'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:

So it appears at least one of the studies the CDC used to justify their guidance was rejected by a peer review and was based on a vaccine not even used in the United States. Brilliant stuff.

— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 28, 2021

Which one?

— Michael Durčák 🐟 (@durcak_michael) July 28, 2021

The one they used to justify the claim that vaccinated people can have viral loads exceeding those of unvaccinated

— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 28, 2021

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:

It seems to suggest it was a non-US approved vaccine. pic.twitter.com/T8nCDRb4vC

— Aaron Astor (@AstorAaron) July 28, 2021

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

We need clarity on this.

Below citation would suggest that the CDC’s assertion yesterday that they have data showing vaccinated individuals can transmit delta variant due to similar viral load as unvaccinated is partially based off of…a model…using non-US approved vaccines https://t.co/pn6g1P5Sso

— Alicia Smith (@Alicia_Smith19) July 28, 2021

The excerpt from above is citation 96 on here.

The guidance then goes on to cite unpublished data and ongoing experiments. Hoping the CDC makes the pending data public very soon, using real-world experiments and US approved vaccines instead of a model. pic.twitter.com/9nt9nJSx6a

— Alicia Smith (@Alicia_Smith19) July 28, 2021

Also worth noting: The study cited did not even pass peer review, and is under revision..

Could be the case that the cited “unpublished data” and “ongoing experiments” reach a similar conclusion, but would have prefer that to be made available/completed before guidance change…

— Alicia Smith (@Alicia_Smith19) July 28, 2021

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”?

Really great: https://t.co/F1Tg4ToHqz

— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 28, 2021

This is fine.

More than that. When they got called out the study magically changed from "rejected" to "under review"

— John Locke (@jlocke613) July 28, 2021

Now peer review is listed as under revision, but this is what it looked like before: pic.twitter.com/PqfEILGm8I

— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 28, 2021

Totally fine.

What a clown show. https://t.co/ZnlOE83k7j

— Aldous Huxley's Ghost™ (@AF632) July 28, 2021

If this bears out, this is incompetence of the highest order. https://t.co/SOA56weRDz

— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) July 28, 2021

Incompetence is the CDC’s brand.

***

Update:

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

🚨 Update to this:The CDC’s assertion that they have unpublished data showing vaccinated people transmit virus is false

And that the guidance is based off study showing similar viral load btwn vax and unvax’d,which has major flaws as noted in thread above https://t.co/0KxlMlNrDD pic.twitter.com/Mi8WfLqKoN

— Alicia Smith (@Alicia_Smith19) July 28, 2021

What the hell?