MESSAGE
| DATE | 2020-11-19 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Masking Mandates
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/healthcoronavirus-facemasks/update-1-danish-study-finds-face-masks-provide-limited-protection-to-wearer-idUSL1N2I41IL
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - A Danish study released on Wednesday found face
masks provide the wearer with only limited protection against COVID-19
infection, but said this should not be used to argue against their
widespread use to prevent people infecting others.
In the study, which was carried out in April and May when Danish
authorities did not recommend wearing face masks, 6,024 adults were
divided into two groups, one wearing face masks and one control group.
After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected,
while 2.1% of the people in the control group had tested positive,
Copenhagen University Hospital said in a press release.
“The study does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of
infection for people wearing face masks,” it said. “The results could
indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20%, however, the
study could not rule out that face masks do not provide any protection.”
The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have
long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing
it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is
infected, even when showing no symptoms. Preventing the spread to others
is known as source control.
The study’s findings “should not be used to conclude that a
recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be
effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not
test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the
authors wrote.
https://thenewamerican.com/more-covid-censorship-controversial-danish-mask-study-hits-publication-blockade/
More COVID Censorship: Controversial Danish Mask Study Hits Publication
Blockade - The New American
10-12 minutes
More COVID Censorship: Controversial Danish Mask Study Hits Publication
Blockade
svetikd/iStock/Getty Images Plus
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.
One would think, in normal times, that this result would mean the study
is flawed in some way. But these are not normal times. Instead, today
ideology trumps truth and facts, if they undermine the prevailing
propaganda, are secondary to fiction.
While we don’t know what the study found, it seems probable that the
results of the study do not support the mask mandates; the human-dignity
destroying policies that have become articles of faith to leftist
progressive tyrants who delight in enforcing subservience to the state.
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 Lancet, JAMA, 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.”
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.
— Alex Berenson (-at-AlexBerenson) October 22, 2020
Earlier, Berenson had a revealing e-mail exchange with one of the
scientists who worked on the Danish mask study. Berenson asked the
researcher when the study would be published. According to Berenson,
“His answer: ‘as soon as a journal is brave enough.’”
A lead investigator on the Danish mask study – the ONLY (as far as I
know) randomized trial to see if masks protect from #COVID – was asked
when it would be published.
His answer: “as soon as a journal is brave enough.”
If you think that means the study shows masks work…
pic.twitter.com/tm5PFBa5TL
— Alex Berenson (-at-AlexBerenson) October 18, 2020
Again, we don’t know what this study concluded, so a rush to judgement
should be avoided. But one Twitter user replying to Berenson’s tweets
offered this perceptive comment: “The journal editors’ refusal to
publish this study is an accurate proxy for a study conclusion that
masks didn’t prevent spread of the rona,” said Twitter user “Jon A.” The
user continued: “Everyone knows they would quickly publish an RCT
concluding masks effectively prevent spreading.”
The journal editors' refusal to publish this study is an accurate
proxy for a study conclusion that masks didn't prevent spread of the rona.
Everyone knows they would quickly publish an RCT concluding masks
effectively prevent spreading.
Censors always tip their hand.
— Jon A (-at-Is2020_OverYet) October 18, 2020
Some scientists, though, stating that they’ve reviewed the methodology
of the Danish study, concluded that it was “underpowered.” Noah Haber
and Sarah Wieten, postdoctoral fellows at Stanford, and Emily R. Smith,
assistant professor of the departments of global health and of exercise
and nutrition sciences at Milken Institute School of Public Health,
George Washington University, offered a critique of the Danish
researcher’s approach to the study, writing: “The trial is … severely
underpowered based on the effect size assumption in the protocol,
exacerbated by the low incidence of COVID-19 in Denmark.”
“In sum,” they wrote, “this study has a number of critical design
limitations which lead it to being biased toward the null and
underpowered to answer the question of interest as stated by the
investigators.”
For reference, the methods used by the authors are detailed at PubMed.
According to the Danish researchers:
This study will be a two-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled
trial. We will include adults (>18 years of age) without prior confirmed
COVID-19 or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, who spend more than three
hours per day outside the home with exposure to other people. A total of
6,000 participants are randomly assigned 1:1 to use face masks or not
for a 30-day period during the pandemic. Participants will perform
self-testing; quick test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (immunoglobulin M
(IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG)) (the Livzon lateral flow test) and
oropharyngeal/nasal swabs for viral detection using polymerase chain
reaction (PCR). The primary endpoint following the 30-day study period
is the difference in the number of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals
between the two study groups as assessed by a positive nasopharyngeal
swab, a positive antibody test or a hospital-based diagnosis of
SARS-CoV-2 infection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32829745/
This is a very straightforward approach, one that is likely to provide
insightful information. So why the upfront criticism from some scientists?
In their letter criticizing the Danish methodology, Haber, Wieten, and
Smith write: “This study poses a serious risk of mistranslation, in part
due to misleading statements about what the study actually measures in
the protocol paper and trial registration. To most decision-makers, null
or too-small effects will be misinterpreted to mean that masks are
ineffective. However, the more accurate translation is that this study
is uninformative regarding the benefits (or lack thereof) of wearing
masks outside of the healthcare setting. As such, we caution
decision-makers and the media from interpreting the results of this
trial as being anything other than artifacts of weak design.”
In other words: 1. “Decision-makers” can’t be trusted to understand the
results. 2. “Decision-makers and the media” should not report on the
results of this study in any way that deviates from our dogma.
The way science should work is that this paper should be published. The
full methods used should be published alongside the results in
transparent fashion. Other researchers can then investigate the methods
and results and repeat the work to either fortify or falsify the
original research findings. Meanwhile, the findings can be weighed and
utilized by free citizens and professionals alike.
This is how knowledge progresses.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
