Danish Largest Mask Study Refused Entry Into "scientific Journals"

[R J]

Because basically every health recommendation by the medical establishment is the exact opposite of what is actually healthy. This drives profits and makes it almost impossible to switch an entire industry to the polar opposite of the previously established idea. They try to accomplish this as often as possible, and are most often successful, but not always. For example, antibiotics are too old and too effective to be suppressed at this point. They were established as an overwhelmingly effective allopathic treatment well before the entire industry was captured in Western cultures.
Pretty much every Peat recommendation such as high sugar and saturated fat is obviously true, and he's basically regarded as a heretic by the establishment. If the pharmaceutical-controlled industry gave good health recommendations, they'd be cannibalizing their own profits. It is the simple, obvious truth of the matter. I think we all know it. This is the most prevalent public expression of evil in our world and its right in our face every single day now with covid.

Its a clusterfu&k. What a joke. I’m trying not to be a useful idiot

 

[Geronimo]

Well whoever controls the biggest prestigious journals and colleges, licensing requirements, and manufacturing of allopathic treatments will ultimately control the consensus. To which extent one almalgamous "entity" controls these is up for debate, but it's definitely more than zero. I'm of the mind that it's closer to 100% at this point. It is by far the biggest industry and lobby in the world, and their tentacles reach very very far. There's very well documented history of all this being true. It's evidenced by the the complete failure of our public health education and medical care systems. Only the top fraction of a percent need to be perpetuating it. By no means do you need every doctor or even most deans or hospital executives in on it, considering you can't even legally practice medicine unless you abide by their rules.

 

[Drareg]

I-i thought I was among friends...

We’ve been co-opted via a globalist NGO, payed for activism....

 

[Drareg]

Doesn't surprise me the slightest bit. I experienced the censorship and abuse first-hand this past summer. As I mentioned on several of Danny's podcasts, I now conduct my own animal studies and one of the more controversial ones was with DHT treatment for prostate cancer. The animals who got no treatment essentially had their transplanted (human) prostate cancer stay almost static and without any growth for 2 months, which confirms what we know about prostate cancer - i.e. it is a very slowly developing one that most men can easily live with their entire remaining lives without even noticing.
The animals who got DHT treatment (HED of 0.15mg/kg daily, orally, dissolved in tocopherols) had their tumor completely disappear. I was thrilled and started contacting journals with the hope of publishing this. You know what the response was from every single one of the "reputable" ones? That the study is not only too "controversial" to publish but also that they refuse to publish results on a hypothesis that had only 2-3 studies as references backing it up!!! In other words, you cannot publish a study claiming DHT treats prostate cancer unless you can cite prior studies confirming this effect! Do you think you can find enough such references when all other studies claim DHT causes prostate cancer?? Also, why publish something if there is already a ton of prior studies with the same result??
In other words, nowadays you can only publish in mainstream scientific journals if what you are trying to publish is already "established science". If it contradicts established science, it cannot be published (at least not through the normal channels). That is what modern "science" has become - parroting back "established" (sanctioned) idiotisms. Anything new and controversial is immediately censored until either it cannot be concealed any longer or some sanctioned group is allowed to publish their "paradoxical" and "heroic" results ahead of yours (see the threads on testosterone and prostate cancer "paradox").
Considering the current state of affairs, I now think there is not only a "stagnation" in science but that there has not been any actual science since at least the 1960s. Virtually everything since then is nothing but sanctioned regurgitation of untested assumptions, often so nonsensical that no experiments had ever been done on them by any group and yet they are still accepted as established "science".

Incredible, now we know why it’s said we need to wait for them to die off.
Of course we know the biological reasons for the rigidity and authoritarianism of the defiant personas, imagine trying to explain to the parrots the biological reasons as to why they are psychopathic.

Developmental biology is a good area where they are using the backdoor to get around the rigidity of the establishment, they communicate in the dogmatic language of the current gospel while inserting the contradiction subtly , those with the eyes to see it will see.
Repackage the study with different language, a new story

 

[Drareg]

So now the "expert scientific" medical journals won’t publish science that is "controversial".
Lol, it says for weeks journalists and researchers around the world have been waiting for this specific study now it’s canceled because it’s not what ruling class want, they have removed the ball and are going home sulking, toys viciously been thrown from gilded prams.
It’s hilarious at this point, the WHO say stop lockdowns now a meta study says masks don’t work while countries start lockdowns again and fines for non mask compliance, the emperor isn’t just naked he’s also peeing in the wind upside down, the covid cult still think he is dressed wonderfully, maybe he needs to poo before they finally get it.

It’s behind a paywall, I’m sure it will be picked up in English somewhere, obviously not in the Chinese communist party propaganda outlet the New York Times.

Here it is-Professor: Stort dansk maskestudie afvist af tre top-tidsskrifter

Professor: Large Danish mask study rejected by three top journals

The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask 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'.
For weeks, the 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 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.

 

[Drareg]

This site has more on the study rejected-Lockdown Sceptics – Stay Sceptical. Control the Hysteria. Save Lives.
It looks like a really good study.

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

These include the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA.

“They all said no,” says the Chief Physician in the Research Department at North Zealand Hospital, Professor Christian Torp-Pedersen.

However, the Professor does not wish to disclose the journals’ reasoning.

“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,” explains Christian Torp-Pedersen.

The study was initiated at the end of April, following a grant of DKK 5m [£600,000] from the Salling Foundations [owner of the Salling Group, Denmark’s largest retailer]. It involved as many as 6,000 Danes, half of whom had to wear face masks in public over a long period of time. The other half was selected as the control group.

A large proportion of the test participants were employees of the Salling Group’s supermarkets: Bilka, Føtex and Netto.

The study and its size are unique, and the purpose was once and for all to try to clarify the extent to which the use of face masks in public spaces provides protection against coronavirus infections.

 

[Murtaza]

Well, I challenge you to find the "original sin" publication that defined the causal link between DHT and prostate cancer. There is no such study. It is all based on an assumption since, as you said, DHT increases prostate size. However, DHT (andractim) is actually approved as prostate hyperplasia treatment in several countries so we know even those findings on it causing enlarged prostate are likely bogus or species-specific and do not apply to humans.
You want to hear something else that is "established" dogma and funny/sad? I am sure you have heard hundred of times the claims that androgens like T, DHT, etc cannot be used orally as they are ineffective. Well, DHT was available primarily as an oral 10mg tablet formulation for decades and continues to be available as such in most countries where it is approved as a drug. Many/most medical dogmas are little more than just myths...often combined with outright stupidity and even fraud.
Androstanolone - Wikipedia
"...Androstanolone is available as a 2.5% hydroalcoholic gel given transdermally in doses of 5 or 10 g/day (brand name Andractim).[19] The medication was previously available as a 10 mg oral tablet with 300 mg L-lysine (brand name Lysinex) and as a 25 mg sublingual tablet (brand names Anabolex, Anaprotin, Anabolene, Anaboleen, Proteina).[34][35] The medication has also been marketed in the form of several androstanolone esters, including androstanolone benzoate (brand names Ermalone-Amp, Hermalone, Sarcosan), androstanolone enanthate (brand name Anaboleen Depot), androstanolone propionate (brand name Pesomax), and androstanolone valerate (brand name Apeton), which are provided as oil solutions for intramuscular injection at regular intervals.[36]"

do you know if these dht tablets still available?

 

[boris]

Great info! I hope this study will get more media coverage.


Came across something mask related recently:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
Out of 314 sick people 226 of them ALWAYS wore a mask two weeks before symptom onset. Of course this can mean all kinds of things, since the individuals seeked out to be part of the study on their own, but it surely doesn't support the effectiveness of masks. Nevertheless the CDC still recommends them at the end.

"Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance. Masks cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking." ....you don't say

 

[X3CyO]

Doesn't surprise me the slightest bit. I experienced the censorship and abuse first-hand this past summer. As I mentioned on several of Danny's podcasts, I now conduct my own animal studies and one of the more controversial ones was with DHT treatment for prostate cancer. The animals who got no treatment essentially had their transplanted (human) prostate cancer stay almost static and without any growth for 2 months, which confirms what we know about prostate cancer - i.e. it is a very slowly developing one that most men can easily live with their entire remaining lives without even noticing.
The animals who got DHT treatment (HED of 0.15mg/kg daily, orally, dissolved in tocopherols) had their tumor completely disappear. I was thrilled and started contacting journals with the hope of publishing this. You know what the response was from every single one of the "reputable" ones? That the study is not only too "controversial" to publish but also that they refuse to publish results on a hypothesis that had only 2-3 studies as references backing it up!!! In other words, you cannot publish a study claiming DHT treats prostate cancer unless you can cite prior studies confirming this effect! Do you think you can find enough such references when all other studies claim DHT causes prostate cancer?? Also, why publish something if there is already a ton of prior studies with the same result??
In other words, nowadays you can only publish in mainstream scientific journals if what you are trying to publish is already "established science". If it contradicts established science, it cannot be published (at least not through the normal channels). That is what modern "science" has become - parroting back "established" (sanctioned) idiotisms. Anything new and controversial is immediately censored until either it cannot be concealed any longer or some sanctioned group is allowed to publish their "paradoxical" and "heroic" results ahead of yours (see the threads on testosterone and prostate cancer "paradox").
Considering the current state of affairs, I now think there is not only a "stagnation" in science but that there has not been any actual science since at least the 1960s. Virtually everything since then is nothing but sanctioned regurgitation of untested assumptions, often so nonsensical that no experiments had ever been done on them by any group and yet they are still accepted as established "science".

Wow.
Power to you Haidut, I don't know how you can put up with the BS.

Sounds like the whole you need experience to get an entry level job thing all over again.

You should be paid and given the respect for the work. You'd have to pay to publish too yeah?

Theres fear; the fear that the easiest knowledge to learn and love is the truth, and everyones going to know everything.

have you looked into alternative open-source publishing with bitcoin donation?


Have you considered recording the whole experiment and time lapsing it as an abstract/preview to the paper?
I hope thats the future of vlogging. People should be able to see you doing the experiments with your crew.

I'd pay for that.

 

[Pablo Cruise]

After the beating to Drareg, god forbids he spouts unDemocratic gibberish again, may I add that HCQ as shown to be effective in later stages of Covid. Steve Smith MD in New Jersey, I believe, an infectious disease specialist (IDS) had 3 cases where patients responded to HCQ using the recommendations by the prominent French IDS whose name I forgot. Of course our trusty, objective, unbias CDC does not recommend HCQ so our hospital will not allow us use. Is there harm in using it? Not to my knowledge so why not use it? Because a certain politician recommended it and we must discredit him(?) no matter what, to the demise of the populace.

 

[Pablo Cruise]

"Doesn't surprise me the slightest bit. I experienced the censorship and abuse first-hand this past summer. As I mentioned on several of Danny's podcasts, I now conduct my own animal studies and one of the more controversial ones was with DHT treatment for prostate cancer. The animals who got no treatment essentially had their transplanted (human) prostate cancer stay almost static and without any growth for 2 months, which confirms what we know about prostate cancer - i.e. it is a very slowly developing one that most men can easily live with their entire remaining lives without even noticing.
The animals who got DHT treatment (HED of 0.15mg/kg daily, orally, dissolved in tocopherols) had their tumor completely disappear. I was thrilled and started contacting journals with the hope of publishing this. You know what the response was from every single one of the "reputable" ones? That the study is not only too "controversial" to publish but also that they refuse to publish results on a hypothesis that had only 2-3 studies as references backing it up!!! In other words, you cannot publish a study claiming DHT treats prostate cancer unless you can cite prior studies confirming this effect! Do you think you can find enough such references when all other studies claim DHT causes prostate cancer?? Also, why publish something if there is already a ton of prior studies with the same result??
In other words, nowadays you can only publish in mainstream scientific journals if what you are trying to publish is already "established science". If it contradicts established science, it cannot be published (at least not through the normal channels). That is what modern "science" has become - parroting back "established" (sanctioned) idiotisms. Anything new and controversial is immediately censored until either it cannot be concealed any longer or some sanctioned group is allowed to publish their "paradoxical" and "heroic" results ahead of yours (see the threads on testosterone and prostate cancer "paradox").
Considering the current state of affairs, I now think there is not only a "stagnation" in science but that there has not been any actual science since at least the 1960s. Virtually everything since then is nothing but sanctioned regurgitation of untested assumptions, often so nonsensical that no experiments had ever been done on them by any group and yet they are still accepted as established "science".

Quite a sad development and seems quite surely, science is losing its science to politics. The one thing we were taught was to follow the "literature" or studies and now our memory boxes are being closed and new thought essentially condemned. I suppose or would conclude "they" are being taught preferred or comfortable outcomes are more important than rocking the boat. We must all conform to popular thought.... I call it all political thought.

HERE for FTC mandated disclosure of material connection.
haidut, Wednesday at 7:16 PM ReportBookmark

 

[rei]

Doesn't surprise me the slightest bit. I experienced the censorship and abuse first-hand this past summer. As I mentioned on several of Danny's podcasts, I now conduct my own animal studies and one of the more controversial ones was with DHT treatment for prostate cancer. The animals who got no treatment essentially had their transplanted (human) prostate cancer stay almost static and without any growth for 2 months, which confirms what we know about prostate cancer - i.e. it is a very slowly developing one that most men can easily live with their entire remaining lives without even noticing.
The animals who got DHT treatment (HED of 0.15mg/kg daily, orally, dissolved in tocopherols) had their tumor completely disappear. I was thrilled and started contacting journals with the hope of publishing this. You know what the response was from every single one of the "reputable" ones? That the study is not only too "controversial" to publish but also that they refuse to publish results on a hypothesis that had only 2-3 studies as references backing it up!!! In other words, you cannot publish a study claiming DHT treats prostate cancer unless you can cite prior studies confirming this effect! Do you think you can find enough such references when all other studies claim DHT causes prostate cancer?? Also, why publish something if there is already a ton of prior studies with the same result??
In other words, nowadays you can only publish in mainstream scientific journals if what you are trying to publish is already "established science". If it contradicts established science, it cannot be published (at least not through the normal channels). That is what modern "science" has become - parroting back "established" (sanctioned) idiotisms. Anything new and controversial is immediately censored until either it cannot be concealed any longer or some sanctioned group is allowed to publish their "paradoxical" and "heroic" results ahead of yours (see the threads on testosterone and prostate cancer "paradox").
Considering the current state of affairs, I now think there is not only a "stagnation" in science but that there has not been any actual science since at least the 1960s. Virtually everything since then is nothing but sanctioned regurgitation of untested assumptions, often so nonsensical that no experiments had ever been done on them by any group and yet they are still accepted as established "science".

Are you sure it is pure corruption? Could this not also be seen as the "big wig" journals don't want to publish controversial topics because they want to be very conservative to the mainstream audience reading them? If you first publish in a smaller (maybe field-specific?) journal, use it as reference and then pitch it to them, don't you think they would publish it?

 

[Maljam]

@haidut do you have somewhere where we can look at the studies you have organized? I looked on your website and unless I missed them I couldn't see you had posted them.

 

[managing]

What I am getting from this thread is it is bad when big business, big government, big pharma, etc support, conduct, and fund research. It makes us suspicious of the results. I agree with this wholeheartedly. And it doesn't matter whether I like or agree with the results. They are suspect.

But then why, when research is supported, initiated, and sponsored by big business, a big business that clearly stands to gain from a particular outcome, do we cry foul when it is rejected by major journals.

I am just as skeptical of the journals themselves, but this seems very much like a double standard. We like big business and the medical industrial complex when it returns results we like?

 

[Drareg]

What I am getting from this thread is it is bad when big business, big government, big pharma, etc support, conduct, and fund research. It makes us suspicious of the results. I agree with this wholeheartedly. And it doesn't matter whether I like or agree with the results. They are suspect.

But then why, when research is supported, initiated, and sponsored by big business, a big business that clearly stands to gain from a particular outcome, do we cry foul when it is rejected by major journals.

I am just as skeptical of the journals themselves, but this seems very much like a double standard. We like big business and the medical industrial complex when it returns results we like?

It’s generalizations, of course there is good within the bad but the overall direction is tainted by profit and dogma. If more of the money was freed up to sponsor sincere scientific process we will have more answers, we are stuck within a paradigm of big big big begging for funding,most of them got big off the back of tax payers and then monopolize the process of "science" to maintain power.

 

[Peater]

Looking forward to developing my list further:

Masks provide no reduction of influenza-like illness; no difference between surgical/N95 mask
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 - Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis
No significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
N95 vs surgical mask: no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza
N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in Health Care Personnel
No conclusive relationship between mask use and protection against influenza
The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence
Face masks not shown to provide protection against colds
Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed
Medical Masks provide little protection against respiratory aerosols
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf
Cloth masks increase risk of infection
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

This list is brilliant, cheers Sir.

 

[Giraffe]

Looking forward to developing my list further:

Masks provide no reduction of influenza-like illness; no difference between surgical/N95 mask
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 - Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis
No significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
N95 vs surgical mask: no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza
N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in Health Care Personnel
No conclusive relationship between mask use and protection against influenza
The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence
Face masks not shown to provide protection against colds
Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed
Medical Masks provide little protection against respiratory aerosols
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf
Cloth masks increase risk of infection
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

This is probably the most comprehensive list:

Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.

 

[Drareg]

This is the study in question, 6000 people in the study, 50% wore masks and 50% did not, there is no significant difference in infection rates that merits the authoritarian legislation enacted by governments.
Mask wearing to limit covid is cult like behavior, how many more studies do we need at this point.
Keep in mind they were reluctant to publish this study and going by the wording they had to make adjustments to appease the medicinal tyrants.

This is the link, it’s in Danish for now-
Dansk studie om effekten af mundbind er nu offentliggjort


"The study of more than 6,000 Danes contributes new knowledge about the extent to which face masks protect the wearer against corona infection when the mask is used as a supplement to the authorities' other recommendations against corona infection - including social distance, hand hygiene and isolation of patients with COVID-19 .

In the DANMASK-19 study, one half of the participants were selected to wear a surgical face mask when they were outside the home, and the other half of the participants were not to wear a mask. All participants were strongly encouraged to follow all other authorities' recommendations regarding COVID-19.
Mask use outside the health care system was unusual (<5%) in Denmark at the time.

After one month of follow-up, 1.8% of the participants in the mask group and 2.1% of the participants in the control group had an infection. The study thus does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of infection of the wearer of the mouthpiece, but the results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20% - however, the study can not rule out that the mask does not protect the wearer.

Researchers from Copenhagen University Hospital recruited 6,024 adults who spent at least three hours a day outside their homes in a function that did not require the use of a mask. Participants should not have symptoms of COVID-19 or have previously had COVID-19. The participants came by lottery either in the mask group or in the control group, and the participants in the mask group were sent free surgical masks.


Participants conducted weekly questionnaire surveys. Nasal and pharyngeal inoculation and antibody testing (self-testing) were used to examine whether the participant had developed SARS-CoV-2- (corona) infection during the course. At the end of the experiment, there was no statically significant difference in infection rates between the two groups.

The study took place in April and May 2020. It must be emphasized that the Danish authorities at that time did not recommend the use of masks outside the health service, and the use of masks was only seen to a modest extent. Public transport and shops remained open while certain institutions and workplaces were closed, and the authorities' recommendations also included quarantine of people with COVID-19, social distance, limitation of contacts, frequent hand hygiene and cleaning and limited visitors to hospitals and nursing homes. . Restaurants and cafes were closed until May 18th.

According to the study's authors, the results show the degree of protection that mask wearers can expect when others are not wearing masks and where other general recommendations against COVID-19 were applicable.

It is emphasized that the study did not examine the function of the masks as a source control, ie. to limit infection from an infected person wearing a mask to others. The study also did not elucidate the effect of sanitary napkins in situations where it is not possible to maintain the social distance.
It should therefore be emphasized that these results cannot be used to raise doubts that the widespread use of masks outside of healthcare can be an effective means of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The editors of the prestigious journal Annals of Internal Medicine motivate their choice to publish the DANMASK-19 study by considering it a well-designed study that is an important piece in the puzzle of how to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the editors note that the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently updated their guidelines that when wearing masks by anyone, they can reduce the risk of infection through both source control and personal protection. They assess that the findings of the DANMASK-19 study do not comply with these guidelines, but that any contribution to risk reduction through personal protection is likely to be less than through source control.

Professor, chief physician, dr.med. Henning Bundgaard, Rigshospitalet, together with professor, chief physician, dr.med. Kasper Iversen, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, led the researchers behind the study".

 

[managing]

This is the study in question, 6000 people in the study, 50% wore masks and 50% did not, there is no significant difference in infection rates that merits the authoritarian legislation enacted by governments.
Mask wearing to limit covid is cult like behavior, how many more studies do we need at this point.
Keep in mind they were reluctant to publish this study and going by the wording they had to make adjustments to appease the medicinal tyrants.

This is the link, it’s in Danish for now-
Dansk studie om effekten af mundbind er nu offentliggjort


"The study of more than 6,000 Danes contributes new knowledge about the extent to which face masks protect the wearer against corona infection when the mask is used as a supplement to the authorities' other recommendations against corona infection - including social distance, hand hygiene and isolation of patients with COVID-19 .

In the DANMASK-19 study, one half of the participants were selected to wear a surgical face mask when they were outside the home, and the other half of the participants were not to wear a mask. All participants were strongly encouraged to follow all other authorities' recommendations regarding COVID-19.
Mask use outside the health care system was unusual (<5%) in Denmark at the time.

After one month of follow-up, 1.8% of the participants in the mask group and 2.1% of the participants in the control group had an infection. The study thus does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of infection of the wearer of the mouthpiece, but the results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20% - however, the study can not rule out that the mask does not protect the wearer.

Researchers from Copenhagen University Hospital recruited 6,024 adults who spent at least three hours a day outside their homes in a function that did not require the use of a mask. Participants should not have symptoms of COVID-19 or have previously had COVID-19. The participants came by lottery either in the mask group or in the control group, and the participants in the mask group were sent free surgical masks.


Participants conducted weekly questionnaire surveys. Nasal and pharyngeal inoculation and antibody testing (self-testing) were used to examine whether the participant had developed SARS-CoV-2- (corona) infection during the course. At the end of the experiment, there was no statically significant difference in infection rates between the two groups.

The study took place in April and May 2020. It must be emphasized that the Danish authorities at that time did not recommend the use of masks outside the health service, and the use of masks was only seen to a modest extent. Public transport and shops remained open while certain institutions and workplaces were closed, and the authorities' recommendations also included quarantine of people with COVID-19, social distance, limitation of contacts, frequent hand hygiene and cleaning and limited visitors to hospitals and nursing homes. . Restaurants and cafes were closed until May 18th.

According to the study's authors, the results show the degree of protection that mask wearers can expect when others are not wearing masks and where other general recommendations against COVID-19 were applicable.

It is emphasized that the study did not examine the function of the masks as a source control, ie. to limit infection from an infected person wearing a mask to others. The study also did not elucidate the effect of sanitary napkins in situations where it is not possible to maintain the social distance.
It should therefore be emphasized that these results cannot be used to raise doubts that the widespread use of masks outside of healthcare can be an effective means of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The editors of the prestigious journal Annals of Internal Medicine motivate their choice to publish the DANMASK-19 study by considering it a well-designed study that is an important piece in the puzzle of how to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the editors note that the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently updated their guidelines that when wearing masks by anyone, they can reduce the risk of infection through both source control and personal protection. They assess that the findings of the DANMASK-19 study do not comply with these guidelines, but that any contribution to risk reduction through personal protection is likely to be less than through source control.

Professor, chief physician, dr.med. Henning Bundgaard, Rigshospitalet, together with professor, chief physician, dr.med. Kasper Iversen, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, led the researchers behind the study".

Usually when a study is funded by a party with a vested interest we raise reasonable doubts on here.

If Eli Lilly funded a study, and the study concluded that raising serotonin improved mood, we would be all over the obvious conflict of interest.

When a chain store owner whose business has been impacted by restrictions funds a study and the outcome would benefit his business, we ignore this, because we like the results?

 

[Hazarlar]

One big argument of covid-cult and mask-virtue-signallers is that - masks don't protect you, but you protect others by wearing it. Actually I am baffled by this statement. It seems to be very fishy, but I don't have enough intellectual power to battle it. I am aware of all those main studies that masks don't work for general population and nowhere in proper scientific discussion did I find this bolded argument. This is completely new thing to manipulate us into, and was not used, for example in spring, when masks, as we remember, did not work. Taking this argument for granted, will easily justify mask mandate for every possible situation. And those who will not obey, can be treated as evil persons, by brainwashed lemmings.