Why Won’t Top Medical Journals Publish Landmark Danish Mask Study?

>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

Do masks protect against Chinese coronavirus and reduce its spread — or are they, as their critics maintain, mere empty gesture politics?

A major study which might finally have answered this question has been postponed indefinitely after three of the world’s top three medical journals mysteriously declined to publish it.

Danish newspaper Berlingske reports:

The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask are having great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result could 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 mask in a public space during the corona pandemic.

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.

One of the study’s co-authors, Henrik Ullum, has tweeted that the authors are all ‘very unhappy’ about the delay of their study.

Read more at Breitbart.



    • What better solution do you have? Let people die?
      Oh maybe building a maaka doesnt workto save lives. Immunizations. Seat belts.
      Wake up and smell the coffee

      • The fact is they’ve reported that this year there are already about 50,000 fewer deaths in general for all causes according to the last 15 years. There would have been even more people saved had they not suffocated themselves with masks. Look how many are hospitalized with breathing problems – according to CDC 99% mask wearers. Can you understand why nobody died this year of any other sickness? If so, who says Coronavirus is so bad? It actually saved people from pneumonia, laryngitis, influenza, bronchitis and whatnot?

  1. sure sure the guy doesn’t want to state the reason they won’t publish. is it maybe because his research is garbage? top medical journals vs a few doctors easy choice who to trust!

  2. Why they wouldn’t publish it? Because they want to save their skin. Imagine they’d tell the world that masks are only about compliance and have absolutely no protection, if anything, they’re dangerous for the wearers as we see in hospitals, they’d be murdered in a minute.

    • How about proving that masks help? There’s not one screaming pro-mask poster here who has proven that masks help for virus. Could you? You don’t need a Danish study, you need some common sense. Didn’t your mother ever tell you not to put a bag over your head because it’s dangerous. Masks are equally dangerous.

  3. LOL
    Simply compare rates in Asian countries, ranging across a wide range of political systems (PRC / ROC / Singapore) and ethnicities (China / Japan / Korea) including Anglo-Saxon New Zealand and Australia, vs USA and Europe.
    Repeating lies doesn’t make them any truer.

  4. Ok, I actually looked into this, and based on it not passing peer review it is not published. Usually this means a flaw or there are questions about the methodology that have yet to be answered fully. This is common, the journals will never comment publicly about these matters since it can affect the career of a researcher.

    No study should be published until it can be peer reviewed. In actuality I believe that the conclusion is that the masks are effective in many environments.

  5. A study becomes “landmark” when it’s reviewed by independent peers, and its methodology AND results are considered both accurate and significant. Until that happens, it remains just another study, by otherwise unknown scientists, of which hundreds and thousands are published daily in local press.

  6. it seems matzav wants dead people. do you comb the internet for all the conspiracy theories to feed to people easily fooled? hey matzav you don’t find it strange these people won’t say what reason the journals gave for rejection? use your brains! the journals obviously rejected the studies for bad science!

  7. The idea of a randomized study is a good one. But with “only” 6,000 individuals in the study, the expected number of COVID cases would be 3 given the observed rates in Denmark at the time. Not enough to learn anything.

    FTR I have had papers published, and papers rejected, in these journals. In fact I had a paper rejected by JAMA this very week. I don’t take it personally.

  8. Thank you for sharing the truth. Reminds me of the bank robber that tells authorities he is innocent and doesn’t let them check his pockets


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here