We have reached out via e-mail twice to the DMJ since September 8 with regards to our letter to the editor, and have not yet received a response.
-
-
The results line up neatly with our predictions, and the limitations sections clearly outline the major issues which we documented in September. I strongly recommend reading the editorials, which provide substantial and important context.
Show this thread -
Note that our only opinion regarding its publication is/was: "Ideally, this study should be published in such a way that helps ensure that everyone understands the flaws and limitations of its design before they make conclusions on its results." (sent to
@SergioEfe on Nov 12)Show this thread -
That appears to have been achieved as well as is possible within the context of our publication system, to the credit of the editors at
@AnnalsofIM, the peer reviewers, the authors of the trial, and the authors of the two editorials.Show this thread -
For those who are entering this thread from the middle: we initially wrote and submitted our concerns about its design in early September in response to the published design, months before the results were available. Our letter is available here:https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/letter-concern-regarding-reduction-covid-19-infection-using-surgical-facial-masks-outside-healthcare …
Show this thread -
Worth noting: the language and framing of trial changed drastically between the published protocol and the published results. The framing in the published version is MUCH more accurate and clearer, (correctly) emphasizing that the intervention is messaging, not mask wearing.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is now on the news (TV2) in Denmark "Breaking: New study can not confirm, that masks protect against corona." It is terrible, because, now people everywhere will think, that science does not support mask wearing. And this is not the case at all.
-
But right up Tegnells and the Swedish governments lane.... I really hope people see this study for what it is. A useless study of an effect (almost) nobody claimed existed.https://twitter.com/AndreiaSaveSwe/status/1328812490910785543?s=19 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Why publish this study at all? You've ensured that its highly questionable methodology and enormous limitations will be ignored by the media and its specious findings used by anti-maskers. And no one was claiming a non-N95-type mask protected wearers. So, WHY?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.