In other words, when a progressive media company suddenly adheres to old school standards of journalism and attempts to reach the truth and hold people in positions of power and authority accountable for their actions, it in and of itself becomes news. That's how bad the media is right now.

This is precisely why I'm writing this piece to discuss CNN host Michael Smerconish and his recent confrontation with the notorious and mostly hated Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who headed up the government's COVID response during the thick of the pandemic.

According to a report published by TheBlaze, Smerconish, apparently doing a realistic LARP (live action role playing) as a real life journalist, went head-to-head with Fauci on Saturday concerning a new study that came out questioning whether or not wearing masks were effective at preventing the spread of COVID during the pandemic.

I'm just going to preemptively state, for the record, that strapping a diaper on your face really doesn't do much to stop the spread of any sort of illness, so if you're counting on that to make you somehow magically immune to the new variants of the coronavirus, I hate to break it to you, but it's going to do precisely Jack and squat. And Jack just left town.

So what's this study have to say about the issue of masks?

Well, back in January an organization known as the Cochrane Institute put out a brand spanking new review that took a deep look at the effect "physical interventions" had on slowing down the spread of respiratory illnesses. And guess what conclusion researchers ultimately came to? I'll give you three, but you won't need two of them.

The study concluded that strapping a diaper over your mouth "probably makes little or no difference to the outcome" of viruses like the flu or COVID. So those who wear masks and those who don't are pretty much at equal risk of catching these kinds of illnesses. Makes you wonder why people are still pushing for mask mandates with the emergence of new variants now suddenly popping back into the media.

Oh. That's right. A big election is coming up next year. It all makes sense now.

According to Tom Jefferson—no, not the third president and writer of the Declaration of Independence—who works as an epidemiologist for Oxford, and is the first author in the study, "There is just no evidence that masks [make] any difference."

And this is what prompted Smerconish to transform into a real journalist for a few minutes over the weekend and confront Fauci with these findings. He kicked things off by introducing the study with comments from New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, who said the review was the "most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses."

As you probably already guessed, Fauci was unfazed, continuing to hold to his position on the efficacy of masks, despite the evidence to the contrary being thrust before his very eyes. He's a company "yes man" to the end.

"Yes, but there are other studies, Michael, that show at an individual level, for individual, when you're talking about the effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole, the data are less strong," he replied during the interview.

"But when you talk about as an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting themselves from spreading it to others, there's no doubt that there are many studies that show that there is an advantage," Fauci added. "When you [look at] the broad population level like the Cochrane study, the data are less firm with regard to the effect on the overall pandemic. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about an individual's effect on their own safety. That's a bit different than the broad population level."

TheBlaze revealed several big issues with the response Fauci gave to Smerconish:

First, he [Fauci] cited "other studies," but declined to name a single one. Second, he claimed those "studies" show mask efficacy at the "individual level." But to study the efficacy of masks, participants are placed in two groups—one with masks and another without masks—and the rate of infection between the groups is compared. There is no way to study these outcomes on an "individual level"... Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here

Continue reading Here.

To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE

AMERICAN SOUNDTRACK: Singer-Songwriter Kaylin Roberson Honors Father and 250 Years of Brave Soldiers in Stirring Ballad 'So I Didn't Have To' (Video)

America of 1976 Would Not Recognize Herself in Our 250th Year

Baseball Players Refuse to Wear Pride Uniforms, Forced to Forfeit

Canada: Carney Liberals Move to 'Force' Radical Internet Surveillance Bill through House

Belfast Is Burning, and the Media Won't Say Why

Israel, Hezbollah Agree to New Ceasefire after Conflict Delayed US-Iran Talks

Report: Biden-Era FDA Spun Autopsy Results to Downplay COVID Vaccine Deaths in Kids, Letter Shows

Newly Exposed: Fauci Funded Wuhan Lab Research That Sparked COVID; Evidence Fauci Manipulated Intelligence and Lied to Congress

From Pulisic's 'Bible Time' to Team Prayer on the Field, US Gives 'Glory to God' at World Cup

Good News: Gasoline Drops Below $4 A Gallon

Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro Abandoning 30,000 Children as Democrats Push to Strip School Choice

Canada's Parliament Officially Passes 'Bible Ban' Bill C-9

Occupied Britain: Muslim Rape Gang Report Warns against Dangers of Mass Immigration (Part 1)

Obama Center Contractors Say Millions Are Owed

VP Vance Defends Iran Deal, Says It Will Benefit Both America and Israel

President Trump Signs MOU with Iran During Dinner at Palace of Versailles (VIDEO)

[Watch] JD Vance Ventures Onto 'The View,' Serves Up an Unforgettable Schooling

School District Pays $95K to Settle Lawsuit After Painting Over Bible Verse Tribute to Charlie Kirk

Is MLB Treating Christians Differently? Senator Hawley Demands Answers

Hundreds of Thousands of Antidepressants Recalled Over Potential Cancer Risk