The Media Tried To Discredit A Study Showing Masks Don’t Work — And Failed

If there’s one consistent feature of the media’s coverage of masks and the evidence on universal masking, it’s a stubborn refusal to accept inconvenient truths.

Because the "experts" who changed the course of global pandemic response forever by abandoning science in April 2020 shared their political views, the media steadfastly has ignored or downplayed contradictory evidence, except for when the evidence was so overwhelming, comprehensive, and damning for even them to ignore.

This is similar to the former head of the CDC admitting in a jaw-dropping interview that COVID vaccines were flawed, and that many of the policies we tried were harmful and clearly were government "overreach."

When the evidence was clearly too much to overcome, they tried to kill it.

But in a completely ignored, extremely important turn of events, the media, thankfully, proved unsuccessful.

The New York Times Tried To Undermine The Cochrane Review On Masks — And Failed

When the gold standard of evidence reviews, the Cochrane Library examination, was published in early 2023, it provided the definitive, comprehensive scientific study showing that masks were ineffective against respiratory viruses.

READ: New Study Confirms That Masks Likely Don't Work To Stop COVID

Given the reputations of those involved - world renowned experts in evidence-based medicine, the thoroughness of the review, and the confirmation it provided after years of observational data decisively supported the evidence that masks failed to stop the spread of respiratory viruses, you'd have expected that it would garner attention. Maybe even enough to stop masking policies permanently.

Instead, however, most media outlets dismissed it entirely, refusing to deal with the ramifications of a definitive scientific resource contradicting their advocacy since the start of the pandemic. Except, of course, for The New York Times.

The Times, thanks to its intrepid anti-science opinion writer Zeynep Tufecki, last seen influencing the CDC to recommend universal masking in defiance of actual science, worked to undermine the Cochrane Review by appealing to the political ideology of its editor.

The Editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, Karla Soares-Weiser, spoke to Tufecki and desperately tried to distance herself and the Library from the results of the review. In the process, she inaccurately characterized the studies that the researchers examined, and undermined their results by collaborating with Tufecki to defend their misconceptions.

"Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane review shows that ‘masks don’t work,’ which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation," Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, said in The New York Times.

"The review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses," Soares-Weiser said, continuing, "Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses."

It got worse.

Soares-Weiser issued an unjustified apology, and more importantly claimed that the Library would "revise the summary."

She also went further, categorically denying what the lead author, Tom Jefferson, said in an interview with journalist Maryanne Demasi. Jefferson explained, clearly and accurately, "There is just no evidence that they make any difference."

Tufecki seized the opportunity to discredit the entire review, claiming it was "flawed" and subject to misinterpretation.

"The flawed summary — and further misinterpretation of it," Tufecki warned, "set off a debate."

Essentially, Tufecki’s article and the quotes from Soares-Weiser implied or outright stated that the review and its summary language would be changed. That the studies hadn’t actually looked at mask wearing, and that Jefferson spoke out of turn with unjustified certainty.

And yet, just a few days ago, the Cochrane Library added a statement to the study, "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses," and confirmed just the opposite.

Simply, nothing is changing. The review, its contents and its summary stand, as previously written. The gold standard of evidence, the most thorough, comprehensive examination of the studies on masking to stop respiratory viruses remains the same.

Despite the wishful thinking of the editor, and the advocacy and activism of what another review author described as a "New York Times social media influencer," there are no changes or alterations to the conclusions of the review. Which, as a reminder, states that there is no evidence that masks stop respiratory viruses, and there is no difference between cloth, surgical, or N95 masks at stopping the spread of infection.

Or as Jefferson said, "Makes no difference — none of it."

Make no mistake, this is an embarrassment for Soares-Weiser, for Tufecki and for The New York Times.

All parties involved desperately hoped that the apology and promise to revise and revisit would discredit the results and sway public opinion. And they were likely successful, because as is so often the case, the public only hears and remembers the first response, never the second.

Tufecki got the headline and story she wanted, and given that her nonsensical perspective and agenda haven’t changed, she’ll never issue a correction or update. So this editors' note will go unnoticed and unappreciated.

Except by those of us paying attention closely enough to know that the review would remain unchanged, because it's an inarguable fact that the evidence clearly demonstrates masks don’t work.

Sorry Zeynep.