this is the response to a FOIA request to the CDC asking for the randomized, controlled trials supporting mask use to stop covid.
“the CDC is not aware of any”
but here’s some experimental stuff we ginned up to try and make masks look like they block particles…
but these have severe problems are are easily debunked. these studies are like taking a convertible through a carwash with the top down and saying “yup, the windshield stopped the water!” (more HERE)
this was never plausible. masks leak like crazy, the virus is aerosol, the the virions are so small that using a mask to stop them is like using a chin link fence to keep out mosquitos.
it’s 100% junk science. and they just admitted that it’s all they have. yet they want you to mask up even if vaccinated?
based on what? there is not a shred of real clinical outcomes data with valid control groups to support this and reams to refute it including DANMASK and all the pre-2020 standing pandemic guidelines.
this is shameful. the CDC is committing fraud at this point, and they have to know it.
the studies they have foregrounded have been utter junk from day one. the first big one they trotted out was the mass general hospital study. this is a variety of study i came to call a sun dance back when gatos were still free to roam the broad savannahs of twitter.
you do a dance at 5 am then point to the ball of fire in the sky at noon and say you made it happen. this is why studies need control groups. the mass general study had none.
you do a dance at 5 am then point to the ball of fire in the sky at noon and say you made it happen.
this is why studies need control groups. the mass general study had none.
the blue lines are from the “study.” the red bands and green demarcation were added by me. which do you think better capture the trend in the data? they are trying to use outliers to anchor a series, those outliers were WAY too fast to be efficacious in a disease with 5-7 day incubation, and the lines are arbitrary and drawn to deceive.
worse, the study is a sun dance. it had no control group, therefore it cannot tell efficacy from lucky (or cherrypicked) timing. when compared to the general population of massachusetts, who were not at the time, masked, it looked indistinguishable. cases and hospitalization peaked and dropped sharply right where the green line is on the graphic above. pushing this study this was medical malpractice.
chastened from getting caught sundancing, the CDC sought to move to a “controlled” study. they then published the now infamous “kansas counties” study comparing masked counties to unmasked. this one was an outright lie.
they cherry picked their timeframe to get the results they wanted. they began on a spike for masks and then ended on august 23, before covid even really hit kansas. this truncated series showed masks “dropping the rate of infection” but the full data series tells a very different tale. i inserted red lines to show where they ended the study. at the time it was published, ALL this data was available.
it stretches credulity to imagine that the authors were unaware of the later data (that was widely available). this was a willful misrepresentation and if it was not, it was stunning negligence. which one makes you want to trust them?
and why, if this data is so clear and the science so settled despite diverging from every claim made pre march 2020, i have long asked “why does the CDC keep publishing false studies?” boy, that FOIA response sure sheds come light on that.
they did this because it suited the narrative of the politicians who are their paymasters and the ecosystem of doctors and researchers who absolutely knew better all switched jerseys and pretended to have been playing for the other team all along.
he who pays the piper calls the tune and these agencies and researchers were depending, lock, stock, and microscope upon federal and health agency grants or were beholden to universities and medical boards that were.
inevitably, someone claims, “well, the science changed so we changed our minds!” but, as we saw above, this is clearly false. the CDC has told us it hasn’t. they have no solid research on this.
the science did not change, it was distorted like a funhouse mirror and made to serve the ends of propaganda. it was tailored to suit pre-existing needs and claims. fake science was ginned up not to convince anyone who knew better, but to justify adopting positions that contradicted the data.
why would the CDC lie and use adulterated data and bad methodology to “prove” efficacy if it has real data?
why would they trot out studies so clearly baseless and dishonest that any first year data analyst would instantly see them for fraud?
because they were not aimed an analysts and scientists, they were aimed that the general public who would accept their provenance and authority and NOT look at the data.
they were to provide a pretext for the public health pipers to all change their tune at the rattle of a purse.
and it worked. the appeals to authority and endless repetition ingrained these false beliefs into society and have made it seem like we always knew this. history is being re-written right before your eyes with a rigor that would make orwell blanch.
but the facts are the facts, and i’ve tried to lay some out here as best i am able. the CDC has flat out told you that they do not have any. give the data a fair hearing and make up your own mind.
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to log in.