COVID-19
New Study Confirms CDC and Other ‘Experts’ Hurt Children for Nothing

From the Brownstone Institute
BY
The CDC funds a study with what it expects are pre-determined results, the media reports the results of that study – despite being misleading, expert researchers reassess using conventional methods, and the supposed benefit disappears.
But the correction receives none of the attention of the original, because it shows a result the CDC deems unacceptable.
There have clearly been many, MANY aspects of our Covid response that were and remain inexcusable.
Vaccine passports and mandates, the nonsensical curfews and capacity limits, general mask mandates, and of course, closing beaches, should never been forgotten.
But few, if any of our pointless, ineffective Covid-era restrictions were as indefensible as child masking. And thanks to the awe-inspiring incompetence of the CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the United States was a global outlier; obsessively dedicated to forcing toddlers as young as 2-years-old to wear masks.
Schools, youth programs, camps, on airplanes…anywhere children gathered, they were forcibly masked. Horrifying videos emerged of teachers or flight attendants putting masks on crying children.
Calls to mask children in schools have disturbingly continued into late 2023 in certain parts of the country.
But new research has confirmed what was obvious to anyone who studied the data and evidence over the past few years: it was all for nothing.
Child Masking is Ineffective, New Study Finds
“Trust the science,” “Follow the data,” “Listen to the experts.”
Starting in 2020, those phrases became a relentless mantra of an oppressive government/pharma/media playbook. Instead of examining the actual evidence, data, and pre-Covid consensus, politicians, administrators, and huge swaths of the public put their faith and trust in a few unreliable, self-interested individuals. And with disastrous results.
Following the actual evidence would, in theory, have meant using evidence-based methods as espoused by experts in that field, such as Carl Heneghan from Oxford University. Primarily, that means using a hierarchy of studies, based on quality, to create systematic reviews of well-conducted research.
Instead, we were fed the CDC’s reporting of non-statistically significant results based on phone surveys, and we watched as those results were included in pro-masking reviews designed to promote an ineffective policy.
But a new systematic review from Tracy Beth Høeg and a number of other researchers has just been released on mask mandates for children. And unlike the pro-mask propaganda, it actually attempts to use high-quality evidence to come to its conclusion.
Background Mask mandates for children during the Covid-19 pandemic varied in different locations. A risk-benefit analysis of this intervention has not yet been performed. In this study, we performed a systematic review to assess research on the effectiveness of mask wearing in children.
They even used independent reviewers to ensure that there was no bias involved in the study selection criteria.
Methods We performed database searches up to February 2023. The studies were screened by title and abstract, and included studies were further screened as full-text references. A risk-of-bias analysis was performed by two independent reviewers and adjudicated by a third reviewer.
That meant that out of 597 studies screened, just 22 were included after meeting the criteria. And in a sign of how the CDC abdicated their responsibility, none were randomized controlled trials. Sure enough, when filtering out information at a risk of serious bias or confounding, there was no association between forcing kids to wear masks and infection or transmission.
Results There were no randomised controlled trials in children assessing the benefits of mask wearing to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission. The six observational studies reporting an association between child masking and lower infection rate or antibody seropositivity had critical (n=5) or serious (n=1) risk of bias; all six were potentially confounded by important differences between masked and unmasked groups and two were shown to have non-significant results when reanalysed. Sixteen other observational studies found no association between mask wearing and infection or transmission.
As every intellectually honest scientist, researcher, or expert would admit, their inescapable conclusion is that the “current body of scientific data does not support masking children for protection against COVID-19.”
Conclusions Real-world effectiveness of child mask mandates against SARS-CoV-2 transmission or infection has not been demonstrated with high-quality evidence. The current body of scientific data does not support masking children for protection against Covid-19.
Who would have guessed?
Low-Quality Research Used to Create Low-Efficacy Policy
The details of the studies involved in this systematic review are even more damning.
Of the six observational studies that supposedly showed a benefit to masking kids, all were fatally flawed in important ways. Specifically, there were significant confounding differences between unmasked and masked children that undermine any of the reported results.
Differences included the “number of instructional school days, differences in school size, systematic baseline differences in case rates in all phases of the pandemic, testing policies, contact-tracing policy differences and teacher vaccination rates.” With differences that substantial, it’s impossible to determine whether or not the claimed reduction in infection or transmission is due to masks or one or many of those other factors.
This is why randomized controlled trials are so important. And why the CDC should have conducted them during the pandemic years. Yet at the same time, considering the results of masking RCT’s conducted on adults, it’s pretty obvious why they didn’t. Because they knew it would show that masks didn’t work.
The researchers also touched on the fact that some of the studies promoted by the CDC saw their effects vanish upon re-analysis. Specifically, one of the “observational CDC funded study” in the US claimed to show an association between county-wide mask mandates and pediatric case counts.
Yet when subjected to “expanded reanalysis,” that association disappeared.
That initial result though, is how you use low-quality studies to launder low-quality information. The CDC funds a study with what it expects are pre-determined results, the media reports the results of that study – despite being misleading, expert researchers reassess using conventional methods, and the supposed benefit disappears.
But the correction receives none of the attention of the original, because it shows a result the CDC deems unacceptable.
Even observational reporting has shown masks don’t matter at a population level for younger aged individuals. Virginia faced massive criticism for ending school mask mandates early in 2022, only to see cases collapse after a massive surge with mask mandates in place.

Similarly, cases in Philadelphia schools dropped two weeks after the mask mandate was lifted in 2022, and rose substantially for two weeks after the mask mandate in January 2023 came into effect.

As often discussed, in a sane world, this systematic review would permanently shut the door on further discussions of forced child masking. Higher quality research has confirmed that there is no evidence masks are effective and eliminating bias and confounders unsurprisingly shows the same result with children.
But sanity is dead. Therefore the current CDC director defiantly refuses to admit that masking toddlers was a mistake.
She doesn’t have to.
Høeg and the other researchers who conducted this review said it for her.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
COVID-19
CDC Vaccine Safety Director May Have Destroyed Records, Says Sen. Ron Johnson

Dr. Shimabukuro implicated in concealing an 82% miscarriage rate among COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women in NEJM study — records reportedly “remain lost.”
The New York Post has just reported:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doctor in charge of monitoring reports of adverse COVID-19 vaccine reactions has been accused by a Republican senator of mishandling and possibly deleting key records.
Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) struggled to find records belonging to Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, the director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, while trying to comply with a subpoena from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for vaccine safety data.
“HHS officials recently informed me that Dr. Shimabukuro’s records remain lost and, potentially, removed from HHS’s email system altogether,” Johnson wrote in a Wednesday letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and acting HHS watchdog Juliet Hodgkins.
“Any attempt to obstruct or interfere with my investigatory efforts would be grounds for contempt of Congress,” Johnson wrote Wednesday.
Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to a six-figure fine and 12 months in prison.
Under the Federal Records Act, government officials are required to preserve materials “made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business.”
Johnson is calling upon the FBI, DOJ and HHS Inspector General’s Office to probe whether Shimabukuro and other federal health officials “deleted or destroyed official agency records.”
Dr. Shimabukuro is the first author on fraudulent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine paper titled, Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons:
A study by Thorp et al comprehensively exposes how Shimabukuro et al manipulated the data to make the mRNA shots appear safe for pregnant women. Re-analysis of the data revealed an astonishing 82% spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) rate in COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women:
The most blatant example of data-doctoring, eerily similar to the fraudulent Pfizer study conducted during the same time frame, was published by NEJM in June, 2021 [85]. In a study intended to evaluate vaccine safety during pregnancy, Shimabukuro et al. followed outcomes in 3958 vaccinated pregnant women between mid-December 2020 and the end of February 2021.
During the two and-a-half-month period 827 women completed their pregnancy of which 712 (86.1%) were live births and 115 (13.9%) pregnancy losses. Of the pregnancy losses, 104 were spontaneous abortions the vast majority of which (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.
Upon review of the data, however, 700 (84.6%) of women weren’t vaccinated until the third trimester, long after the spontaneous abortions would have occurred. Nonetheless, authors included these 700 third-trimester vaccinations in the denominator when they calculated the spontaneous abortion rate.
Based on their statistical sleight-of-hand, authors pegged the spontaneous abortion rate at 12.6% (104/827) when, in fact, it was actually 82% (104/127). This astonishing miscarriage rate is equivalent to the efficacy of the so-called abortion pill, RU486, which carries an FDA black box warning to alert consumers to major drug risks.
And yet Shimabukuro et al. concluded there were no obvious safety concerns. This is disinformation plain and simple and cannot be written off as accident. There were 21 named authors on the study, 8 of whom were physicians, including 3 Ob-Gyn specialists, and others with expertise in public health and epidemiology. It is inconceivable that an error of this magnitude could escape the scrutiny of such a stellar cast. And how could it have been overlooked by the NEJM editorial staff and reviewers unless by intention?
Provocatively, all 21 authors report affiliations with either CDC or the FDA. And NEJM, the flagship journal of the medical-industrial complex, has taken a strong pro-vax stance that can hardly be called objective. Shimabukuro’s thinly-veiled attempt to downplay the risks of COVID-19 vaccines and mitigate vaccine hesitancy is yet another research scandal laden with conflicts of interest and intent to deceive.
This may explain why Dr. Shimabukuro would seek to obscure or delete records. His potential involvement in the deliberate manipulation of critical safety data on COVID-19 mRNA injections during pregnancy carries grave implications—resulting in immeasurable harm to mothers and their unborn children worldwide.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
COVID-19
Fauci, top COVID officials have criminal referral requests filed against them in 7 states

From LifeSiteNews
The filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On April 8, 2025, the Vires Law Group, in collaboration with the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation, submitted formal criminal referral requests to the Attorneys General of Arizona and Pennsylvania. These filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent public health and government officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The referrals are based on detailed evidence—including the stories of over 80 victims and families—and allege that policies such as lethal hospital protocols, the denial of life-saving treatments, and systemic medical coercion led to widespread injury and death.
Similar filings have been submitted on behalf of constituents in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, marking a coordinated nationwide effort to pursue justice through state and local authorities:
Individuals Named in the Referral Requests:
- Dr. Anthony Fauci – Former Director, NIAID
- Dr. Cliff Lane – Deputy Director, NIAID
- Dr. Francis Collins – Former Director, NIH
- Dr. Deborah Birx – Former White House COVID Response Coordinator
- Dr. Rochelle Walensky – Former Director, CDC
- Dr. Stephen Hahn – Former Commissioner, FDA
- Dr. Janet Woodcock – Principal Deputy Commissioner, FDA (Arizona only)
- Dr. Peter Hotez – Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine (Arizona only)
- Dr. Robert Redfield – Former Director, CDC
- Dr. Peter Daszak – President, EcoHealth Alliance
- Dr. Ralph Baric – Professor, University of North Carolina
- Dr. Rick Bright – Former Director, BARDA
- Administrators and healthcare providers at various hospital systems and care facilities in Arizona and Pennsylvania
Combined List of Alleged Crimes Across Both States:
- Murder
- Involuntary Manslaughter
- Negligent Homicide
- Assault / Aggravated Assault / Simple Assault
- Recklessly Endangering Another Person
- Vulnerable Adult Abuse / Emotional Abuse
- Neglect and Abuse of a Care-Dependent Person
- Kidnapping
- Trafficking of Persons for Forced Labor or Services
- Criminal Coercion to Restrict Another’s Freedom
- Operating a Corrupt Organization
- Violations of State Anti-Racketeering Laws
- Terrorism
At the time of the release, two county-level criminal investigations are reportedly already underway in other states. The legal teams and victims involved assert that accountability must come through state or local prosecution, given the lack of federal action. These filings represent a significant national effort to seek justice on behalf of families who lost loved ones and were denied proper care during the pandemic.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
Mortgage Mayhem: How Rising Interest Rates Are Squeezing Alberta Homeowners
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Conservative Party urges investigation into Carney plan to spend $1 billion on heat pumps
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
Exploring Wildrobin Technological Advancements in Live Dealer Games
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Communist China helped boost Mark Carney’s image on social media, election watchdog reports
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Fifty Shades of Mark Carney
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Corporate Media Isn’t Reporting on Foreign Interference—It’s Covering for It
-
Business1 day ago
Stocks soar after Trump suspends tariffs
-
Justice2 days ago
Canadian government sued for forcing women to share spaces with ‘transgender’ male prisoners