CDC Report Admits Mask-Wearing Provides No Real Protection Against Covid

On March 5, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a report admitting that face masks do not provide protection against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), and potentially worsen infection risk.

Authored by more than a dozen medical doctors, PhD researchers, and attorneys, the research found that wearing a mask or not wearing a mask produces roughly the same outcome in terms of the number of “cases” and deaths blamed on the Wuhan virus.

cdc report admits mask wearing provides no real protection against covid

Between March 1 and Dec. 31 of last year, 2,313 of America’s 3,142 counties were under a statewide mask mandate. County-by-county data shows a statistically insignificant difference in health outcomes between masked versus unmasked counties.

“According to the federal government agency that is responsible for managing the COVID-1984 pandemic, the difference between mask mandates and no mask mandate is literally just a 1.32% difference,” writes Simon Black for Sovereign Man.

“And bear in mind, it’s entirely possible that the real figure is even lower than that, given all the questionable COVID statistics.”

Considering seasonal influenza vanished in 2020-2021, down 56 million compared to the season prior, the data would suggest that masked areas are actually more prone to disease spread.

“[I]s it possible that maybe, just maybe, at least some influenza cases have been misdiagnosed as COVID?” asks Black. “If that’s the case, then the real impact of masks on COVID growth rates is potentially much lower than 1.32%.”

The CDC itself would appear to recognize this, admitting towards the end of the report that mask mandates merely “have the potential” – but not the science – “to slow the spread of COVID-19.”

Mask-Wearing Is A Death Sentence For Humanity

In “legalese,” anything has the potential to do anything, as the word potential is an all-encompassing term with subjective intent. Masks have never been, and never will be, proven to provide any actual protection against the Wuhan flu.

The fact that the World Health Organization (WHO) took the word potential and made it into definitive policy shows how unscientific these governing bodies truly are when it comes to how they determine public health guidelines.

Even the corrupt CDC, a private corporation, was unable to twist the data in such a way as to even make it seem as though masks are anything other than a harm-inducing placebo. The agency was forced to admit that masks are little more than snake oil, in other words.

As for the negative impacts of mask-wearing on society, an earlier study published in the journal Nature found that Americans who wear masks are much more likely to engage in riskier activities that could harm them.

According to the “experts,” mask-wearers on average spend 11-24 fewer minutes at home than non-mask-wearers. Mask-wearers are more prone to go to a restaurant or some other “high-risk location.”

Research: Masks Cause Gum Disease, Which Increases Coronavirus Death Risk By 900%

Not only that, but chronic mask-wearing has led to a spike in rates of mental health issues and suicide.

Depression, despair, and hopelessness are hallmarks of mandatory mask policies, as forcing people to wrap their faces in Chinese plastic is abnormal, anti-social, and destructive.

In Japan, the suicide rate among children skyrocketed by 49 percent after mask policies were implemented.

The U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service (SAMHSA) also reported an 890 percent increase in call volume to its nationwide suicide hotline last April.

“There can be no rational discourse on the topic,” Black laments about discussing these politically incorrect data points. “You’re not allowed to ask any questions or express any intellectual dissent, otherwise you’ll be denounced as a conspiracy theorist.”

Source: / Reference:

11 thoughts on “CDC Report Admits Mask-Wearing Provides No Real Protection Against Covid

    1. After following numerous links, here is the CDC report: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?


  1. Pingback: This Free American
  2. Simon Black totally misinterprets the results of the study. First, the study doesn’t say anything about a 1.32% decrease. The study measured the decrease in the daily case growth rates over five 20 day blocks of time (1-20 days, 21-40 days, etc.) The decrease in the daily growth rate changed over the course of the study, going from 0.5 percentage point decrease for days 1-20 to a 1.8 percentage point decrease in days 81-100. It appears that Mr. Black averaged the decreases over time to get his 1.32% number. However, this is not the correct way to calculate the decrease overtime. More importantly, the study does not show the percentage decrease in the number of cases. It shows a percentage point decrease in the case growth rate. That’s a huge difference. If you assume the daily growth rate is 4%, a decrease of 1.32% would decrease the growth rate to about 3.95%. However, a decrease of 1.32 percentage points decreases the growth rate to 2.68% – that’s a 33% decrease. Again, this isn’t a percentage decrease in the number of cases. It’s a decrease in the daily growth rate. The growth rate is exponential, and changes compound over time. So if there are 1000 cases on day 0 and the daily growth rate is 4%, on day 1 there will be 1040 cases, on day 2 there will be 1082 cases, on day 3 there will be 1125 cases. On day 100, the cases would increase by 1942, and the total number of cases would be 50504. But if the daily growth rate is 2.68%, on day 100 the cases would increase by 367, and the total number of cases would be 14079. That is a 72% decrease in the number of cases on day 100. That is not “statistically insignificant” as Mr. Black claims.
    I realize I probably wasted my time writing this. Most people who read this aren’t looking for facts. They are looking for someone to agree with what they already believe. There is a lot of misinformation from both sides about the effectiveness of masks, vaccines, etc. but the truth is out there if you spend a little effort looking for it. If the author of this article has any integrity, he will correct this article and provide accurate information about what the referenced study actually concluded, rather than simply quoting someone who is saying something that he “believes” is true.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for your explanation! I read the article from SovereignMan (source cited) and was in awe on how people could believe it. No source, no data, only picked up one number to misinform people…then ended an article promoting his business. Unbelievable.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s