Clinical Study About Mask Is Being Censored Because Of It’s Results
Author, former New York Times reporter, now independent journalist Alex Berenson has uncovered a clinical study on masks that is being censored.
Berenson had become aware of a Danish study clinical study that medical journals are refusing to publish,
“The Danish study is the most important research on masks,” wrote Bereson. “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.”
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 (@AlexBerenson) October 22, 2020
Berenson was able to confirm that the study was legitimate and spoke with the lead investigator, Thomas Lars Benfield.
When asked when the study would be published the Benfield answered, “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 (@AlexBerenson) October 18, 2020
Three of the world’s top leading medical journals refuse to publish the report.
“They all said no,” said Christian Torp-Pedersen, chief physician at North Zealand Hospital’s research department, who was involved in the study. “We cannot start discussing what they are dissatisfied with because, in that case, we must also explain what the study showed, and we do not want to discuss that until it is published.”
Benfield walked his comments back slightly.
“The quote [is] a bit out of context. The article is being reviewed by a respected journal. We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted.”
However, Torp-Pedersen agreed with Benfield’s initial comment, saying that he “might also have dared to go as far as Benfield.”
“That’s how I want to interpret it, too,” Torp-Pedersen responded when asked if the rejection by the journals means the results are “controversial” to some.
“Can one interpret a controversial research result in the sense that no significant effect of mask use is demonstrated in your study?” Torp-Pedersen was asked.
“I think that’s a very relevant question you are asking,” he responded.
Berenson got a hold of the study and reviewed it, he said it was very well done but shows masks are not useful.
Btw: the study is really simple and well-designed and has clear endpoints. It’s exactly what a scientific trial should be. I can’t imagine what objections there might be.
Except to the results.
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) October 22, 2020
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 (@AlexBerenson) October 22, 2020
