Ask yourself, why would this paper be RETRACTED? 'Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation'
Ask yourself, why would this paper be RETRACTED? 'Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation'
Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
ANYTHING that suggests pharma products hurt us and do NOTHING to help us, is going to instantly mobilize pharma's servants academia, media, FDA, CDC, big tech, etc., to take it out, along with scandalizing, or even MURDERING whomever proved it up.
Well, in the same way one can get the boot from LinkedIn for "violating professional guidelines," they'll say that without telling you what it was about what you posted or said. So, you never really know exactly what violated what and how.
Same here it seems. I went to the article and found their "reason:"
"A Retraction of the Original Research Article
Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation
by Kisielinski, K., Hirsch, O., Wagner, S., Wojtasik, B., Funken, S., Klosterhalfen, B., Kanti Manna, S., Prescher, A., Sukul, P., and Sönnichsen, A. (2023). Front. Public Health 11:1125150. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125150
The journal retracts the 5 April 2023 article cited above.
Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the scientific validity of the article. An investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. It was found that the complaints were valid and that the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Public Health; therefore, the article has been retracted.
This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Public Health and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction."
The mag responds to complaints (From whom?) and found them worthy. (On what basis?) Mag pulls the article. Authors disagree and no one knows why. Period. End of.
I used the original findings (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ )on that key point in 12/21 to debate the SC, City Council, BOH, and even the mayor. Hahaha they couldn’t combat but pledged their allegiance to the overlords (State DPH, CDC, local hospital systems) knowing what’s best. I told them they all report to my masters in pharma 😂😂😂
We pissed off the wrong people and they shut us down (some Rockefeller trust-fund babies). They actually tried to steal the patent and I dragged them into court. I was up against 5 of the most powerful law firms in the WORLD, and I was pro se. They settled for going away and never again making claims of ownership (or inventorship) over the IP. But they made sure we didn't get funded. I think they call it the "black list" for the tech world :-)
We still have great working prototypes. Won the "Innovations" award at the CES some time back (2006). Going for a continuation patent in the near future with an advanced motion detection system nobody sees coming, which will work with the "GameRunner". This will be WAY past that clunky "Occulus" headset, way more accurate, light, and way less expensive, no drag, no drift, no LAG whatsoever, so not motion sickness.
And I still see 🐑 wearing them!
Because the Medical Cartel wanted it retracted. They want to preserve masking for future events
ANYTHING that suggests pharma products hurt us and do NOTHING to help us, is going to instantly mobilize pharma's servants academia, media, FDA, CDC, big tech, etc., to take it out, along with scandalizing, or even MURDERING whomever proved it up.
Let me guess: without even reading the retractions, I'd bet they didn't go along with "their" narratives???
I feel sad when I see masked folks these days, since they know not what they do
Retraction -- Under intense professional pressure and fear of retaliation from the medical establishment? What other explanation?
Hmmm, maybe they fear retaliation? Which they so richly deserve!
it's in the air&water...be safe, eh?
https://forex-station.com/download/file.php?id=3437047
=Text in image=
Bob-
Don't worry about kids peeing in the pool.
They have bathing suits on.
Ed-
How does that even work?
Bob-
Like a mask.
Got my pitch fork ready, will you join me?
Pittsburgh VA hospital still requiring masks...or entry and medical care are denied to veterans.
How is that humane?
Well, in the same way one can get the boot from LinkedIn for "violating professional guidelines," they'll say that without telling you what it was about what you posted or said. So, you never really know exactly what violated what and how.
Same here it seems. I went to the article and found their "reason:"
"A Retraction of the Original Research Article
Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation
by Kisielinski, K., Hirsch, O., Wagner, S., Wojtasik, B., Funken, S., Klosterhalfen, B., Kanti Manna, S., Prescher, A., Sukul, P., and Sönnichsen, A. (2023). Front. Public Health 11:1125150. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125150
The journal retracts the 5 April 2023 article cited above.
Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the scientific validity of the article. An investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. It was found that the complaints were valid and that the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Public Health; therefore, the article has been retracted.
This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Public Health and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction."
The mag responds to complaints (From whom?) and found them worthy. (On what basis?) Mag pulls the article. Authors disagree and no one knows why. Period. End of.
Big sigh...
They are gonna demand we wear the filthy things again
I used the original findings (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ )on that key point in 12/21 to debate the SC, City Council, BOH, and even the mayor. Hahaha they couldn’t combat but pledged their allegiance to the overlords (State DPH, CDC, local hospital systems) knowing what’s best. I told them they all report to my masters in pharma 😂😂😂
We pissed off the wrong people and they shut us down (some Rockefeller trust-fund babies). They actually tried to steal the patent and I dragged them into court. I was up against 5 of the most powerful law firms in the WORLD, and I was pro se. They settled for going away and never again making claims of ownership (or inventorship) over the IP. But they made sure we didn't get funded. I think they call it the "black list" for the tech world :-)
We still have great working prototypes. Won the "Innovations" award at the CES some time back (2006). Going for a continuation patent in the near future with an advanced motion detection system nobody sees coming, which will work with the "GameRunner". This will be WAY past that clunky "Occulus" headset, way more accurate, light, and way less expensive, no drag, no drift, no LAG whatsoever, so not motion sickness.
It's not dead, but surely on ice for now.
Peer review nothing but formal censorship and then they use the retraction to catch all that somehow makes it through
Yes! They really fear it.