Thoughts on Science, Medicine And Sundry Things
During the COVID period, I co-authored two papers with colleagues, both of which were published in succession and retracted in close sequence; known as “retractions” in scientific parlance. One was a risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines,” and the other was our study on children’s masks. Both have been republished [1-4].
A while ago, I had pointed out that our children’s mask study had been republished in the long version after a new review process. As a reminder: We had found elevated carbon dioxide levels in the order of 13,000 parts per million (ppm) in the children’s inhaled air after 3 minutes; 2,000 ppm is the limit value. Higher levels pose a health risk, according to the Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environment Agency) [1].
This confirms that the original publication in JAMA Pediatrics was wrongly retracted. The motivation for this retraction of the publication was probably political. For if this publication had stood at the time, it should have led to consequences. The masking mandate for children would have had to be lifted and parents would possibly have had good chances in court proceedings. The mask mandates have now been lifted, thank God, and possibly the wheels of justice will now begin to grind.
As was to be expected, there was also opposition to the second publication of the new long version of our study. This is the normal process of scientific discourse, that data that others do not like or are critical of, are critically commented on. In this case, a Japanese group and two Swiss authors of the Schweizerische Unfallversicherung (Swiss Accident Insurance) have voiced criticisms.
We have responded to these criticisms. Our reply is now freely available until 2021-04-21 at this link and thereafter via the Journal’s homepage [2].
Just in time for Christmas, the working group led by Kai Kisielinski and Andreas Sönnichsen has made a meta-analysis available on the preprint server Research Square [1] that clearly proves that mask-wearing has harmful health effects. You should take this into account, dear judges, dear members of governments, regulatory authorities, school administrators, responsible persons at the railways, if you continue to make the wearing of masks compulsory. Because you make yourself liable to prosecution for bodily harm. The meta-analysis shows: in all studied parameters, which are physiological indicators of health exposure, the wearing of face masks leads to relatively large, significant and harmful effects.
Our mask study measured carbon dioxide levels in the inhaled air of 45 children wearing face masks. It found that the inhaled air under children’s face masks contained unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide, about 1.3% to 1.4% by volume, or 13,000 to 14,000 parts per million. Normal outdoor carbon dioxide levels are 400 ppm or 0.04% by volume. The Federal Environment Agency and various protective regulations have determined that 2,000 ppm or 0.2 vol.-% is the upper limit above which damage to health cannot be ruled out. For children, such high values, as we measured after only 3 minutes, are absolutely unacceptable. Especially against the background that children are neither at high risk of corona infections and Sars-CoV2 nor are they important spreaders of infections.