The peer-reviewed study “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” by Dr Baruch Vainshelboim has been retracted by the journal Medical Hypotheses on the instruction of the Editor-in-Chief.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This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.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 However, our strict editorial policy is that we do not publish misleading or inaccurate citations to advance any hypotheses.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.
Tuesday Morning Twyford Rd & Bell Foundry Lane, Wokingham
Former SAS Regimental Sergeant Major Speaks Out
The Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) is the oldest British gallantry award: for distinguished conduct in the field.
George Simm received the DCM for gallantry in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s.
His point here is that members of the Armed Forces, particularly those from Special Forces, could be prosecuted under European Court of Human Rights legislation after they had carried out missions on behalf of their country.
‘…successive governments since 2000 had ignored the impact the ECHR has had on Special Forces operations.
“They’ve allowed this collision between this very rigid legal framework, that changes… to compete with the chaos,” he said.
“The tragedy of combat, that moment when it all goes down.
“And they try and unpick it and try and make that scenario fit their framework. And, of course, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t work.”
We have just yesterday seen how extremely stupid the performance of the government and the Crown Prosecution Service has been regarding the Police Firearms Officer who, quite correctly, shot serial criminal, Kaba.
And yet, in clear view of this nonsense, lawyers are making comment as follows:
“They would say that they are acting according to the rules of engagement and they’re behaving perfectly properly……And if so, they have nothing to fear either from military justice or from civilian justice in the UK and certainly not from the European Court of Human Rights.”
But we have just witnessed a completely unwarranted court case, a massive waste of public time and money and heavens knows how much unpleasantness for the Police Firearms Officer!
As George Simm says:
‘The time for change is now, and it requires the collective will of the public, the politicians, and the military to ensure that our soldiers are treated with the respect, dignity, and justice they rightly deserve.’
And that, quite clearly, should apply to the Police as well.
Probably the only way, now, for this matter to get the national and international attention that it warrants is for Britain once more to take a lead and leave the ECHR.
Enough of this profoundly stupid and, much worse, extremely dangerous (for the entire population) nonsense!
Corky, I don’t think Will read your comments. Out of 41 tips I made it 18 from The Daily Telegraph and 5 from the Spectator. My problem with this is that both of those publications were pretty much boosters for the Conservative Party, and still are. Maybe they think the defeat wasn’t as bad as it might have been, and after five years of Labour hell we the people will come back to our senses. But I really doubt that the people who deserted the Conservatives, whether for total failure over covid, or the net zero nonsense, of fourteen years of drift to woke, will not trust them for a generation.
So why bother with what those papers say, until they correct? Bye now.
Talking of the Fake Conservatives, I found this shocking:
Who do Britons want to win the 2024 US presidential election? | YouGov
“Conservatives are less overwhelming in their support for the Democratic candidate, but nearing six in ten (57%) still hope that Harris wins out in the end, more than double the quarter of Tories (25%) who want a Trump triumph in a fortnight.”
“wins out?”
Surely, “wins in.”
What appalling mangling of the English language.
‘Word’ does not need any support…
“…and if you don’t won then you’ve lost”
Probably written by “AI”
No, transmission, your quote is an absolutely correct use of the English language.
WIN OUT | English meaning – Cambridge Dictionary
“Meaning of win out in English:
win outphrasal verb with win
to succeed after a lot of difficulty:
The more cautious approach won out in the end.
Greed won out over principles.”
See more results »
(Definition of win out from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
NO, transmission, the English in your quote is a perfectly correct use of the English phrasal verb “to win out”, and is often followed by “in the end”.
It means “to succeed after a lot of difficulty”.
WIN OUT | English meaning – Cambridge Dictionary
WRONG.
It is a perfectly correct use of the English phrasal verb “to win out”, and is often followed by “in the end”.
WIN OUT | English meaning – Cambridge Dictionary
Fair point. I made exactly the same point a few days ago. And The Torygraph is paywalled.
Seriously, how is this level of fraud even possible? Anyone would think the state are enabling it…<sarc>
”Migrants are already draining the German taxpayer to the tune of tens of billions every year, but some enterprising migrants are earning shocking amounts of money. In a case in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, a 23-year-old Syrian migrant is receiving €13,000 a month for housing five underage migrants inside his apartment. The case is reportedly not uncommon, and according to NIUS it represents a new “business model in Germany.” At the same time, the youth welfare offices and companies that arrange these accommodations are also earning good money.
Many of the “unaccompanied migrant minors” are not even minors, but simply lie about their age when entering Europe, as Remix News has extensively documented. More and more of these types of migrants have been arriving in Germany since 2015. Once in Germany, the youth welfare office is responsible for finding housing for these underage migrants. They work with “independent sponsoring associations” which then place these migrants with host families. Many of these families receive large sums of money for this service, while the associations also receive a generous monthly “fee” for placing the migrants.
The NIUS news outlet has revealed the extent of this racket, which involves huge sums of taxpayer euros. Politicians have done almost nothing to prevent it. In the case of the Syrian man, Osama H., he has lived in Hagen since 2015. His birthday is Jan. 1, which was the standard birthday issued to hundreds of thousands of migrants who arrived in Germany without identity papers. Although the single man is officially a hairdresser, a career which usually generates little income, he recently learned he could become a host father and earn substantial amounts of money by housing unaccompanied minors.
After signing a contract on Dec. 21, 2023, with youth organization “Kinego GmbH,” he received his first two children, 16-year-old Abdurrahman A. and 17-year-old Mohammad A. Their birthdays are also Jan. 1.
He receives €4,074 a month for these two children, from the youth welfare office to meet the “basic needs” of the “teens.” Kinego also gets its cut, receiving €937.15 a month per child, per month, which equals €1,874.30. It spends only three hours a week coordinating with the youth welfare office and the host family for this large sum of money.
The Syrian, who is only 23, then took in three other children, with the next contract signed on Jan. 3, 2024, this time with a different welfare office and Kinego. He also had a new address while signing the contract, as he was now able to afford a larger apartment.
The Syrian received another 16-year-old, a 17-year-old, and then finally, a 13-year-old, all from different youth welfare offices.”
https://rmx.news/article/germany-syrian-migrant-earns-shocking-e13000-a-month-for-housing-5-underage-migrants-in-his-apartment/
An important topic that doesn’t get covered nearly enough. What is fast becoming normalized because of increased consumption of porn is very worrying indeed. There’s also an established link between predatory ‘trans’ men ( who identify as women ) and porn usage. Then there’s the increased availability and demand for child sex abuse images, dressed up and marketed as ”child porn”, which is the most concerning aspect of all, in my opinion;
”Pornography consumption has become the norm in every Western democracy, and sexual violence has become a routine part of dating in the 21st century. I have been speaking and writing about this subject for over a decade, and the stories I hear from students are, frankly, chilling. Many normalized behaviors are not so much sexual violence as sexualized violence, in that young people are increasingly aroused simply by inflicting pain or fear on their partner. One example of a porn-driven behaviour that has become ubiquitous almost overnight is strangulation or ‘choking.’ When I began speaking to students about pornography over ten years ago, this behavior was almost unheard of. Not anymore.
A report in the Times from October 12, titled “Boys think strangling women is sexy, charities warn,” is the latest missive from our metastasizing rape culture. According to the Times, counsellors with J.K. Rowling’s Edinburgh charity, Beira’s Place, are reporting that “Sexual violence has become normalised, with growing numbers of young women seeking counselling after unwanted choking during sex.” According to the counsellors, “Strangulation and ‘breath play’ had become so ubiquitous in online pornography that teenagers believed it was a routine sexual act they were expected to perform and enjoy,” including some as young as 16.
“It would appear that it’s something that is becoming very normalised,” said Isabelle Kerr, the chief executive of the charity, who has worked with abuse survivors for decades: “Not only are young men thinking that they should be doing it, but young women are expecting it to be done—even though they don’t necessarily want it or like it in any way. For many of them it’s frightening.” She noted that videos of women being choked and strangled are featured prominently on free porn sites and increasingly social media such as X and TikTok. “That’s what young men are viewing,” Kerr said, “This is what they see as acceptable … And of course the next stage is to get pleasure from performing it.”
The Times related the tragic story of Emily Drouet, who committed suicide at age 18 after being abused and choked by her ex-boyfriend. When her mother expressed shock at what her daughter had endured, one of Emily’s friends told her, “To be honest, Fiona, it’s actually more common to do it than not.” Despite the fact that choking is incredibly dangerous—cutting oxygen off from the brain—BBC Radio 5 Live found in 2019 that “A third of UK women under the age of 30 had experienced slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sex,” and Kerr stated that these behaviors have only increased since then.”
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/porn-culture-has-our-girls-by-the-throat/
I guess the next move is to make “strangling” an immutable characteristic, and hence protected. If you disagree that sexual stranglers are a persecuted minority, and that they didn’t exist when you were young, the academics will say it was normal in Rome and Athens until the Church suppressed it, and the National Trust will haul out the stories former owners of their properties that they claim were misunderstood stranglers in 1780.
And so it would go on – those not wishing to date stranglers are bigots, etc, etc.
It’s a depressing picture – I sometimes wonder where it will all end but as you say, no one wants to talk about it so it gets swept under the carpet and normalised.
“Kemi is right about absent fathers” Not always. I suspect that Kaba’s child might be better off without him as a role model.
Probably – though perhaps some of his downfall could be attributed to his father being absent (no idea if he was or not – just speculating).
VA data shows Covid boosters increased risk of hospitalisation and flu shots don’t work”
On a similar subject, I have read this morning that Moderna has created an Mrna ‘vaccine’ for norovirus, that is now going to be tested on some over 60s. Norovirus is extremely unpleasant, but, really, that is it. Why does it need to be controlled? It’s just an annoying bug. But then, why should I be surprised, as the covid ‘vaccine’ is an attempt to control, essentially, the common cold. How long will it be before those who are least able to stand up for themselves, those in care homes, are receiving yet another poisonous shot? I get so annoyed about this since a friend died suddenly and mysteriously in a care home (so mysteriously a PM was needed). He had recently received his 7th (or was it 8th?) covid shot.(If you are interested, the PM result was a heart attack.)
Many years ago, a website now banned listed all the different types of “Jihad”, giving numerous concrete examples from news reports collected over the years. Among them was “Contamination Jihad”, which involved furtively contaminating food with bodily secretions, including sprinkling powdered faecal matter onto baked goods as “chocolate”, or putting it into meals and water supplies, especially in restaurants, hospital canteens or on cruise ships.
This is the real cause of “norovirus”, from which no vaccine is going to protect you.
Shout out to all the hypocrites on here. The ones that come on here and regularly slate the police for their behaviour, mistreatment and persecution of non-violent members of the British public. The ones who appear to have a bad case of selective amnesia when it comes to how the police treat people during the scamdemic, including the disgusting treatment of the people taking part in the Sarah Everard vigil ( bad enough it was one of their own that raped and murdered her, but who cares about pesky details? ), and then everything that’s happened since, including arresting patriots for attending protests and ”hurty words” posted online, now banged up and at risk of topping themselves because they’re mostly concerned law-abiding citizens, not hardened career criminals whose second home is a prison cell. The same police that’ll never be on your side, but the side of Muslims and migrants, because if you wave a St George flag or hold a factual sign ( ”Hamas is a terrorist organization” ) you’re done for. Now you’re suddenly concerned for a policeman who’s in a pickle because he shot a gangster dead? Your double standards and hypocrisy are off the charts. Just saying;
”Same Police that said “pick anyone” & nicked 100+ at Downing St protest for 3 murdered girls, told Islamists that they were on their side & to store weapons back @ the Mosque, allowed Islamic lynch mob to “Police themselves” & called child grooming victims prostitutes. Fuck them.”
https://x.com/lagboatmfc9/status/1848705108059496652
Needed saying Mogs. Appreciated
The firearms officer and his family are in a bit more than a pickle.
‘Chances of Mr Blake ever going back to work as he once did, are extremely slim.
A well trained dedicated officer whose life changed in September 2022, is now well aware that he and his family will live in hiding for the foreseeable future.’
‘Chances of Mr Blake ever going back to work as he once did, are extremely slim. A well trained dedicated officer whose life changed in September 2022, is now well aware that he and his family will live in hiding for the foreseeable future.’
‘Mr Blake may still face a Gross Misconduct charge by the IOPC, after how quickly his life has changed, perhaps this is the last thing he is actually worried about. Chances are he will not be able to go back to his job as he once did and keeping his family safe is now the most important element.
Very few people want to be firearms officers now and realistically who can blame them.’
The Police are similar to other organisations in having outstanding individuals and less than outstanding individuals, outstanding leaders and less than outstanding leaders.
There are something like 43 different forces and 147,746 full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers in England and Wales.
In addition to police officers, there were also 236,588 FTE police workers in total, including staff, designated officers, and PCSOs.’
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but re-posting sentiments like the ones above may not be particularly helpful to any reasoned debate.
Totally disagree. I can’t think of one good thing, not a single good thing, that has been reported that the police have done. It doesn’t matter the context, their behaviour towards non-violent citizens, including those exercising their right to free speech and freedom of expression, has been appalling. Then there’s the complicity, closing ranks and failing to protect vulnerable girls who were being trafficked all over the country to be abused with impunity. The appeasement ( and therefore complicity given they knew crimes were being committed but they prioritized not wanting to appear racist ) they show towards the Muslim community, past and present ( try preaching the Bible at Speakers Corner, drawing the attention of an angry mob of aggressive Muslims and see whose side the police take ) is blatant and absolutely unforgivable. See below, now you can’t say ”God bless you”, because it will be deemed a crime if it causes ”distress” to somebody who’s not Christian. What kind of coppers are going to enforce this craptastic law, let alone any of the other Clown World, woke nonsense? The same coppers who came round people’s houses with mental health professionals because they were policing individuals’ posts online, saying things like, ”Christians need to rise up”, that’s who. Brain-dead automaton traitors to their fellow country men and women, that’s who. The ones that protect the terrorist supporters but tell you you’re causing ”distress, harassment and alarm” if you counter-protest by holding up a sign or a Union Jack.
I judge the police as a collective now because, unfortunately, any decent ones are evidently that few and far between as to be insignificant, in my opinion. The law and the judiciary are against the British public, this fact is as plain as day ( the decent ones, anyway. Paedos are golden, evidently ) and any decent officers who remember why they joined the force need to do the obvious and jump ship because they will inevitably have to toe the line. This isn’t a case of a few bad apples spoiling the barrel, the entire barrel has been contaminated. I wouldn’t want to be in such a profession nowadays because they’ve lost the public’s trust and how does an organization come back from that? The officer should never have had his name released, and I’ve no idea what the justification for that was because the consequences are very predictable, but my sympathy is kept for the likes of the Batley teacher, who I don’t remember many in authority speaking up for and defending his rights, not for a member of a corrupt and uncaring police force that has shown continuously over the years exactly what they think of law-abiding citizens. Now they’re proving just how uncaring and callous they are towards one of their own.
”This is Soviet Britain.
Police say that it is a CRIME to say “God bless you” if someone feels “distressed” by it.”
https://x.com/PeterSweden7/status/1847328326022516900
You are entitled to your view but ‘The Police’ are very far from being a collective….and that is a good thing.
https://policesuccess.co.uk/forces.html#:~:text=What%20Are%20the%20UK%20Police,does%20Northern%20Ireland%20(PSNI).
Generalisations are not, in my view, particularly useful within that context.
Some Police Forces have been extremely badly led;
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/northamptonshire-chief-constable-dismissed-gross-misconduct
Others have recently been well led:
‘Lee Freeman, a former assistant chief constable in Lincolnshire from August 2013 who had joined Humberside in May 2015, took over as deputy chief constable…….He was appointed temporary chief constable in May 2017 and the position was made permanent on 26 June 2017.
Freeman implemented a callout system named ‘Right Care, Right Person’ (RCRP) in May 2020
By May 2023, Humberside achieved more arrests per 1,000 people in the population under RCRP.
RCRP is planned to be copied by the Metropolitan Police and other police forces in England and Wales.’
That has always been the case.
Well I think the police have gone off the rails but to be fair they have been pushed there by people with political agendas
With regard to the shooting and the officer involved we should judge him and the case on its merits. I watched the video once and would need to see it a lot before I could form a firm opinion
I don’t think it is useful to generalise about 43 different forces.
The Firearms Officer has been cleared by an exhaustive investigation.
That may not be good enough for you but it is certainly good enough for me.
I’m making no judgement in this case – I would look into it more but it’s not a priority. My gut tells me the actions were justified and the prosecution was politically motivated but I would need to know more
As for the police in general I think their role and the way they have been used and managed has gone in the wrong direction but that of course doesn’t mean they or everything they do is all bad
Yeah but wouldn’t any of the good ones just leave the force as a consequence? But they seem completely happy to go along with these various crazy orders otherwise they wouldn’t be there. I look at what they do on a day to day basis and I think to myself, ”is this why you joined the force?”, because, silly me, I thought people mainly joined the police to catch the bad guys and arrest the criminals, bringing them to justice, but there seems precious little time spent on that nowadays. Going by recent history they seem to have redefined what ”criminal behaviour” is when I wasn’t looking.
I’m sure some have left – in fact I know one personally who left a while ago.
I guess we all have different lines we won’t cross, and maybe some think they can do more good in than out – work from the inside.
I don’t think it’s necessarily an easy decision – I reckon it’s possible for an officer to skirt round things enough to not compromise their principles too much, most of the time.
They do still catch bad guys – just not as much as we’d like.
First priority of the modern Conservative party: leave the ECHR!
without this, they will never be Conservatives
“The Tories must rediscover their vim – Kemi is the party’s only chance”
“Kemi Badenoch is the woman to win the culture war”
“Kemi Badenoch says Labour wants kids to be ‘ashamed’ of Britain’s past”
“Kemi is right about absent fathers”
Four articles on Real Name Maryolater Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke in the Daily Sceptic.
— “But, Boss, the British People voted for Brexit because they were sick of Third World Immigrants. There is no public demand for Third World Immigrants anywhere in the government! And certainly not representing Britain on the world stage!”
— “No public demand? Ha-ha! What do we care? We are the Globalists, and the only thing standing in our way is those wretched Ethnic Europeans. They must be replaced and eliminated. We have chosen this Nigerian woman, and we will keep shoving her down the public’s throat until they submit.”
— “But she’s a Catholic, an ILLEGAL CANDIDATE, just like all the others, including Jewish Starmer. None of them can hold the post of PM legally!”
— “Of course I know that! We all know that, and that’s why we’ve shoved so many illegal candidates into No. 10, to show that we are above the law.
Anyway, all we have to do is to force all other candidates to withdraw. How else could we have forced the Hindu Billionaire upon the nation?
Don’t you worry, we always get our way!”
“Hundreds of female golfers demand removal of transgender player Hailey Davidson”
It’s always a man who’s transitioned wanting to play female sport, never a woman who’s transitioned (and I admit there are fewer of them) wanting to play male sport. I wonder why? (rhetorical).