26 October 2020

MASK STUDY CENSORED [double-blind authentic randomized]

that’s why it’s being censored, but see the study at article end

More COVID Censorship: Controversial Danish Mask Study Hits Publication Blockade

*Dr. Anthony Fauci Opposes Controlled Study on Effectiveness of Masks"

Amid the rush to force everyone to wear face masks to “stop the spread” of the coronavirus, very few people stopped to ask if there was any actual data to support that demand. Anthony Fauci, the joyless worrywart in FEDGOV’s health apparat who demands that anything remotely enjoyable be forbidden forthwith, went so far as to say that there was no need for any scientific study of mask effectiveness. 

“I would not want to do a randomized controlled study because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better,” said Fauci according to a Breitbart report in July.

He also said, on the subject of randomized controlled studies of mask effectiveness: “Right now, I’m convinced enough in the summation and totality of the data that has been analyzed by meta-analysis that I’m convinced that the benefit of wearing a mask clearly is there and is better than not wearing a mask.”

This from the same man who in the past dismissed the findings of meta-analyses and observational studies of hydroxychloroquine as non-scientific. In those cases, Fauci has claimed, only randomized controlled studies should be considered because they are “the gold standard.”

Apparently, not when it comes to masks, however. This is more hypocrite than Hippocrates.

Pesky scientists in Denmark, not persuaded by Fauci’s fulminations and flip-flops, went ahead and performed a randomized controlled study of masks for themselves to see how well they might work at thwarting the virus.

The results, now, are in. But we can’t see them because establishment-connected peer-reviewed journals won’t publish the results. 

This was revealed on October 22 by the major Danish newspaper Berlingske. The paper’s headline: “Professor: Large Danish mask study rejected by three top journals.” In its subtitle to the story, the paper wrote: “The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as ‘controversial.’”

The full article, in Danish, is behind a paywall. But the article starts this way (via Google Translate): 

For weeks, media and researchers around the world have been waiting with increasing impatience for the publication of a large Danish study on the effect — or lack thereof — of wearing a bandage [mask] in public space here during the corona pandemic.

Now one of the researchers who has been involved in the study can state that the finished research result has been rejected by at least three of the world’s absolutely leading medical journals.


This point was made on Twitter by Copenhagen-based economist Lars Christensen. A senior fellow at London’s Adam Smith Institute and former head of emerging markets research at Danske Bank in Copenhagen, Christensen noted that the journals in question — The LancetJAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine — refused publication of the study “Apparently because the results might not show what is politically correct.”

As Daniel Horowitz noted for The Blaze, “Dr. Andrew Bostom of Brown University posted a translation of the text he obtained” of the Berlingske article. Much there is revealing, including the revelation that another peer-reviewed journal is considering publication of the study. But the translation reveals important facts about the study.

“The study was initiated at the end of April after a grant of five million kroner [around $800,000] from the Salling Foundations. It involved as many as 6,000 Danes, half of whom had to wear masks in the public space over a long period of time. The other half was the control group. A large part of the test participants were employees of Salling Groups supermarkets…. The study and its size are unique in the world, and the purpose was once and for all to try to clarify the extent to which the use of masks in public space provides protection against corona infection.”

Former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson has been active throughout the COVID pandemic on Twitter calling out and counteracting the mainstream fearmongering pandemic propaganda. On the matter of the Danish mask study, he wrote, “To be clear: The Danish study is the most important research on masks. If it shows they don’t work, we need to know, so we can try other solutions. If it shows they’re harmful, we need to know, SO WE DON’T TELL PEOPLE TO WEAR THEM. POLITICS CANNOT HOLD HEALTH HOSTAGE. PUBLISH.”

Source: https://thenewamerican.com/more-covid-censorship-controversial-danish-mask-study-hits-publication-blockade/

See Also:  https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/10/23/latest-news-171/

See Also: *https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/16/dr-anthony-fauci-opposes-controlled-study-effectiveness-masks/


Antiviral Face Masks for the Prevention of Influenza Infection: a Meta-analysis

Shuya Takahashi, MD,Machi Suka, MD, PhD,and Hiroyuki Yanagisawa, MD, PhD2

National Hospital Organization Disaster Medical Center
Department of Public Health and Environmental Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine

Objective: We performed a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of face masks for preventing influenza infection.

Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify clinical trials that compared the incidence of influenza infection among family members with and without the use of antiviral face masks; some trials also contained the use of hand hygiene in the intervention group. Data from each trial were combined using a random effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: The meta-analysis included seven randomized controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria. With the use of antiviral face masks, the pooled ORs (95% CIs) of laboratory proven infection were 0.69 (0.222.18). The pooled ORs (95% CIs) of influenza-like illness (ILI) were 1.07 (0.651.78). With the use of antiviral face masks and concomitant hand hygiene, the pooled ORs (95% CIs) of laboratory proven infection were 0.70 (0.351.39) in early intervention cases, and 0.93 (0.661.30) in all cases. The pooled ORs (95% CIs) of ILI were 1.01 (0.472.19) in early intervention cases, and 1.06 (0.532.13) in all cases.

Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were detected in the incidence of influenza infection by wearing antiviral face masks, suggesting that distribution of face masks in primary care settings may not be enough to prevent influenza-like illnesses amongst family members.

Keywords: face masks, influenza, prevention, meta-analysis

Author for correspondence: Shuya Takahashi MD
National Hospital Organization Disaster Medical Center, 3256 Midori-cho, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-0014, Japan E-mail: shuyat
Received for publication 22 August 2013 and accepted in revised form 30 October 2014
© 2014 The Japan Primary Care Association

SOURCE: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.14442/general.15.126


As if this is not enough:

[…] Researchers had asked patients to cough five times into a petri dish without wearing a mask, while wearing a disposable surgical mask, while wearing a reusable cotton mask and again without wearing a mask. Specimens from the outer surface and inner surfaces of the masks were collected via an aseptic swab.

Bae and colleagues had written at baseline, the patients’ median viral load of the nasopharyngeal sample was 5.66 log copies/mL and of the saliva samples was 4 log copies/mL.  According to researchers, after coughing, the patients’ median viral load without a mask was 2.56 log copies/mL, with a surgical mask was 2.42 log copies/mL and with a cotton mask was 1.85 log copies/mL. While most swabs from the inner mask surfaces were negative for SARS-CoV-2, all the swabs from the outer surfaces of the masks were positive for SARS-CoV-2, researchers had stated.

“We are not sure as to whether the masks shortened the distance of viral particle transmission,” Sung-Han Kim, MD, PhD, chief of the office for infection control at Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea, and a co-author of the Annals of Internal Medicine report, said in an interview in advance of the Healio’s coverage on Bae and colleagues’ research letter. 

“Further studies are needed for cotton and surgical masks’ use in routine activities such as talking. Masks with high filtration efficiencies should also be tested in this regard,” Kim continued. He had also noted that the protective effect of N95 respirators or their equivalent are “likely the strongest,” but further research should be conducted to test this assertion. – by Janel Miller

Reference: Bae S, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;doi:10.7326/M20-1342.

Source: https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200420/small-study-questions-efficacy-of-cotton-surgical-masks-at-stopping-spread-of-sarscov2

1 comment:

  1. Common sense alone tells us that the masks are really useless, especially at this point after so many months, and even harmful to the wearer. This is part of 'their' game to see how the people will react to being controlled. It's all about the takeover of humanity and to control it. Intelligent people know this. These are the same souls (either descendants and/or reincarnations) of 75+ years ago. (the yellow star?) who are propagandizing this. FEAR is the number one way to control and they need a vaccine to implement that because who knows what they want to put in it, H' Yerachem.


Please use a blog name, if you have none, make one up. This will cut down on spammers and rude disrespectful comments.