Danish Largest Mask Study Refused Entry Into "scientific Journals"

[Drareg]

Just when you think the censoring couldn’t stoop lower this has made the front page of a Danish newspaper, it will going out tomorrow and I will post the link then, it’s in Danish. For now here’s a twitter link-https://twitter.com/MaMoMVPY/status/1319002978146263040

Basically the usual suspects of "independent scientific" journals are refusing to publish a study on masks and their effectiveness , I’m guessing it doesn’t fit the narrative of the covid cult so it’s canceled.

2020 has really brought authoritarianism into full view, many people wouldn’t have experienced such outright authoritarianism in their lifetimes in the west, it was always subtle but now it’s outright censoring to push an agenda, mainly the disease that is wokism.
This is the second case of blatant authoritarian censorship in 1 week!

The journals are: The Lancet, JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine.

@haidut

 

[R J]

Ahaha

 

[TheSir]

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
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
Medical Masks provide little protection against respiratory aerosols
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf
Cloth masks increase risk of infection
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

 

[Drareg]

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

The global ruling class have decided your post is wrong and "unscientific", science is no longer necessary to prove something is unscientific, the ruling class will now decide what is "constructed" socially.
You have been reported for "critical thinking" this is now categorized as mental illness, please revert to parroting or face prosecution.

 

[TheSir]

The global ruling class have decided your post is wrong and "unscientific", science is no longer necessary to prove something is unscientific, the ruling class will now decide what is "constructed" socially.
You have been reported for "critical thinking" this is now categorized as mental illness, please revert to parroting or face prosecution.

I-i thought I was among friends...

 

[haidut]

Just when you think the censoring couldn’t stoop lower this has made the front page of a Danish newspaper, it will going out tomorrow and I will post the link then, it’s in Danish. For now here’s a twitter link-https://twitter.com/MaMoMVPY/status/1319002978146263040

Basically the usual suspects of "independent scientific" journals are refusing to publish a study on masks and their effectiveness , I’m guessing it doesn’t fit the narrative of the covid cult so it’s canceled.

2020 has really brought authoritarianism into full view, many people wouldn’t have experienced such outright authoritarianism in their lifetimes in the west, it was always subtle but now it’s outright censoring to push an agenda, mainly the disease that is wokism.
This is the second case of blatant authoritarian censorship in 1 week!

The journals are: The Lancet, JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine.

@haidut

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".

 

[charlie]

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. So many lost decades of advancement. Imagine if the scientific journals were truly free.

 

[d1d2]

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...

What do you think of approaching the Institute of Venture Science that Dr. Pollack founded?
The Institute for Venture Science (IVS) – Break Through

 

[haidut]

What do you think of approaching the Institute of Venture Science that Dr. Pollack founded?
The Institute for Venture Science (IVS) – Break Through

Thanks. That is an option if all else fails, but I think I will be able to publish it in one of the less "established" journals run by MDPI.com or www.frontiersin.org. Even those are now asking for a repeat of the results by an independent lab different from the first one that did the original study. So, I will have to do it again but at the end it may be for the best because the results will be that much more difficult to dispute.

 

[haidut]

Incredible. So many lost decades of advancement. Imagine if the scientific journals were truly free.

Agreed. Actually some of them are free in terms of fees for publishing. Even for the non-free ones, the biggest hurdle is not the "entrance" fee but the review committee. Most of them are establishment people who worked (or continue to work) for Big Pharma, sit on the board of some big company or international medical organization, etc. When I looked up the names of some of the people who gave me back the "not established science" comments, ALL of them had publications on castration therapy for prostate cancer. I am amazed that there is apparently no rule that selects peer-review committee members in such a way as to prevent such obvious conflict of interest. I mean, maybe I am too cynical, but I find it hard to believe that these people will allow a study to be published in their own journal if that study calls into question some of their most cited/famous publications.

 

[Recoen]

Agreed. Actually some of them are free in terms of fees for publishing. Even for the non-free ones, the biggest hurdle is not the "entrance" fee but the review committee. Most of them are establishment people who worked (or continue to work) for Big Pharma, sit on the board of some big company or international medical organization, etc. When I looked up the names of some of the people who gave me back the "not established science" comments, ALL of them had publications on castration therapy for prostate cancer. I am amazed that there is apparently no rule that selects peer-review committee members in such a way as to prevent such obvious conflict of interest. I mean, maybe I am too cynical, but I find it hard to believe that these people will allow a study to be published in their own journal if that study calls into question some of their most cited/famous publications.

I know you can’t give specifics, but any thoughts on using DHT for an “unusual” penile squamous cell carcinoma in a rat?
Do you by chance know the dosing the woman you mentioned with S4 lung cancer used of pyrucet? On a rat would pyrucet be more effective locally directly on the protruding tumor?

 

[R J]

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".

So how did DHT get the blame? Isn’t the original anabolic/androgenic rating of steroids based on muscle
vs. prostate size in animals given these hormones? So maybe prostate hypertrophy got conflated with tumor growth somehow? What even is the premise of androgen deprivation therapy even based on?

 

[R J]

I know you can’t give specifics, but any thoughts on using DHT for an “unusual” penile squamous cell carcinoma in a rat?
Do you by chance know the dosing the woman you mentioned with S4 lung cancer used of pyrucet? On a rat would pyrucet be more effective locally directly on the protruding tumor?

Do you have link to re: pyrucet tumor

 

[haidut]

I know you can’t give specifics, but any thoughts on using DHT for an “unusual” penile squamous cell carcinoma in a rat?
Do you by chance know the dosing the woman you mentioned with S4 lung cancer used of pyrucet? On a rat would pyrucet be more effective locally directly on the protruding tumor?

I can't talk about specific conditions. All I can say is that given the recent post about SCC being driven by suppressed immunity topical steroids with known immuno-modulating effects such as progesterone and DHEA sound like a reasonable choice. Given the role of estrogen in suppressed immunity, an anti-estrogenic steroid may also be a good idea, but the exact treatment would be up to the patient and doctor.
Suppressed Immunity, Not Viruses (HPV), May Be The Cause Of (skin) Cancer
Immune Decline (Not Genetics) Causes Cancer And It Can Be Easily Fixed
Reducing Estrogen Synthesis Regenerates Thymus Destroyed By Aging

The woman with stage 4 lung cancer apparently takes 25 drops Pyrucet as a single daily dose. She said she cannot tolerate more as it makes her too hyper.

 

[haidut]

So how did DHT get the blame? Isn’t the original anabolic/androgenic rating of steroids based on muscle
vs. prostate size in animals given these hormones? So maybe prostate hypertrophy got conflated with tumor growth somehow? What even is the premise of androgen deprivation therapy even based on?

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]"

 

[R J]

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]"

This is all very interesting. The Wikipedia article actually says further down that DHT does not increase prostate size and that estrogen is necessary for prostate cancer. There’s a little typo in there about “estrogens, in addition to estrogens” are needed for prostate cancer, I think they meant to say androgens. I removed it and left just estrogens.

“It has been theorized that androstanolone may have less risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer than testosterone because it is not aromatized into estrogens.[39][40] This is relevant because estrogens, in addition to estrogens, are thought to possibly be necessary for the manifestation of these diseases.[39] In accordance, androstanolone has been found to not increase prostate gland size in men.[40]Conversely, due to lack of aromatization into estrogens, androstanolone therapy for androgen replacement may result in decreased bone mineral density, incomplete effects in the brain, and undesirable changes in cholesterol levels.[39]”

 

[Recoen]

I can't talk about specific conditions. All I can say is that given the recent post about SCC being driven by suppressed immunity topical steroids with known immuno-modulating effects such as progesterone and DHEA sound like a reasonable choice. Given the role of estrogen in suppressed immunity, an anti-estrogenic steroid may also be a good idea, but the exact treatment would be up to the patient and doctor.
Suppressed Immunity, Not Viruses (HPV), May Be The Cause Of (skin) Cancer
Immune Decline (Not Genetics) Causes Cancer And It Can Be Easily Fixed
Reducing Estrogen Synthesis Regenerates Thymus Destroyed By Aging

The woman with stage 4 lung cancer apparently takes 25 drops Pyrucet as a single daily dose. She said she cannot tolerate more as it makes her too hyper.

Thank you for your reply and your continued research!

 

[Recoen]

Do you have link to re: pyrucet tumor

@haidut discussed it in his recent conversation with Danny Roddy (#37) near the end about 2h 6m in. All of her tumors in her lungs have disappeared on imaging.

 

[Geronimo]

So how did DHT get the blame? Isn’t the original anabolic/androgenic rating of steroids based on muscle
vs. prostate size in animals given these hormones? So maybe prostate hypertrophy got conflated with tumor growth somehow? What even is the premise of androgen deprivation therapy even based on?

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.

 

[Vinny]

The global ruling class have decided your post is wrong and "unscientific", science is no longer necessary to prove something is unscientific, the ruling class will now decide what is "constructed" socially.
You have been reported for "critical thinking" this is now categorized as mental illness, please revert to parroting or face prosecution.