Unfortunately I think Ben has made a severe error in interpreting the data in this study (link: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm ). This study is based on surveys given to volunteer respondents who both 1) had a covid-19 test, and 2) reported that they were symptomatic at the time they had the test. Presumably all subjects were given the same study. The results where then divided into two groups those subjects who actually had a positive test (154) and those subjects who actually had a negative test (160). The mask question related to the subjects' behavior 14 days prior to the onset of symptoms. In the group who had a positive test, the self reported rate of mask wearing was: Never - 4%, Rarely - 4%, Sometimes - 7%, Often - 14%, Always - 71%; and the mask wearing rate for the negative test cohort was: Never - 3%, Rarely - 4%, Sometimes - 4%, Often - 15%, Always - 74%. Now, the interesting thing is that these two distributions are essentially identical, positive group having a slightly higher frequency of responding "Sometimes" and a slightly lower frequency of responding "Never". That observation, combined with the more substantial difference in the two groups' responses to having visited restaurants and even more so having had contact with a family member with COVID, indicates mask wearing behavior is much less predictive of a positive or negative case in situation* than is going to restaurants and being exposed to COVID positive individuals. However to say that this data means "wearing a face mask makes you more likely to contract the virus," or "those who rarely wear a mask or didn't wear one at all had a much lower percentage of infection than those who either always wore a mask or often wear a mask" is just wantonly fallacious! BOTH populations reported by and large to ofter or always wearing a mask! I'm sorry to say that while Ben may be a smart guy, he has completely failed to properly read these tables. * It is also important to note that when evaluating the efficacy of masks, this data is largely irrelevant because ALL of the subjects had some cold or flu like symptoms that motivated them to get a a COVID test. To whatever extent masks are either effective or ineffective, they aren't discriminatory! So, everybody in this study caught something (although allergies could also be involved). If you want to look at efficacy of masks you would have to look at populations that had the same exposure but exhibited different mask wearing behavior and compare their outcomes (did or did not contract COVID). I think mask efficacy is dubious. I think mandates are wrong. I think social media banning content they don't like is bad for society. I think Ben is absolutely correct that science isn't a religion, we don't get to pick and chose the results that we like, or because they are in line with dogma. However, even good scientists can make mistakes, and good commentators and content creators can make mistakes. When we make mistakes we correct them and retract the publications that were in error. And given that I hope that Ben retracts this video!