COVID-19

NEGLIBLE DIFFERENCE: New Danish Study Calls Into Question Face Mask Effectiveness

RESEARCHERS behind a large Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask are having great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating Professors admits that the result could be perceived as ‘controversial’.

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.

For weeks, the media and researchers around the world have been waiting with increasing impatience for the publication of the 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 3 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.

Alex Berenson a former reporter for The New York Times tweeted this out.

Well we now have an update there appears to be 1 medical journal that was brave enough to publish the study.

The DANMASK-19 trial, is now throwing a giant question mark upon restrictive mask mandates that have been implemented in so many countries.

According to the study, the unmasked control group had a 2.1% infection rate, while those who were told to wear a mask when not at home — only suffered a 1.8% infection rate. The difference is negligible — less than half of a percentage point separates the two extremes of mask-wearers and those who did not don the face coverings

Dr. Henning Bundgaard, a Cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen, the study’s lead author, put it bluntly.  Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” he told The New York Times “Not a lot.”

These results are narrative-shattering and clearly do not show the results that pro-maskers would have wished for.

ANALYSIS

I have previously reported upon the numerous health issues surrounding mask-wearing, yet we are constantly told by the politicians, their scientific advisors and the mainstream commentariat that masks are “safe and effective” and those refusing to comply are selfish, uncaring and putting lives at risk.

Will that narrative change now that the results are in? Or will this report be wilfully suppressed as the outcome does not fit the mainstream narrative?

Given the collective decision taken by these Medical Journals, I think we can safely assume the latter.

Sadly, this is not the first time the Lancet’s integrity has been called into question during the course of this “pandemic”.

 

Have these “respected medical journals” become “politically infected”?

I will leave that up to you to decide.

DISCLAIMER: This content is presented as opinion, any views expressed in this comment piece do not necessarily represent the views of Politicalite or News Worldwide. 

 

 

 

 

Leave your vote

2 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 2

Upvotes: 2

Upvotes percentage: 100.000000%

Downvotes: 0

Downvotes percentage: 0.000000%

To Top

Hey there!

Forgot password?

Forgot your password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Close
of

Processing files…