Here's What a Shark Tank Host Said About Kamala That Caused a Total...
Mel Gibson Says It's Not Shocking Who He's Voting for Since Kamala Has...
House Speaker Mike Johnson: 'Fed Up Americans' Ready to Blame Kamala Harris on...
'Desperate': Top Dems Demand Special Counsel Investigate Jared Kushner
Vote America
General Milley’s Attack on the Constitution
The Liberal Media Is Not Happy About This
Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Kills Texas Man Under Biden, Harris Admin
The Reason Why an Actress Found a Fan Edit 'Offensive' Will Make You...
An Act of Desperation by the Democrats
Kamala Harris’ Most Important (and Overlooked) Word-Salad
The ‘Abortion Rights’ Message: My Body Has Rights, My Baby’s Life Does Not
Trump shows he will MAWA (Make America Work Again)
Time for Another Miracle?
Trump Win Critical to America’s Cyber Future
Tipsheet

New Lancet Study Destroys the CDC's Justification for School Mask Mandates

AP Photo/Denis Poroy

The Lancet, a world-renown medical journal, is out with a new study debunking a highly-cited CDC study that was used to support mask mandates in schools.

Specifically, the study not only replicates the CDC study, which found a “negative association” between masks and pediatric cases of Covid-19, it also extends the study to include more districts over a longer period of time. In the end, the new study had nearly “six times as much data as the original study.”

Advertisement

“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the study finds. “These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement