The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Director Rochelle Wilensky, September 28, shared the resultsA new study has confirmed the necessity of mask mandates at schools.The Arizona study was completed over the summer and published by the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. This report found that schools located in Arizona counties without mandatory masking had 3.5x more outbreaks than those in areas with mandated masking.

According to the study, this finding is significant enough for people to be concerned. AtlanticDavid Zweig. He wrote that “a number of experts who were interviewed to this article stated the magnitude of the effect should have caused all those involved in publishing and publicizing the paper, to hit the brakes.” A new article explores some of the flaws in the study. Instead, they pressed the accelerator.

He demonstrates convincingly in his article that the findings of the study are not reliable.

The CDC’s Arizona back-to school blitz was based on a flawed study. Jonathan Ketcham from Arizona State University’s public-health economics department told me that there is no way to learn about the impact of school mask requirements. He shared the views of eight experts who reviewed the research and whom I talked to for the article. These experts said that masks could help to prevent COVID spreading, and they may be necessary in certain situations. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate. Both the Arizona researchers and the CDC stand behind their findings. However, the criticisms were blunt in their harsh assessment. Noah Haber, an interdisciplinary scientist and a co-author of a systematic review of COVID-19 mitigation policies, called the research “so unreliable that it probably should not have been entered into the public discourse.”

The study was plagued with problems. It found that many of the data-set schools were not even in operation at the time of completion. The study did not count cases but outbreaks. There was no control over vaccination status and it also included schools that weren’t meeting the criteria. Zweig claims that this and many other reasons should be completely ignored. While masking in schools might be good, it doesn’t answer the question. Any public official—including and especially Walensky—who purports to Follow the science You should throw it out.

Banner 3

In other COVID-19 news, the CDC is now recommending the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines over Johnson & Johnson due to the rare blood-clotting issues relating to the later. According to Fox Business:

Regulators eventually decided that the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine outweighed the risks, but the FDA released new data this week showing that more cases have occurred in the summer and fall.

The blood clotting problem affects women between 30 and 49 years of age at an average rate of 1 in 100,000 shots.

Officials from the CDC have identified 54 blood clots. Nine of these were fatal. Another two deaths may be linked to blood clotting issues.

The J&J shot doesn’t seem to provide much protection against the now-surging omicron variant, in any case.

Talking of omicron: The new COVID-19 strain is currently spreading through the U.S. It has caused widespread shutdowns on many college campuses including Cornell University. These outbreaks on these campuses, despite 95 percent vaccination rates, likely indicate that the vaccines have not done enough to stop and slow infection. However they do offer protection from severe diseases and death.

It will prove to be extremely important: For example, in Washington, D.C., where there were high vaccination rates, there was not an increase in deaths due to the Delta wave.

We may see something similar in omicron. However, everyone should be prepared for Democratic officials to bring back Mask Mandates (and possibly lockdowns) to address rising numbers of cases. Mayor Muriel Bowser will probably reinstate D.C.’s mask mandate—just as soon as her own holiday parties are over.

A British court decided last week that Julian Assange might be extradited to the U.S.Assange’s legal teams argued that Assange would be in serious danger if he was extradited. Assange had already experienced a small stroke. His brother also said “I have no doubt that he will die.”

To avoid being prosecuted for his publication of the Chelsea Manning leaks that revealed the terrible wrongdoings committed by the U.S. army, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, hid behind the Ecuadorian Embassy in Britain for years. Assange’s punishment is an attack on freedom of press and First Amendment rights that civil libertarians should oppose.

One MSNBC columnist, Frank Figliuzzi, is treating the possible extradition of Assange as a potential window into…the Mueller investigation:

Former President Donald Trump already faces a future filled with legal battles in multiple federal, state and local jurisdictions from Georgia to the District of Columbia to New York state and Manhattan. And, now, a British court decision against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could resurrect the two seminal questions from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation: Did Trump obstruct justice, and did his campaign collude with Russia? Assange, an Australian citizen sitting in Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in southeast London, may hold the key that reopens the prosecutive possibilities.

Liberals need to be giddy about Assange’s unjust persecuting, and not salivating over the slim chance that he will provide any new information which would allow for criminal prosecutions against Donald Trump.

According to the report, Trump’s legal costs are being paid by his Republican Party. The Washington Post:

According to Republican National Committee members briefed about the decision, Trump has been offered legal assistance up to $1.6million to assist him in fighting investigations into New York business practices.

According to four party members, and other sources with information about the matter who spoke under the condition that anonymity in order to discuss a private meeting at the executive committee, the payment approval was unanimously given by the party’s executive board.

The GOP could now commit to paying Trump personal legal expenses up to 10 times more than it did previously.

Last month, the GOP said in campaign-finance filings that it had paid Trump’s personal attorneys $121,670 in October. There have been more such payments since. According to a party official, the RNC paid out $578,000 to two attorneys representing Trump’s businesses in November.

  • Eric Adams, New York City’s Mayor, is calling for Rikers’ closure.
  • Trump’s efforts to force the Senate to ditch Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) These efforts are not going well.
  • Numerous universities require students to have booster shots.
  • After trying to use a red thong for his mask, a Florida man was expelled from United Airlines.
  • Anthony Fauci prefersIt is possible to change the meaning of “requirements” from “mandates.”
  • Announcement from Soho Forum on a debate: