CDC study on masks gains attention for unbelievable fine print

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are still pushing wearing masks indoors for all they are worth, releasing a new study that purportedly shows that Californians who don masks or respirators indoors are less likely to test positive for COVID.

“A new @CDCMMWR study shows that people who reported always wearing masks or respirators in indoor public settings in California were less likely to test positive for #COVID19 compared with those who reported not wearing a face covering. Learn more,” the CDC tweeted.

The study contends, “Consistent use of a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (adjusted odds ratio = 0.44). Use of respirators with higher filtration capacity was associated with the most protection, compared with no mask use.”

“In addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a comfortable, well-fitting face mask or respirator in indoor public settings protects against acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection; a respirator offers the best protection,” the study asserts.

One commenter on Twitter nailed it by noting that the real point is in the fine print: “Fine print in lower right corner says benefits of cloth masks are ‘Not statistically significant.'”

Another user was unimpressed with the polling, tweeting: “*Self-reported. So a survey of a few hundred mask-obsessed people were more likely to say masks worked. Big surprise… not scientific evidence.”

One savvy individual methodically listed the drawbacks of the study: “1- No reporting about symptoms or severity of infections 2- OR not adjusted for comorbidities and health condition. (and no statement on adjustment for mask compliance in 2nd analysis) 3- Mask compliance fully based on a qualitative self-reporting indicator 4- It’s done by CDC.”

A number of people picked up on the “Not statistically significant” label on the graph as well.

Grabien founder Tom Elliott sarcastically snarked, “The CDC is a serious organization conducting serious science and definitely should not be defunded immediately,” after seeing the subjective study.

“I don’t get why you make a public statement such as this about a study that explicitly says the veracity can’t be determined. You continue to damage your credibility with the public, and make you a less trusted source of information,” another user asserted.

And if all of that wasn’t bad enough, Jodi Beggs, who is a data scientist, brutally laid the results of the study bare, tweeting, “you are actively trying to conflate correlation with causation in order to push ineffective policies, shame on you.”

“More specifically, unless you control for vaccination status and behavior these numbers mean basically nothing,” she concluded.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles