The peer-reviewed study “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” by Dr Baruch Vainshelboim has been retracted by the journal Medical Hypotheses on the instruction of the Editor-in-Chief.
The study argues that neither medical nor non-medical facemasks are effective in blocking transmission of viral and infectious disease such as SARS-CoV-2, and that in the long run they are likely to damage individual health.
The retraction notice reads:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
Medical Hypotheses serves as a forum for innovative and often disruptive ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. However, our strict editorial policy is that we do not publish misleading or inaccurate citations to advance any hypotheses.
The Editorial Committee concluded that the author’s hypothesis is misleading on the following basis:
1. A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission.
2. The manuscript misquotes and selectively cites published papers. References #16, 17, 25 and 26 are all misquoted.
3. Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences, generated by the author. All data in the table is unverified, and there are several speculative statements.
4. The author submitted that he is currently affiliated to Stanford University, and VA Palo Alto Health Care System. However, both institutions have confirmed that Dr Vainshelboim ended his connection with them in 2016.
A subsequent internal investigation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher have determined that this article was externally peer reviewed but not with our customary standards of rigour prior to publication. The journal has re-designed its editorial and review workflow to ensure that this will not happen again in future.
If there are errors in the paper, the question is why these were not picked up and addressed with the author prior to publication in the usual manner. If some were missed and subsequently came to light, the journal could have asked for revisions to the paper to address the criticisms. That it chose to retract it completely suggests the move is political (though the allegations of dishonesty in affiliations may have played a part). There is no indication in the notice of any correspondence with the author in the matter.
The strangest criticism is the first: “A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission.” This is just a restatement, without references, of mask orthodoxy. Given that Dr Vainshelboim had provided a wide range of references in his review of the evidence, a rebuttal should surely have come in the form of a similar rigorous academic exercise, marshalling further evidence, not a bald 28-word sentence about what the evidence “clearly shows”. This is not the way robust academic research happens or science advances. The editors could have published a response, or another study drawing on further evidence that comes to a different conclusion. That they instead retract the article on account of criticisms from unnamed correspondents, drawing on unspecified evidence, is a disgraceful way to treat peer-reviewed scientific research and the scientists who produce it.
What exactly is this uncited evidence that “clearly shows” masks reduce transmission? Certainly not the only randomised controlled trial, Danmask-19, which found no significant protection for the wearers of surgical masks. And certainly not the real-world evidence comparing countries or states with mask mandates to those without.
Last week I noted a peer-reviewed study that claimed surgical masks filter out 95-99% of aerosol droplets. Yet the two papers it cited to back up this claim said nothing of the sort, with one concluding: “None of these surgical masks exhibited adequate filter performance and facial fit characteristics to be considered respiratory protection devices.” Perhaps this paper should be retracted as well for misquoting the studies it cites?
What about SAGE? What evidence do they draw on in their advice to the Government which underpins the UK mask mandates, including in schools?
It is a little known fact that SAGE admitted in January that masks give no protection to the wearer. As for protecting others, they cite a study which suggests masks prevent 6-15% of transmission. That’s all – a marginal amount. And that’s the official “Science” from the Government’s own advisers. A sceptical take would look at the real-world evidence from winter surges despite mask mandates and suspect that even 6% was too high.
One independent researcher wrote about SAGE’s evidence previously for Lockdown Sceptics:
SAGE released a document in January prepared by a sub-committee, which it endorsed, saying that masks were primarily a source control (cloth and surgical masks are thought to offer the wearer little protection) and citing an estimate for their typical impact on transmission of 6-15% (possibly as high as 45%).
That document says in relation to source control: “Analysis of regional level data in several countries suggest this impact is typically around 6-15% (Cowling and Leung, 2020, Public Health England 2021) but could be as high as 45% (Mitze et al., 2020).”
A 6-15% reduction seems to be a lot lower than NERVTAG, SAGE and the Government have previously suggested – barely relevant. Moreover, the Cowling & Leung paper says: “While most research on face masks has involved surgical type face masks, it should be presumed that reusable cloth masks could provide similar benefits if they have a sufficient number of layers and preferably a filter.” So the 6-15% estimate seems to be for surgical masks. Cloth masks in reality usually have few layers (maybe only one) and no filter. So their effect is likely smaller still.
The Cowling & Leung paper is here. It is an editorial not a research paper in its own right.
The 6-15% estimate actually comes from a December 2020 review paper by Brainard et al.
They say: “Conclusion: Wearing face masks may reduce primary respiratory infection risk, probably by 6-15%. It is important to balance evidence from RCTs and observational studies when their conclusions widely differ and both are at risk of significant bias. COVID-19-specific studies are required.” They also say “The environmental and economic costs of regularly using face masks are notable, and only partly abated by reuse.”
Not exactly strong support for wearing masks!
If there is evidence which “clearly shows” masks work then perhaps the Editor-in-Chief of Medical Hypotheses would be kind enough to publish a review of it, in the traditional fashion, so we can all benefit from it. While he’s at it, he might let SAGE have a copy, as they seem not to be aware of it either. But could that be because it doesn’t exist?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
By ‘climate events’ I assume she means weather. 100% certainty I’d have thought.
Well I’m on the side of the farmers, I don’t think Starmer has the constitution to reconsider, on the contrary I think he’s more likely to go all Trudeau on them…. This might get very interesting…
Surely the farmers will be allowed to continue protesting if they rebrand themselves “Farmers for Palestine”? The police wouldn’t dare interfere then.
Nice one. Or Stinking Rebellion?
There is a very real risk, he will…his controllers cannot allow the project to fail, which was why Turdeau was so very nasty.
The government doesn’t value independent farmers. To be honest, they probably need all that land for solar panels, wind farms and battery banks to achieve their silly zero carbon power supply network dream. Or to build on. They’ve got to find somewhere for their new prisons and illegal immigrant holiday camps…
Or for big Argi to buy up all the land and mass produce all the grasshoppers, mealworm and other forced food that we all will be required to eat in the near future! (Except the elites of course)
I buy mealworms but only for the Blackbirds & the Starlings.
This is not just about inheritance tax…..now there is talk of banning Muck Spreading, while jacking up the price of Fertiliser….this attack is as mad as the Dutch one was…which means it is coming from the WEF goons. The Farmers will likely get no help from Starmer , as he is under orders…they will have to wait till the next election and we the people better make sure we sling them out forever.
And we the people had better make sure to ABOLISH MANDATORY FIVE YEAR GOVERNMENTS, like the Soviet “Five Year Plans”.
Bring back the VOTES OF NO CONFIDENCE that allowed the people to turf out governments that violated the democratic will of the people.
Stopping muck spreading is something the farmers can do to cause the water companies a massive problem with their sewage sludge.
No coverage on the BBC News, as expected……..disgraceful. They have their heads in the sand [or up some other dark place…]
I sent a TXT to Five Live along the same lines this morning, I said they might start to notice when there’s food shortages.
It was reported on BBC Radio 4’s Six O’Clock News. I don’t know about BBC television news, I don’t watch it.
Once a group of people gets together and realises the unassailibility of their power then there is nothing the state can do to stop them, especially in a demoralised country that begs for anything other than the status quo. A mass movement behind farmers means a swift end to corrupt entrenched power. They are so high on their own supply that they can’t even see this as a threat and therein lies their downfall.
If only it were so simple… Dominic Frisby explains why there won’t be a Revolution..
https://youtu.be/HwT7RtN44Fc?si=ne-lWd7IEiTQbm8U
The right to bear arms in the UK would be my first UK ammendment
So here we have both sides of the coin being controlled by the same narrative.
1- “Farmers Threaten to Bring Britain to a Standstill” is the kind of headline that provokes a knee-jerk response from readers. I will leave you to decide but whichever side of the argument you stand on, you can see that very same narrative being seeded in a negative light over time at the following links
This is not unusual for Will Jones, the narrative is designed to portray ‘The Farmers’ as some sort of out of control nefarious mob. Similar headlines will run in the tabloids tomorrow, riling up the nation against those damn farmers
2 – What was actually said
You don’t have to look too far to see how recent events (somewhat manufactured in my humble opinion) are an attempt to engineer support for the State leading to those involved being labelled ‘extremists’ – https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/farmers-protest-organiser-made-racist-34159402
Feels like a setup to me and it’s a shame Mr Jones has stayed true to form on peddling a state narrative. Hegelian Dialectic in play
Nonsense! Will Jones is just reporting on an article in The Telegraph, which quite rightly shows that farmers are angry enough to take effective action, just like the French farmers so often do.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Nigel Farage gets the crucial point: that it will be much more effective for the farmers to launch coordinated tractor protests ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, instead of just focusing on London.
“Attending the protest, Nigel Farage, the Reform U.K. leader, encouraged farmers to keep campaigning across the country.
He told the Telegraph: “In the 100 rural constituencies Labour now holds, they have to keep up this pressure. IT HAS TO BE PERSISTENT IN EVERY MARKET TOWN.”
The farmers should stop the foreign food imports next.
Cause some serious damage, get some big hitters reigned against the lefties. The lefties are actually quite weak people if pressurised, just a bunch of over-promoted school teachers and librarians – like Cameron and May
I’m sure they could get one of those waste tanker slurry jets to pump excrement over the fence into N0 10. Then stop by the BBC Broadcasting House similar to what the Dutch farmers did with their captured media. Give them something to clean up.
Yes, that’s a good idea — the Leftists do love their foreign food imports.
Every region. Maybe you don’t like South Wales because it is full of smack heads. They got that way for a reason. They were seriouslly hard-working bastards before. You pick them all up even the lowest. As a country there would be a huge morale boost. And with good leadership we could move onto brighter things. Don’t let these sad tossers try to convince you that there is no way back. Many things become possible with the right application of mind.
I think SStarmer & Reeves needs a bit of this treatment from farmers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBdvWsOdeGw
The big question being why the useless leader of the opposition went with immigration for which she has an appalling back story rather than farming
Do you mean the Nigerian Birth Tourist?
Just heard Farage discussing this on his show. The female guest called Labour liars to which Nigel replied with “strong words”…..She should’ve replied with something like….Just for fairness the Tories have been lying about immigration for years!
It’s just time everyone took to the streets and smashed this rotten WEF governance from LGBT ,BLM ,Climate change
Lets make them all net zero
I am with them, and happy to suffer a little if they start restricting supplies. Labour communists are just the most vile people. The blue socialists (toeies) weren’t much better.
How is it that all the parties have adopted socialists policy directions? I fecking despise them all. Communists of different colours.
The farmers need to keep the public onside. That means not disrupting Christmas and delaying their blockades until the New Year.
Then come down hard and not let up.
Yup….Play the long game.