The CDC has published a series of studies during the epidemic which were intentionally slanted to convey a specific message, not provide a truthful analysis of the data. One of the worst was a study intended to justify masking children in school. When released, it was well and deservedly ripped to pieces. Now the most devastating critique has been published. (JI Article) The authors point out a primary flaw, which was typical of CDC studies. Pick a selective time frame in which the outcome you want occurs, while ignoring other time periods when the outcome doesn’t occur. In addition, the researchers added more schools, to ensure that CDC wasn’t cherrypicking that variable as well. And presto, the supposed beneficial effect of masks in schools to prevent cases in children disappears. As the authors say, the evidence appears insufficient to justify mask mandates. That is an understatement. I think we have enough damage to a whole generation of children. No more mask mandates or anything else that ruins their ability to attempt to have a normal life.
One of the CDC’s Worst Studies Gets a Published Takedown
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Overcast
PocketCasts
Radio Public
Stitcher
Anchor
RSS - Posts
Another egregiously bad mask study was the Kansas county mask mandate vs county non mask mandate study published in Sept 2020, then subsequently published by the CDC Nov 27, 2020.
In early November 2020, I requested from the authors of the KU (center for policy analysis?) the raw data which they sent to me in an excel spreadsheet. Iwill note that the authors of the study seemed pleased to provide their data – possibly because it would confirm the results that “masking worked to reduce the spread”. The study period covered June 1, 2020 through August 23, 2020. which was a relatively short study period.
Several items jumped out in the raw data
1) Lots of small cluster infections in the non mandated counties – ie several days or even a week with no cases, then 4-5 cases in a single day
2) very low case rates in the non mask mandated counties prior to start of the period, such that very small increases reflected large percentage increases.
3) toward the end of study period, the delta in the case rates was getteing smaller.
I then obtained case rate data for approximately 15 counties for Sept and October 2020 which showed little or no difference in case rates and sometimes showed higher case rates in the mask mandated counties.
I then send two emails back to the authors, noting that the my spot checks of those 15 counties showed slightly higher case rates in the mask mandated counties in the Sept /Oct 2020 time frame. As you might guess, I did not receive a response.
Kevin and/or David noted several months later that a follow up study showed what I expected and which the authors of the study knew and which the CDC knows is that the masks dont work – at least not in the medium or long term and had zero effect on the overall trajectory of the covid pandemic.
A second point on these “pro mitigation ” studies.
The authors of this study and the Kentucky department of health study in reinfection rates vs breakthrough rates were quite pleased to provide the raw data, but once it became apparent that someone spotted an error, there was complete silence.
Thank you Joe, it helps people to understand how bad the pro-masking research was.
Should this be attributed to incompetence or malice? Or grifting for government grants? My statistical skills are not so hot anymore but maybe you or Dave have some ideas about the origin of the flaws in the original study. Maybe we have a candidate for the Lysenko Award.
my initial thought in regard to government is always incompetence, but some of this time period picking is so blatant I think it is intentional