Hilariously Bad “Fact Check” Ignores Verifiable Facts To Achieve “False” Label Aimed At DeSantis

Politifact “fact checker” Yacob Reyes is the one who recently brought us the hilarious “doubled Russian oil imports” “fact check,” where he labeled Maria Bartiromo’s claim “mostly false” and then immediately explained almost verbatim that it was completely true.

Well, Mr. Reyes is at it again and this one is a doozy! And it’s so bad he actually turned off the comments on his Twitter post about it because he was being torched.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been taking some punches by activist media for “bullying” a group of young men by explaining to them that they don’t need to wear masks that are useless just to virtue signal mask compliance, and saying that people need to cut it out with the ridiculous “Covid theater” that is unscientific mask wearing because it’s “not doing anything.”

So I guess Reyes thought he’d “fact check” the Governor’s informed and scientifically supported opinion that wearing masks is political theater, an opinion which Reyes labeled as “false.” Not “mostly false,” not “missing context,” not “partly false.” Straight up “false.”

And in so doing, Reyes showed the entire country exactly how little “fact checkers” cares about actual facts. The literal facts that he’s supposedly “checking.” Those facts. He doesn’t care about them. Here’s how we know.

In his article, Reyes says that Governor DeSantis “mischaracterizes the efficacy of face masks.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told high school students that wearing masks is “COVID theater” and “not doing anything.” We rated that statement False.

More on my latest for @PolitiFact https://t.co/WuAdcL2Gfi

— Yacob Reyes (@yacob_reyes) March 4, 2022

In the summary at the top of the article, which is intended to be a “too long, didn’t read” summary of the entire contents of the article, Reyes explains,

“In high-risk areas, like where DeSantis was speaking, public health authorities strongly recommend wearing a mask. People who are immunocompromised can choose to wear masks at all times, depending on their particular circumstances. A recent study published by the CDC found that wearing face masks notably reduced the likelihood of testing positive for COVID.”

Well, if that’s the summary of what Reyes thought were the most important parts of his “fact check,” then I’ve got some real issues with it. Let’s break it down.

Firstly, no one, and certainly not DeSantis, claimed that public health authorities aren’t strongly recommending wearing a mask. That’s actually kind of an issue, that they’re STILL recommending wearing a mask despite the evidence that it’s unnecessary, ineffective, and having unintended negative consequences in other areas like speech development. So that didn’t need to be fact checked at all, much less make it into the important summary. Reyes just wants to skew his entire article from the very first sentence by virtue signaling that “public health authorities” back up what he’s about to say, like that give it more credibility.

Secondly, no one, and certainly not DeSantis, claimed that people who are immunocompromised aren’t allowed to wear masks or are encouraged not to wear masks. That’s kind of a big issue these days because pro-maskers are somehow under the deluded impression that dropping mask mandates is the same as banning everyone from wearing a mask. Nope! They can still choose to wear one if they want. And they don’t even have to be immunocompromised to do so! They can just choose it! So that also didn’t need to be fact checked at all, much less make it into the important summary.

Thirdly, Reyes cites a “recent study” published by the CDC saying that it “found that wearing face masks notably reduced the likelihood of testing positive for COVID.” Interestingly, he forgot to mention that this recently published study was simply a phone survey of people self reporting about wearing a mask and testing positive, which is far from a sound and reliable scientific study. Also interestingly, he forgot to mention that this “study” even has an asterisk attached to the data stating that the data is “not statistically significant.” See it here in the infographic they published and spread widely?

See it now?

How about now?

Ah, there it is. But for good measure…

There you have it. The “study” which Reyes specifically sights as the basis of his fact check is just a self-reporting phone survey which even explains that the very data it collected is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

He actually goes through those specific percentages the CDC reported, 56%, 66%, and 83%, and he STILL doesn’t mention that the CDC itself admitted that these numbers are not statistically significant. Probably because he doesn’t care about the actual facts and isn’t going to make sure you have all the necessary information and context to understand the numbers he’s giving you.

Fourthly, at the end of his article, “fact checker” Reyes sights all of his sources for the fake “fact check,” which interestingly did not include the press secretary of the Florida Department of Health, Jeremy Redfern, who was contacted by Reyes regarding the writing of the “fact check” and to whom Redfern responded with relevant information.

I just looked at the sources in @yacob_reyes’ “fact check” for @PolitiFact. He didn’t even acknowledge that I emailed him.

He made the conscious decision to ignore me.

I know for certain that he saw my response because he shared it with one of his colleagues. pic.twitter.com/kRlUR265ef

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

Redfern took to social media to make it very clear that Reyes the “fact checker” excluded a ton of relevant “facts” that he simply didn’t like because he wanted a “false” label to kill the story and support the narrative. Redfern also torches the CDC study Reyes used as his main supporting evidence for the “false” label.

Hey @yacob_reyes,

I spent some time sending you up quite a few controlled trials about the [in]effectiveness of masks for preventing viral spread.

Why didn’t you include any of them in your fact check? https://t.co/1FimgkEnRo

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

I mean, I gave you the links. pic.twitter.com/nnsJPSR3JX

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

Also, let’s go over the data used in the CDC’s recent study referenced in the “fact check” that found this preposterous result… pic.twitter.com/PxVb38a06s

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

First off, the cloth mask showed no statistically significant difference.

Having a 56% lower odds not be statistically significant should be a clear warning about what’s going on here. pic.twitter.com/epog5EZIDh

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

The study design wasn’t a bad idea (test-negative case-control), but it is a phone interview, which isn’t the best way to gauge people’s actual behavior.

And not many people answered the phone, either.

Oof. pic.twitter.com/t7bP6F9ikN

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

But here’s the real issue that stood out for me with the study design. 77.9% of those testing positive were tested because they had symptoms. Only 16.7% negative tested because they had symptoms.

So, what does this study really tell us? pic.twitter.com/5AdfyOF1qr

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

Well, it tells us that people with symptoms are more likely to get tested, and that people that wear masks are more likely to get tested for other reasons.

This study would be far more useful if it was 1:1 for those that tested positive or negative based on symptoms.

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

Moral of the story – always read the data. Don’t just pay attention to science-ee looking pictures posted on Twitter.

And definitely don’t take the “fact checkers” “facts” as actual facts, because they have no idea what they’re talking about.

— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) March 5, 2022

Reyes wanted to rate it false, so he only used the “facts” that would support a “false” rating, he simply ignored all the evidence that didn’t support that “false” rating, and he conveniently excluded relevant context that would have undermined even those “facts” that appeared to support the “false” rating.

The “fact checker” literally doesn’t even care about the actual facts.

But what’s new.