fact finder
Status: 07/08/2021 6:01 am
Another study claims to have shown that children are exposed to “the highest health risks” by wearing breathing masks. The paper is a teaching example of manipulation and methodological errors.
From Wulf Rohwedder,
Editor ARD fact finder
“Scientific study proves: Massively increased CO2 values in the air inhaled by children wearing masks”, so it says in a press release by the association “Doctors and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy” (MWGFD). It is not the first attempt to substantiate this claim – however, previous approaches have failed and have been refuted due to methodological errors. This time the authors are apparently trying to give the impression that their study has been reviewed and accepted by a renowned specialist journal.
The results of a study published on June 30th, 2021 in the internationally renowned pediatric journal ‘JAMA Pediatrics’ with the title “Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children- A Randomized Clinical Trial “” show impressively that after just a few minutes of wearing the mask, the carbon dioxide content of the inhaled air increases by an average of 6 times what the Federal Environment Agency classifies as hazardous to health.
Not a verified study
In fact, the publication is not a peer-reviewed study, but just a so-called study “Research Letter”which is not subject to any scientific or methodological review according to the peer review rules.
Peer Review and Research Letter
In the peer review process (verification by peers), scientific work, in particular articles for scientific publications, is reviewed by independent reviewers from the same subject. If they express this criticism of the text, the authors must satisfactorily refute it or correct their work.
Alternatively, authors can present their texts to the public without peer review on so-called preprint servers. In addition, scientific journals offer the opportunity to publish a “Research Letter” that gives a brief overview of a current research report. The criteria are generally lower than for an article that has been peer-reviewed.
This is also used to measure the legal conclusion drawn in the communication, which accuses those responsible in schools and other institutions of a criminal offense:
Children have to wear these masks in schools for several hours every day. This clearly shows that when wearing a mask, children regularly poison themselves through rebreathing of carbon dioxide and expose themselves to the highest health risks, which from a legal point of view clearly constitutes physical harm.
A request from the ARD fact finder To the editorial staff of the journal, the criteria according to which the text was selected and checked for publication has not yet been answered.
Funding from a relevant source
The research experiment was financed by the association MWGFD, which already has a number of Misinformation has spread to the corona pandemic. Spicy: In the English translation of the report, the MWGFD is referred to as “public charity”. In the German version, however, this assignment is missing – probably for good reason: The association was only several months after it was founded revoked the status of the public benefit been.
The main author of the study (“principal investigator”), the psychologist Harald Walach, and three of the seven co-authors are themselves members of the micro-association. The editors of the publishing journal have meanwhile announced that they will be reviewing a possible resulting conflict of interest. None of the parties involved is a proven expert in terms of breathing air measurements.
Already an embarrassing setback for the main author
Main author Walach is currently under criticism for another study for which he is responsible, which is supposed to prove that the damage caused by vaccinations against Covid-19 outweighs their benefits. Several scientists then held an “Expression of Concern” against the authors of methodological errors and misinterpretation of data.
When Wallach and his colleagues were unable to rebut the criticism to satisfaction, the study was closed by the publishing journal for “several errors that profoundly affect the interpretation of the results.” withdrawn. At least two members of the editorial team who had initially accepted the vaccination study, however, resigned in protest against the original publication.
The authors then admitted to using “weak data” but stuck to their conclusions and attributed the withdrawal of the text to the fact that pressure had apparently been exerted on the editors. In the meantime, the University of Poznan has announced that it has distanced itself from the publication due to the “lack of scientific care and appropriate methodology” and that it has ended its collaboration with Wallach.
Co-authors with an esoteric background
A total of five of the seven authors had, to put it cautiously, been made into questionable statements: For example, the doctor and “quantum healer” Andreas Diemer recommended on his homepage to use chlorine dioxide against “viruses, including Covid-19 and other corona viruses” – one Treatment that is not only ineffective, but potentially life-threatening. The page has since been deleted. Daniela Folkinger does not give any academic qualifications, but as an “energetic life coach” she propagates the “Theta Healing” method, which has proven to be ineffective or dangerous.
Co-author Stefan Hockertz had, among other things, spread false information about vaccine research by the US company Merck. Another participant in the study, MWGFD Vice-Chairman Ronald Weikl, is due to Issuing incorrect health certificates determined. Weikl also opposed an advertisement placed by the association tagesschau.de made a statement which MWGFD press spokesman Stefan Homburg called a “lie”.
Unsuitable measuring device
Helmut Traindl, who is responsible for determining the database, carried out a similar investigation last year and used a device that, according to the distributor and experts is not intended for this.
This is also the case with the measurements he is currently performing: The system used for this was not developed for examining breathing air, but for checking medical incubators. For this measurement of breathing air, it was neither tested nor approved, the sales company told the ARD fact finder: The measurement of breathing air is also a very complex topic and can be influenced by several factors of the respective person.
Client reject allegation
The association MWGFD rejected the statements of the sales company and the experts to the ARD fact finder back: “A CO2 measuring device does not differentiate between the origin of the CO2 gas, so it can be used in different areas. The statement that the device used is neither approved nor suitable for airway measurements is absurd.” The origin of the gas from the environment, landfill, room air or breathing air does not matter: “Gas is gas”. Traindl explained to that ARD fact finderthat the suitability criteria specified in the technical “data sheet of the device (ambient conditions, measuring range, etc.)” have been complied with.
However, the system only determines a value averaged over a longer period of time and takes up to 20 seconds to determine a measured value with 90 percent accuracy. In addition, it detects a change to a high concentration much faster than the other way around. The question of ARD fact finderTraindl has not yet answered how he still claims to have carried out up to 15 individual measurements of individual breathing phases in three minutes, as stated.
In summary: The commissioned “study”, which has not been reviewed by any other scientist, is based on unsuitable data surveys that were interpreted by those involved with no proven expertise. The majority of those involved also have a history of questionable or false statements regarding the corona pandemic.