The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as 'controversial'.
For weeks, 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 public space here during the corona pandemic.
Now, one of the researchers who has been involved in the study can state that the finished research result has been rejected by at least three of the world's absolutely 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 professor, dr. with. and chief physician at the research department at North Zealand Hospital, Christian Torp-Pedersen.
However, the professor does not want to give the reasons for the journals.
"We can not start discussing what they are dissatisfied with, because in that case we must also explain what the study showed, and we do not want to discuss that until it is published," explains Christian Torp-Pedersen.
Outstanding study
The study was initiated at the end of April after a grant of five million kroner from the Salling Foundations. It involved as many as 6,000 Danes, half of whom had to wear masks in the public space over a long period of time. The other half was selected as the control group.
A large part of the test participants were employees of Salling Group's supermarkets: Bilka, Føtex and Netto.
The studio and its size are unique in the world, and the purpose was once and for all to try to clarify the extent to which the use of sanitary masks in public space provides protection against corona infection.
But if the Danish research result is truly "controversial", and if it is meant that no evidence has been found of any major infection-protecting effect of mask use in public space, it will be highly startling.
But of course it can not be ruled out that the three medical journals are of the opinion that the data base in the Danish study is deficient - that for example there are too few corona infected in the study to be able to draw unambiguous conclusions about the protective effect of masks against infection with the new virus.
In this connection, it is worth noting that the study was conducted at a time (predominantly in May), when the infection pressure in Denmark was falling sharply.
The study's spokesman and main author is professor of cardiology and chief physician at Rigshospitalet, Henning Bundgaard. He strongly emphasizes that he wants to be in charge of 'high-quality' research.