Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.
Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial
July 20, 2021
Yesterday, July 19, 2021, Trialsitenews.com reported that a study of carbon dioxide in children’s masks was retracted by the editors of JAMA Pediatrics. JAMA Pediatrics Editors Retract Children’s Mask Study (trialsitenews.com). After requesting a statement from the corresponding author of the retracted study, Dr. Harald Walach, I received the following response by Dr. Walach from his German web address this morning, Eastern Time, which is presented here on Trialsitenews.com:
Well, we published our response to the queries of the editorial office on Retraction Watch. [JAMA journal retracts paper on masks for children – Retraction Watch]. This is the material we sent to the journal.
The journal did neither respond to that except by saying our response was inadequate, without particularly telling us exactly what was inadequate. The journal said it had done an additional review. My request, sent yesterday morning my time, i.e. morning US business time, has not been answered until yesterday business closing time.
I do not see that any of the comments of the journal has either invalidated our results, nor have we left any of the queries unanswered. In the meantime we have received several comments of atmospheric and
chemical scientists who have measured the same amount of carbon dioxide under face masks as we did.
My conclusion is: This retraction is political, as the retraction statement says, because of “public health implications.” In our view the public health implications would be that the wearing of face masks by children is carefully scrutinized and anybody who does not agree with our data should produce better data refuting our findings. This is the normal way of scientific discourse. Censorship because of data that – as one commentator put it – are “unhelpful,” i.e. not wanted, is not the way of science, but the way of autocracies.