What does that article have to do with anything? The fact that it isn't a study, nor a paper released by Stanford? What it is is a statement of hypothesis and a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, which is exactly what it says it is. It is not being retraced because it is what it says it is, it is being retracted because:
Jonathan Davis, a spokesperson for Elsevier, told Reuters via email that Medical Hypotheses has since retracted the article after concluding it was misleading due to “a broader review of existing scientific evidence” showing that masks “are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission” and said that the article contained several misquotes and unverified data.
All of which is false or misleading. There is no "broader review of existing scientific evidence" that shows that "masks are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission". That statement is 100% false.
They have not pointed out any evidence to support such a statement, nor the follow up statement that the article "contained several misquotes and unverified data". If that statement is true, I did not see it when I read the original article.
Reviews of this nature, along with author opinions, in this case called a hypothesis are among the most common type of papers put forth. They are used as the pathway to learn more about a certain topic, and in fact are commonly used, along with others on similar topics, as textbooks on some broader topic.
There is only one reason to retract such a well put together argument, even if there are good counterarguments (for which none have been provided); and that is for political purposes.
What does that article have to do with anything? The fact that it isn't a study, nor a paper released by Stanford? What it is is a statement of hypothesis and a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, which is exactly what it says it is. It is not being retraced because it is what it says it is, it is being retracted because:
All of which is false or misleading. There is no "broader review of existing scientific evidence" that shows that "masks are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission". That statement is 100% false.
They have not pointed out any evidence to support such a statement, nor the follow up statement that the article "contained several misquotes and unverified data". If that statement is true, I did not see it when I read the original article.
Reviews of this nature, along with author opinions, in this case called a hypothesis are among the most common type of papers put forth. They are used as the pathway to learn more about a certain topic, and in fact are commonly used, along with others on similar topics, as textbooks on some broader topic.
There is only one reason to retract such a well put together argument, even if there are good counterarguments (for which none have been provided); and that is for political purposes.
I'm glad I copied that article, and every similar one, in PDF form. I thought it was well done and Elsevier was better than that.