It’s been two years since China first gave the world the gift of COVID-19. We proceeded to shut down our economy, keep kids home from school, and mandate masks, thinking they’d protect us.
Well, according to a new peer-reviewed study published in the prestigious UK-based medical journal The Lancet, the CDC’s study that was used to support mask mandates in school was garbage.
The study replicated the study from the CDC, and even expanded on it to include more school districts over a longer period of time—increasing the dataset by a factor of six.
“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the study finds. “These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”
Important Lancet paper: replicates a CDC study claiming student masking is effective, but the conclusion doesn’t hold if expanded to a larger, more thorough analysis. Consistent trend: the higher quality the study, the more the mask benefit disappears. https://t.co/55G6030RQu
— Scott J Balsitis (@DrScottBalsitis) May 31, 2022
Another peer-reviewed study published earlier this month found that mask and vaccine mandates did not contain the spread of COVID-19 at Cornell University.
“Cornell’s experience shows that traditional public health interventions were not a match for Omicron,” the study explained. “While vaccination protected against severe illness, it was not sufficient to prevent rapid spread, even when combined with other public health measures including widespread surveillance testing.”
And that’s not all. Yet another study found that secondary COVID transmissions were “markedly lower in school compared with household settings, suggesting that household transmission is more important than school transmission in this pandemic.”
So, where’s the mea culpa from schools that had strict masking and vaccine policies? There hasn’t been one. In fact, some schools have reinstated these mandates. It’s as if the facts don’t matter.
The question is, will these studies be censored by big tech? Probably. Earlier this year, a peer-reviewed study from the CDC found significant instances of death and severe side effects from the mRNA vaccines.
According to the study, the “most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration,” but 6.6% of all side effects were categorized as “serious” and resulted in “inpatient hospitalisation, prolongation of hospitalisation, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or birth defect,” while deaths represented a stunning 1.3% of side effects reports.
Normally, when the CDC says something, the media presents it as unquestionable truth. Whether it’s about masking, social distancing, or vaccines, the CDC was infallible and if you dared to question the CDC’s judgment, you were anti-science and probably wanted to kill people. But, despite the fact that the study was from the CDC and peer-reviewed, the data from the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which the study relied on, isn’t considered the most reliable, and anyone who reported on it (including PJ Media) found their reports flagged by big tech fact-checkers who clearly had no interest in there being an open and honest discussion about the COVID vaccines, their efficacy, and their potential side effects.
Why? Because The Narrative™ is and always will be more important than the facts.