I'm not saying that Alex Berenson is the best on this topic, I'm just saying that he's one of the top two, and he's not second.

Berenson has been waiting for this study for some time, and noted as recently as this week that if the study demonstrated that masks were effective, there wouldn't have been a delay.

He was right.

The Danish study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a well-regarded top-tier journal that I assume will be smeared shortly.

Remember this?

The Annals of Internal Medicine sure does. This is the wholly benign tweet they issued announcing the publishing of the study.

And this is the first line in the abstract.

"Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)."

Wow! It is suggested that wearing masks mitigates transmission of Covid. I guess we should all wear masks all the time everywhere now!

Wait, by how much does it mitigate it?

"1.8% got infected wearing masks, while 2.1% got infected not wearing masks."

That doesn't sound all that effectivy.

"Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."

You have to love the qualifier in the beginning of this sentence. Either the researchers very much wanted mask-wearing to be proven effective, or the only way they could get the study published was to add the qualifier, or they knew the blow-back they were going to get from the power brokers who are desperate to turn us all into faceless automatons.

But hey, the CI (confidence interval) suggests a uselessly wide range of possibilities.

Mask up, America!

Curiously, CNN's front page failed to mention this study. They probably just don't have room today. I'm sure had the study proven masks were effective, they would still not manage to find room for it, or lead every broadcast with the story.

They did seem to manage to find room for a story about how those awful Republican governors refused to implement a mask mandate that doesn't work.

"The most trusted name in news."

The study also found that,

"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."

Despite assertions to the contrary, we just don't know.

But let's jump to the end, and skip the mushy "mitigation" language the authors led with.

"In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation."

Still, they try their best to preserve the narrative.

"The findings, however, 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. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks."

Fair enough, but none of that "mitigates," to use their word, the results of the study, which as they note, unlike previous studies being used to justify mask mandates, is not "observational," which is just one rung up from "anecdotal" in the scientific study food chain.

My favorite take on this (so far!) comes from the New York Times, which gets the headline surprisingly right.

"Danish Study Questions Use of Masks to Protect Wearers"

And then just can't help themselves.

"Masks prevent people from transmitting the coronavirus to others, scientists now agree. But a new trial failed to document protection from the virus among the wearers."

"Scientists now agree." Except for this randomized controlled trial involving nearly 5,000 participants and spanning two months.

Because science is now a democracy, apparently.

I wonder if they used Dominion software.

"The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others."

Oh, well, if you say so I guess.

If it makes you feel any better, it's not just the New York times saying that, it's a government bureaucrat and life-long politician.

"Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, advocates a national mask mandate, as does President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr."

Rest easy, America, we're in good hands.