A LITTLE MORE THAN TWO WEEKS. This is the lapse of time between the publication and the withdrawal – due to obvious problems of scientific method – of a controversial study on the alleged danger of “too much carbon dioxide” (CO2) breathed by children wearing a mask. The news was announced by Jama Pediatrics, the same magazine that initially agreed to publish the contribution by the research group of Harald Walach, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Poznan. The reasons leave little room for interpretation: the publisher has decided to withdraw the contribution due to “errors of methodology, uncertainty about the validity of the results and conclusions and the potential implications for public health“.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, many imaginative theories have emerged on the danger of masks. Useful – the surgical ones – in containing the emissions of viral particles in positive individuals and – the FFP2 – in reducing the probability of contagion, the obligation to use has been harshly criticized more on an ideological basis than on a scientific basis. One of the main unsubstantiated accusations is that they see their use as a serious health problem, especially in children, due to too much inhaled carbon dioxide. Too much anhydride – as it is “retained” by the mask when exhaling – which would expose children to the risk of developing hypercapnia, a condition in which, due to the rise in CO levels2 in the blood, there is an increase in heart rate, dyspnoea, muscle spasms, increased blood pressure, headache, confusion, lethargy up to hyperventilation and disorientation and loss of consciousness.
The results of the study
To demonstrate the thesis of the link between the use of masks and hypercapnia, the authors of the study involved 45 volunteers – aged between 6 and 17 years – “forcing” them to use masks (both FFP2 and surgical) in order to measure the amount of carbon dioxide present. From the analyzes, the authors concluded that on average, using the masks, there are between 13,120 and 13,910 ppm of CO2. Amounts that according to the authors would far exceed the maximum permitted concentrations. In particular, the authors, referring to an old document, affirm that – according to the rules of the German Federal Office for the Environment – concentrations should not exceed 2,000 ppm for indoor environments.
But it is precisely on the interpretation of the limits that the study presents one of the biggest problems. The 2,000 ppm limit applies to closed environments, not a model comparable to what happens with a mask. It is no coincidence that the limit value of carbon dioxide measurable in the masks is much higher, equal to 40,000 ppm. But to achieve a minimum “narcotic” effect, the quantity breathed should be at least double – according to the German Federal Agency for the Environment – a concentration that is therefore difficult to reach. There is, however, more because the alleged link with hypercapnia is not at all proven as neither the concentration of carbon dioxide in the blood nor the state of health of the individuals subjected to the test was assessed in the study. After the publication of the results, many research groups raised numerous doubts regarding both the study methodology and the validity of its conclusions. The journal requested explanations from the authors of the analysis, but did not receive sufficiently convincing evidence and for this reason, on July 16, withdrew the article definitively.
A retreat, that of Walach’s studio, which follows another retreat again by the Polish academic. In that case – the publication took place on June 24 and the withdrawal a week later, on July 2 – Walach became the protagonist of a study – published in the controversial journal Vaccines – which attested to the danger of anti Covid-19 vaccinations. Based on unverifiable data – and therefore difficult to evaluate through peer-review – the authors, against any evidence coming from reality, made up of millions of doses administered, concluded that the risks of vaccination greatly outweigh the benefits. A completely untrue conclusion that was worth the withdrawal of the article shortly after a week of publication. A gross error that has led to the resignation of several scientists from the editorial board of the journal itself and which once again denotes the problem of predatory journals (journals that exist solely for the purpose of generating economic revenue from authors without regard for peer-review or for the quality of published studies) and of a certain way of “doing” peer-review.
.