies “cited conflicting evidence.”

Essentially, MMWR publications cited studies that exaggerated their claims, exaggerated the evidence, and established causal links that did not exist.

If you’re wondering why the scientists involved would do such a thing, it’s probably because they want their work to be published by the CDC. Or it could be that the study was funded by the CDC and the authors potentially knew or assumed the conclusion they were supposed to reach. The CDC said masks work, so they need research to make that claim true.

“MMWR publications on masks found positive results about mask effectiveness in more than 75% of masks, even though only 30% were tested and less than 15% had statistically significant results,” they summarize. “No studies were randomized, but more than half drew causal conclusions. The level of evidence generated was low and conclusions drawn were often not supported by data. Our findings raise concerns about the journal’s credibility in informing health policy.”

It’s easy to forget how crazy the timeline for masking is, so as a refresher, here’s how the CDC is addressing masking recommendations and guidelines. It included a reference to the organization’s infamous “hair salon study,” in which two masked hairstylists breathlessly reported their results as some kind of proof that masks stop COVID.

“In March 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended against wearing masks for generally healthy people, in line with the recommendation of the U.S. Surgeon General,” they write. “For several weeks in March and early April 2020, a coordinated social media campaign began to recommend masks. Then, on April 3, 2020, the CDC recommended that people ages 2 and older wear cloth face masks in public. On July 15, 2020, the CDC Director recommended that all Americans begin wearing masks as a way to ‘contain the epidemic,’ citing a two-person study from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly (MMWR). Hair salons in Missouri recommended universal masking in schools and daycares by the CDC next fall 2020. and widespread instructions have been issued at the state, territory and district level for two-year-olds. Masking on public transportation has been mandated under federal guidance starting January 2021.”

This is how important MMWR is in advancing these specific goals. They cited it to justify widespread mandates and masking of toddlers, and it informed state and local policies affecting millions of people for years. Next, consider how much of the CDC’s published research, the organization’s “voice,” is considered “inappropriate.”

If you’re looking for reasons why trust in “science” has never diminished, this is it. And again, this messaging is literally dangerous.

Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci wears a protective mask during the White House Coronavirus Task Force press conference at the James Brady Press Briefing Room in Washington, DC on November 19, 2020 (Thoss Katopodis/Getty Images)

Parents may be masking their children because the CDC continually publishes shoddy research to support their unfair policy positions. How many adults will live the rest of their lives in fear because the media covers these studies to support their ideology, their political party, their belief in “experts” and Anthony Fauci?

As they wrote in the discussion, “Given that the sum of the randomized evidence on the use of surgical or N95 masks to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses is negative, MMWR studies that consistently draw conclusions about mask effectiveness without supporting evidence are particularly problematic and difficult to justify.”

“The inappropriate use of causal language used in MMWR studies was also directly embraced by the CDC director, citing an observational telephone survey included in the current analysis that told the public, ‘Masks may help reduce your chance of #COVID19 infection by more than 80%.’ That referenced study found an association between participants’ memories of wearing masks and self-reported COVID-19 tests, which was not significant for cloth masks.”

ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. GET THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!

This is how you launder bad information through the media. There was no justification for the claim Rochelle Walensky made about masking. He was aware of this, but he said it anyway. What else can one expect from someone who wears a double mask and defiantly rejects reality and common sense?

High-quality evidence said masks didn’t work; That’s why objective reviews, such as the Cochrane Library, have come to the same conclusion: masks don’t work.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

The CDC’s MMWR used low-quality evidence to effectively mislead people. This is exactly how you lose trust, cause harm, and invite further damage to your reputation.