A large study from Denmark looked into mask efficacy. But when they tried to publish it, they received a surprising response. The bastions of science that publish scientific studies have so far refused to do so.
Why? Well, the study isn't published yet, but the authors make it fairly clear in a statement that it's due to their finding not aligning with what the "science" journals want to have as studies in their journals.
"We can’t start discussing what they are dissatisfied with. For if so, we must also explain what the study showed. And we do not want to discuss this until it has been published."
We will only get to see the results of the study:
"as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.”
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1317875526997102594
- AlexBerenson
That's pretty damning. One might think it's because the study is garbage. But not so fast. The sample size is big for a mask study, with 6,000 Danes taking part in it. Half wore masks, and half didn't. Additionally, if the study has any merit or not, the peer-review process should flesh that out, not the journals with their bias and ignorance of not wanting certain data to be published.
Some big journals have been approached so far, and they all refused to take in the science and let the data speak for itself. They are "The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the American Medical Association Journal". As far as I'm concerned, these journals are compromised, if not corrupted.
This demonstrates a growing problem in our age of "post-truth" led by the mainstream, where "scientism" is favored over letting the data be known and discussed. The religion of "science" and belief in what "experts" say is favored over open debates about the data and letting the data be known for people to think about themselves.
Even the Lancet published a bogus study on HCQ that alleged it harmed more people than helped. After people looked into it, they found out it was completely made up to push an agenda. The Lancet didn't have a problem with that paper though. These mainstream science journals are showing how they are gatekeepers of false narratives.