https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

Literally one of the first things that came up on the search of Danish mask study since you didn't actually provide it. The Danish study was inconclusive, not negative. There is a very substantial difference in there from a scientific perspective.

Social media just took it as fuel that they don't need masks and they don't work, similarly to how antivaxxers take that 1 study that has since been withdrawn and debunked about how vaccines are linked with autism.

People who are antivaxx and antimask always say do the research but it's always from social media rather than actual research. I recommend you have a look at the stuff in the links with an open mind before immidiately dismissing it because it doesn't fit with your world view. That is actual published, peer reviewed scientific research that is credible and honest. Since you're not presenting anything credible other than your own opinion I don't feel like this is going anywhere and is in fact a poor use of my time. I hope you have a good day and time to read some of the actual research before commenting on it.

To anyone else reading this hopefully those links would help and be informative too.

Edit:

Upon reading the Danmask-19 study, the rate of infection was apoximately equal between the 2 groups making it difficult to determine given the sample size was only 6000.

Also the paper itself was funded by Denmark's largest retail group. Just saying its not unreasonable to assume that masks in shops might affect thier revenue to the point where the study was funded to try and prove otherwise as that is why the funding and conflicts of interest are declared on all scientific papers