Mayoral Candidate Pushes Poll That 'Proves' NYC Residents Really Want Government-Run Groce...
SHADOW GOVERNMENT: DNC Chair Martin Announces Unelected 'People's Cabinet' of Experts to '...
The Left's War on Women Continues As Montana Judge Blocks Bathroom Bill With...
Inverse Cramer Never Fails! Always Wrong CNBC Host Is BIG MAD About Trump...
Biased Media Clowns Chime In on Transgender Fencing Brouhaha With Incredibly Sexist Headli...
Hello Logan Act! Gavin Newsom Tells Nation's California's 'Ready to Talk' Amid Trump...
Elie Mystal Continues His Insanity Calling to Replace Our Constitution Like They Did...
NC Court Rules 65K Voters Have Fifteen Days to Prove Eligibility In Contested...
Who They REALLY Are --> Racist Antifa Members Attack Conservative Black Man at...
USA Fencing Gets Absolutely SKEWERED for Sexist Statement on 'Tolerance' After Expelling F...
Sorry AIN'T Cuttin' It! Rahm Emanuel Says Democrats Made Mistakes on COVID but...
Sunny Hostin Wagers Many Trump Voters Now Wish Harris Had Won (We'll Take...
Leading Lefty Rag BUSTS Republicans for Only Wanting Legal Citizens to Vote (No,...
WATCH What BACKFIRE Looks Like In Real Time As Witness OWNS Amy Klobuchar...
And HERE We Go! AOC Officially Becomes Chuck Schumer's Worst Nightmare annnd We...

'Incompetence of the highest order': CDC appears to have chosen a dubious source to help justify their mask guidance [screenshots]; UPDATE: It gets worse

The last thing the CDC needs right now is another stake through the heart of their credibility.

Sucks to be them, then:

Advertisement

Ah, OK. So the one prompting the call for renewed mask mandates.

The CDC’s brief on “COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccinations” cites a paper, “SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 Delta variant emergence and vaccine breakthrough.” Sounds like it might be relevant to the current discussion on the Delta variant, until you take a look at what the CDC wrote:

“Vaccines not authorized for use in the United States” would certainly suggest that, yes.

Advertisement

Here’s the disclaimer at the top of the paper corresponding to citation number 96 in the CDC’s brief:

“Under consideration at Nature”? “Has not completed peer review at a journal”? And the CDC is citing it in a “Science Brief”?

This is fine.

Totally fine.

Advertisement

Incompetence is the CDC’s brand.

***

Update:

Hey, CDC … you guys have got some major explaining to do:

What the hell?

Clearly there is not.

And salt the earth.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos