Saturday, February 13, 2021

The Absurdity of the "Science" Behind the CDC Double-Mask Advisory

This is the quality of the propaganda the government is putting out. 

The new Center for Disease Control guidance is:

 Universal masking is recommended to slow the spread of COVID-19. Cloth masks and medical procedure masks substantially reduce exposure from infected wearers (source control) and reduce exposure of uninfected wearers (wearer exposure).

Here is a major problem:  A key test to justify this advisory was done only on mannequins.

I am not making this up.

From the CDC:


As Jordan Schachtel notes:

There are endless amounts of clear, immediate, obvious issues with this “study” that causes a rational-minded person to send it to the dumpster.

First and foremost, it is not a completed study at all. These are mere experiments conducted on mannequins, not humans. A proper study on the efficacy of masks needs to be a randomized controlled trial involving human beings in their normal settings — such as the Danish mask study that showed there is no evidence that masks do anything to prevent COVID-19 — and not mannequins in a laboratory.

Second, as you can see on the double masked mannequin, the lifeless object is barely able to “see” over its double mask

Third, these masks are very tightly sealed and secured to the face of the mannequins. It is not exactly rocket science to “discover” that it is more difficult to breathe in particles from outside of a contained environment when you fully seal something over your face.

However, this is unsustainable, as it would make breathing in oxygen (which, you know, is a thing that humans need to do) very difficult, and cause severe discomfort for regular use. Mannequins don’t have to worry about breathing or seeing, but humans do... 

When you read the fine print of the “study,” even the CDC seems to acknowledge the aforementioned paradoxes in the following paragraph of their report:  

“Finally, although use of double masking or knotting and tucking are two of many options that can optimize fit and enhance mask performance for source control and for wearer protection, double masking might impede breathing or obstruct peripheral vision for some wearers, and knotting and tucking can change the shape of the mask such that it no longer covers fully both the nose and the mouth of persons with larger faces.”

Government is a dangerous joke.

The types that climb to top positions in government are the types that love to give orders and who will attempt to get away with obvious nonsense as justification to shove orders down our throats but, in the end, they succeed because they use the force of government which blocks resistance.



  1. It's not only the government thing but how science works vs how engineering works. Scientists are generally arrogant and never had their asses handed to them by the real world. They can make experiments like this or say that such and such has to be from their isolated little specialties and never deal with the complete picture.

    Science, by the way it works internally (peer review, etc and so on) makes it very political and naturally it flows right into being with government.

  2. The whole purpose of this nonsense is to humiliate us into submission. We are supposed to accept without question anything the government tells us, even if it clearly makes no sense or is self contradictory.

  3. Mannequins are entirely appropriate subjects for a mask study, since they raise the same objections to masking and comply with mask mandates to the same degree as much of the population these days.

  4. I tried to get a letter to the editor published on masks that contained information from peer-reviewed studies, from the CDC's site, from Fauci himself. It was rejected as not in accord with the facts; the editor pointed to three observational studies on the CDC website which are, well, just crap science and don't prove a thing since, like all observational studies without controls, there can confounding but unmeasured influences (they use the weasel words "suggests" and "may" a great deal). But to the editor these were just as valid as the 14 randomized, controlled trials I mentioned.

    I've seen elsewhere a mention of a review of 160 studies, observational and mechanistic that support the idea that masks work. I read a few; all have the same flaws. Real science has gotten buried by junk science, and with the cooperation of many "scientists" who published many of these under the usual pressure to get published without regard to quality. When scientists won't defend real science the government is free to push just about anything.