Skip to main content may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Why Is Big Tech Desperately Trying To Censor The Danish Mask Medical Study? The Truth Explained…


Here’s a good rule you can start to live by….

Whenever Big Tech has their panties in a wad trying to desperately trying to censor a story, you can pretty much assume it’s because it’s TRUE!

Double points when they start to pump out a bunch of “Fact Check” articles about it.

Why does it seem like everything the Left does backfires?

Because lies and deception can never win.

Americans know when they’re being lied to.

And with every “Fact Check” and every “censor” and ever “ban” and “shadow ban” it just tells us our aim is right perfectly over the target.

The latest?

The new Danish Mask Study that was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, viewable at

Screenshot in case they delete it:

Here’s a quick summary of the study:

Twitter blocked Jack Dorsey for even talking about it:

But the study concluded, in laymans terms, “masks don’t do a damned thing”.

Take a look:

“Statistically insignificant”:

Sure enough:

From the Washington Times:

Those calling on President Trump and others to listen to the scientists on the coronavirus may not necessarily mean all the science, as the release of a highly anticipated Danish trial on the efficacy of masks suggests.

Debate is raging over the randomized study published Wednesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine that found that coronavirus infection rates were nearly the same among those who were told to wear masks and those who were not.

At the same time, researchers did not examine whether the masks protected others from catching the virus, and stressed that the findings should not be construed as concluding that mask-wearing recommendations are ineffective in reducing the spread of COVID-19.

“Our trial of more than 6,000 participants here in Denmark found similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those who did and those who did not receive a recommendation to wear a surgical face mask when outside the home,” said Henning Bundgaard, the study’s lead author and University of Copenhagen, in a video.

He cautioned that “our study does not address the effectiveness of widespread mask use for preventing the spread of infection from those infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

Such warnings did little to squelch the enthusiasm of the critics of economic lockdowns, school closures and mask mandates — in other words, those frequently derided as “anti-science” — who trumpeted the findings in a “take-that” moment.

“What we should take away is that masks are basically useless as a protective measure,” said Alex Berenson, author of “Unreported Truths About COVID-19 and Lockdowns,” and a leader of the so-called Covid contrarian camp.

“There’s just no evidence that masks protect the wearer,” Mr. Berenson said on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.” “Now, we can discuss this other issue of source control, we can discuss ‘my mask protects you’ — there’s not very good evidence for that, but that’s much harder to test in a big randomized trial.”

The results also flew in the face of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which said for the first time in a scientific bulletin posted Nov. 10 that wearing masks may protect the wearers as well as those with whom they come into contact.

Where are all the “listen to science” people now?

Oh right, censoring science.

Because it doesn’t fit their world view.  Or agenda.

That’s not science.

That’s called “scientism”.

Big difference.

From the ACP Journal study itself:



Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.


To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers’ risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.


Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). ( NCT04337541)


Denmark, April and May 2020.


Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use.


Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use.


The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses.


A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.


Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.


The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!
Send this to a friend