Danish Largest Mask Study Refused Entry Into "scientific Journals"

[TheSir]

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 manipulatu us, and was not used, for example in spring, when masks, as we remember, did not work.

I recall they were already talking about this point in the beginning of the pandemic. Wearing the mask was never about protecting yourself, but limiting the spread of aerosols.

 

[Drareg]

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?

Yes but when add up the multitude of previous studies on masks we get a general picture, the kind of cloth masks been worn are redundant. We have seen cases rise just as much since mandatory mask legislation was passed. If masks worked they would have been encouraged them every prior flu season for the elderly and vulnerable.
Outside of N95 masks they are redundant.

Eli lilly’s studies on SSRI’s improved mood, we have highlighted on here why in some cases this effect occurred, allopregnanolone increases as a side effect in some anti depressants.

The chain store owner who’s business is impacted would be impacted far greater if people were dying from covid in the millions as predicted, his labor costs would increase, I’m sure he realizes this. This is why many businesses complied and approved the restrictions at the start. It’s clear now this is a bad flu season that does not merit the authoritarian legislation being carried out.

 

[Drareg]

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.

Ask them why we never wore masks every flu season, ask them why the medical establishment don’t wear masks every flu season, why care home staff never wore them until covid turned up, the reason is they do little to nothing, since they have been mandated by law to be worn cases continue to rise.

 

[Drareg]

This is the studies author being interviewed, he says you should still wear masks along with other measures like social distancing etc He says masks don’t protect you as much as they protect others from you, as pointed out in the interview he didn’t test this hypothesis in the study, it’s tokenism, he has no choice to say this or face being canceled.
He is obviously conscious of how much this has triggered the ruling class, words are useful for diplomacy or fear of cancelation however the numbers don’t lie.

 

[Giraffe]

The WHO published a new paper on masks:

Mask use in the context of COVID-19

Evidence on the protective effect of mask use in community settings

At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75).

 

[Drareg]

The WHO published a new paper on masks:

Mask use in the context of COVID-19

Their papers are always tinged with guidance on how to apply rules, basically the use of propaganda.
They need to be disbanded, no accountability whatsoever just like the UN, their intrusion into our lives is unprecedented, we do not get a say on any of these measures be it covid or immigration.

 

[ecstatichamster]

it is very unusual for a study author for something this controversial to say "masks don't work" or the like. I see this in lots of studies with a politically correct conclusory paragraph and abstract even though the actual content of the study blows up the establishment narrative. It's how these investigators have to tread softly or they will lose their funding, get destroyed on Twitter and end up on the wrong side of some "harrassment" law suit out of nowhere.

 

[managing]

it is very unusual for a study author for something this controversial to say "masks don't work" or the like. I see this in lots of studies with a politically correct conclusory paragraph and abstract even though the actual content of the study blows up the establishment narrative. It's how these investigators have to tread softly or they will lose their funding, get destroyed on Twitter and end up on the wrong side of some "harrassment" law suit out of nowhere.

Actually, it is customary in scientific publications to identify potential limitations and needs for future research. Scientific integrity dictates making the least sweeping conclusions justifiable by the evidence. This is a pretty standard thing and does not seem to me to be hedging due to litigation fear (which is not very strong most places outside the US anyway).

 

[Drareg]

it is very unusual for a study author for something this controversial to say "masks don't work" or the like. I see this in lots of studies with a politically correct conclusory paragraph and abstract even though the actual content of the study blows up the establishment narrative. It's how these investigators have to tread softly or they will lose their funding, get destroyed on Twitter and end up on the wrong side of some "harrassment" law suit out of nowhere.

The WHO‘s agenda isn’t "scientific", view their papers through a policy enforcement lens and they become clearer.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Actually, it is customary in scientific publications to identify potential limitations and needs for future research. Scientific integrity dictates making the least sweeping conclusions justifiable by the evidence. This is a pretty standard thing and does not seem to me to be hedging due to litigation fear (which is not very strong most places outside the US anyway).

yes this is so. But I see plenty of backing off of the conclusion in the conclusion, and in the abstract in order to protect themselves because few people read what's between the two.

 

[Giraffe]

it is very unusual for a study author for something this controversial to say "masks don't work" or the like. I see this in lots of studies with a politically correct conclusory paragraph and abstract even though the actual content of the study blows up the establishment narrative. It's how these investigators have to tread softly or they will lose their funding, get destroyed on Twitter and end up on the wrong side of some "harrassment" law suit out of nowhere.

Sadly, you see this even in Cochrane studies.