JAMA Pediatrics Editors Retract Children’s Mask Study

JAMA Pediatrics Editors Retract Children's Mask Study

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 19, 2021

Trialsitenews.com recently reported a study published in JAMA Pediatrics on June 30, 2021, which found unacceptable levels of carbon dioxide in children wearing face masks. Needless to say, this was a very popular article. Children’s face masks increase carbon dioxide 6-fold over acceptable levels (trialsitenews.com). However, Trialsitenews.com has learned that the JAMA Pediatrics study was subsequently retracted by the journal editors on July 16, 2021. Notice of Retraction. Walach H, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021. | Pediatrics | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network

The JAMA Pediatrics editors’ notice of retraction does not mention who raised scientific issues regarding the study’s methodology and other concerns, or reveal all the detailed evidence supporting the specific concerns raised, or identify possible conflicts of interest by the parties raising the concerns. Nor were the study authors’ responses to the concerns revealed. 

During these times of unprecedented censorship, it is difficult to accept the legitimacy of this retraction on face value alone, especially considering that Facebook censored the original article when it was first published in JAMA Pediatrics. Facebook warns JAMA study on children’s COVID masks ‘false news,’ sharers will be punished | Just The News.

Furthermore, neither of the journal’s two editors holds doctoral degrees, which requires advanced knowledge of research methodology, inferring that the editors may have over-relied on outside sources for “additional scientific review.”

The editors are right about at least one point—the retracted study has “potential public health implications.” In view of the great significance to public health concerning the issue of masks and children’s health, the public should have access to all details of the specific concerns raised, and the authors’ complete responses, so that an open debate can fairly review and discuss the retracted the study. 

Even if an open critical appraisal supports problems in methodology, this should not automatically disqualify the thesis of the study. I can’t think of a single study that doesn’t have methodological limitations. It is simply not possible to address every single issue in one study. More importantly, publishing study limitations helps point the direction toward designing further studies to continue to pursue the investigation. 

It’s not likely that any one study is capable of establishing the final word on this issue, and many more studies should continue to investigate carbon dioxide exposure in children wearing masks. However, criticizing a study’s validity based on design limitations is one thing, which happens frequently in the research literature, but it is quite another to retract a study from the scientific research literature altogether. Even a weak study can function within the literature as an exploratory investigation, which is intended to present the feasibility of the study, upon which other researchers can improve with stronger designs. 

Only through shared information in the research literature can further studies zero in on resolving vitally important issues. In the meantime, chopping off the children’s mask investigation at the root by retracting the current study potentially censors the scientific literature, which is unacceptable. The message sent is loud and clear: This topic is off limits. We don’t want to know!

Responses

  1. Yes indeed!
    Especially given that many of the journals are funded by Pharma, and cohorts. Given this ‘little situation’, much ignored by mainstream media, and heavily censored, (pasted below), TRUST in what happened here would not be recommended , unless you were a fool. The extreme and obvious control over the narrative by those in power, regarding all things Covid, only adds more support to the scary realization of WTF is going down.
    Why is there no mention from any mainstream media or politician about this court case below. It seems a tad important wouldn’t one say? And the fact that the evidence was compelling enough for acceptance by the court throws a VERY different light on anything we are seeing. Very amusing to see that Google is running a misinformation campaign about this too.

    You have to use an uncensored search engine to find the website where all the testimony and interviews with the witnesses are posted. Interesting to note that those aiding and colluding in these criminal activities are also liable. This includes the journal who pulled this study, business, institutions, authorities, etc who require ‘vax passports’, our politicians etc. I think if these people had any sense of self preservation, they should consider scrambling pretty soon to jump off the corruption ship. Take a look below. It entirely supports your article ( and a lot more). Hope for humanity if you ask me.

    The first of three court cases has already been granted permission to proceed in the Supreme Court and will take place in Ontario, Canada. The official court proceeding document can be found here. This case would not have been granted if it was not for the mass evidence that has been gathered by Dr Reiner Fuellmich and his team on the Corona Investigative Committee.

    The legal proceedings that have commenced in the Superior Court of Justice in Canada are against –

    ‘POPE FRANCIS, THE HOLY SEE, THE STATE OF THE VATICAN, THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, HM QUEEN ELIZABETH II, THE ORDER OF THE GARTER, THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR (FORMERLY SAXE COBOURG GOTHA), GLOBAL VACCINE ALLIANCE (GAVI), the UN’s WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION/PUBLIC HEALTH ORGANIZATION OF CANADA, BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION, PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU, DR. THERESA TAM, PREMIER DOUG FORD, CHRISTINE ELLIOTT, MAYOR JIM WATSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO’

    This is of course just the beginning as many more legal proceedings are currently being requested to take place across the world.

    In those heretical Satanic Verses, Salmon Rushdie wrote: What kind of idea are you? Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive; or are you the cussed, bloody-minded, ramrod-backed type of damn-fool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? – The kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of hundred, be smashed to bits; but, the hundredth time, will change the world.”

    1. It is plain and simple censorship… something that BOTH parties are happy to participate in…so rather than politicizing an issue that should really just be an issue of scientific study and increase of information, let’s focus on the unethical power play that the editors exercises when they retracted the study article. If some one wants to dissent, then let them bring forth their reasonable arguments for our consideration. Currently, this matter just looks like censorship and coverup!

  2. Dr. Russell Blaylock did an article a while on masks on kids.
    He does NOT recommend. If you want his reasons, go to his web site.
    I do not remember what he said specifically.