CDC guidelines, recommending new mask measures were based on reports that failed peer-review.

Mask orders reinstated (a reason this thread was started). Here’s a vid making it clear that there is something rotten in medicine.

CDC guidelines, recommending new mask measures were based on reports that failed peer-review.

This is a failure in the “Research Science” part of Medicine as a field, where the paid-for agenda wins-out over actual valid research.

(To fail peer-review is to fail to prove the findings.)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited an unpublished study from India to justify its recommendation Tuesday that fully vaccinated people “wear a mask in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission” of COVID-19.

That study, which claimed the Delta variant produced an unusually large viral load in more than 100 vaccinated healthcare workers with “breakthrough infections,” was listed as having failed peer review in the journal Nature when the CDC cited it.

Archives of the study’s page on Research Square, a preprint server for unpublished research, show that it was marked “reject” on July 9 and remained so at least through the evening of July 26, Eastern Daylight Time. 

That version was still live early Wednesday morning, the day after the CDC cited the study in its July 27 updated science brief, according to a Twitter user who posted a screenshot.

 

The “reject” status and review notes were removed by mid-morning and replaced with “posted,” suggesting Nature had approved the paper without revisions, which drew controversy on Twitter. The notes were quickly restored and status changed to “revise,” bearing the same date — July 9 — as the original “reject” status.

Research Square addressed the confusion twice around noon Wednesday, blaming “a bug” and “a user interface error on our end.” It said the paper was still under review “and the current editorial decision is ‘Revise.'”

The review notes disappeared again from the “peer review timeline” later in the afternoon, leaving only a “current status” classification of the paper as “under review.” Research Square also posted a revised header clarifying that the paper was being considered by “a Nature Portfolio Journal,” not necessarily the flagship journal, and that it partners with the publisher on “a journal-integrated preprint deposition service.”

The representations of Research Square would mean the CDC cited deficient research to back its finding that “emerging data suggest [COVID vaccines have] lower effectiveness against confirmed infection and symptomatic disease” caused by the Delta variant, which is “now predominant in the United States.” More @ Source