CDC COVID-19 Face Mask Guidelines Never Should Have Been Trusted

The CDC as a Trusted Authority in Making Health Recommendations

During the COVID-19 crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published recommendations for mass face masking, which enabled state governors and company executives to parrot these recommendations to their citizens and employees. The justification used by these leaders for imposing face mask mandates was precisely the CDC’s authority to make such recommendations.

State governors and company executives, however, failed to understand, that the integrity of the CDC was (and has been for a while) compromised by conflicts of interest and blatant violations of federal quality-control standards. State governors and company executives firmly believed that government agencies were above wrongdoing. Leaders, thus, could not open their minds to consider even the possibility that the CDC was compromised to the point that its recommendations could not be trusted.

How the CDC is Funded

As the above chart shows, the CDC is not strictly a governmental agency, but rather a quasi-governmental agency, funded partly by Congress, partly by direct gifts, and partly by philanthropic foundations, including a foundation established specifically to accept funds to help support it.  Among the foundations that help support the CDC,  there is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which channels money into the organization in two ways (directly, and indirectly via the Bloomberg Family Foundation).  Among contributors to the CDC Foundation, there is Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, which were intimately tied to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a strong vested financial interest in promoting COVID-19 vaccines, along with Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and many other companies that contribute to the CDC Foundation. 

Sustaining a sense of emergency that requires vaccination was in the best financial interests of all these organizations. Consequently, sustaining public consciousness of an emergency by way of mass masking helped support these financial interests.

Without face masks, the perception of an emergency would have weakened. Without a sense of emergency, the demand for COVID-19 vaccines would have weakened, and the primary financial interests of major contributors were no longer served.

Conflicts of Interest Plague the CDC

One indication of the CDC's conflicting interests appeared on page 1259, September 11, 2020, of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(36):1258-1264, where the following finding was plainly stated (referring to COVID-19 infection rates in a face mask study):

In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public.

Case patients refers to cases of COVID-19, in other words, people with the COVID-19 illness, and 71% of these people reported always using face masks. Even so, this 71% still became infected, even when 77% of the entire United States population as a whole (at the time) were wearing face masks in public (according to YouGov.org). The CDC's own finding, thus, failed to support the effectiveness of face masks. Nonetheless, the CDC continued to insist on mask effectiveness.

A rational person wonders why an organization would ignore its own finding to continue endorsing what its own finding did not support. A rational person also wonders why the CDC failed to cite (and base recommendations on) research of the caliber used in the following February, 2021 independent report:

Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence, written by:

• Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 

• Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

• Ramin Oskoui, MD, CEO, Foxhall Cardiology, PC, Washington, DC 

• Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT USA 

• Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, Baylor Jack and Jane Hamilton Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas, TX, USA 

• Nicholas E. Alexander

This report was well worth reading by people in authority to make decisions that affected the lives of millions, but mask dogma was so widespread that neither the best evidence nor the best reasoning could penetrate it.

Prominent Medical Journal Editor Questions CDC Integrity

A similar dogma regarding the integrity of government agencies was in play, which disabled even highly-regarded medical experts from spreading the truth. One such expert was Lawrence R. Huntoon, editor-in-chief of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, who wrote the 2020 editorial, CDC: Bias and Disturbing Conflicts of Interest, 25(3):66-69, where he stated:

The CDC has a long history of bias and troubling conflicts of interest. This history calls into question the scientific validity of recommendations made by the CDC. 

In-Depth Legal Analysis by Ten Experts Reveals that CDC Violated the Law

Trust in government agencies was (and still is) so great that legal facts could not shift the dogma. One such analysis of these facts is the following:

Henry Ealy and nine others (2020). COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, Volume 2: 4-22. 

We allege the CDC violated:

• the IQA [Information Quality Act], 

• PRA [Paperwork Reduction Act], 

• OMB [Office of Management and Budget] compliance guidelines, and 

• Executive Order 12866 [requires proper peer review]. 

In doing so, the CDC has fatally compromised all COVID-19 data and adversely impacted federal, state, and local public health policies regarding COVID-19. 

By illegally enacting standards that drastically changed the protocol for listing cause of death, the CDC enabled inflation of COVID-19 deaths to an exaggerated extent that gave the appearance of a gravely serious crisis. The number of deaths subsequently attributed to COVID-19, thus, raised alarm levels to a point that drove government leaders to desperate acts of trying to control a killer virus by whatever means necessary, including forcing the public to wear face masks.

The following chart illustrates how using different cause-of-death guidelines helped create an artificial crisis:

In light of these facts, all government leaders who continued to raise face masks to the exalted position of an effective measure to combat COVID-19 or any virus were complicit in perpetuating unfounded evidence, medical fraud, and, ultimately, criminal obstruction of human rights. 

END

.pdf copy of this article

<< BACK TO MAIN PAGE