Author of Retracted Children’s Mask Study Responds to TrialSite News

Author of Retracted Children's Mask Study Responds to TrialSite News

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Yesterday, July 19, 2021, Trialsitenews.com reported that a study of carbon dioxide in children’s masks was retracted by the editors of JAMA Pediatrics.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.

Responses

  1. This has become an extremely disturbing time in the continuum of medical history. The established medical hierarchy has become captured by a political narrative and human beings are suffering and dying apparently due to coercive forces of NIH grants and career smearing tactics (Dr. Scott Atlas). One almost feels compelled to invoke a reminder of the Hippocratic Oath to these bureaucrats who have become captives of their own narrative. I have chosen to decline immunization with the mRNA “vaccines” and take Ivermectin. The frightening thing is (in the last months) in appointments with my PCP and my Gastroenterologists… neither had ever heard of the medication Ivermectin, no less having any awareness of the controversy surrounding its use. These are dark and frightening times and one needs to be reminded of President Eisenhower’s admonition about the ‘Tyranny of Experts’ in his military-industrial fairwell speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU
    Edward J. Drasby, Neurologist, Maine, USA

  2. I did a few calculations, when I first saw the paper, assuming a certain volume inside the mask, and using children’s respiratory volumes, and the theoretical carbon dioxide concentrations seemed somewhat different to what was found. Also, what is the basis for the allowable limits cited?

    1. I’ve lost most of what little hair I have left scratching my head trying figure out just what the end game here is.
      Are all these people really that evil as to want to eliminate a large percentage of the world population, or are there a very few at the top such as Soros and Gates that are orchestrating this mass murder using scientific ignorance and group think to push their agenda?
      It’s truly mind boggling that this thing is still an issue.