Stanford disavows “the medical hypothesis on the efficacy of face masks against COVID-19″ published by Baruch Vainshelboim.” His paper “is NOT a Stanford Study.” Elsevier journal to retract the paper

Last week, we wrote a piece about a 2020 medical hypothesis authored by Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim, which was also “linked to” by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The article was first published on Science Direct, a website owned by Elsevier Journal.

As we pointed out in our article on April 8, Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim’s medical hypothesis is “NOT a study peer-reviewed” accepted by other scientists. Besides, contrary to the misinformation from many online outlets, Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim’s paper is also NOT a research study backed by other respected scientists. This post is an update and a correction to our April 8 article. We’ve also updated the original article with the new information from the Stanford School of Medicine.

In the published paper, Vainshelboim “suggests that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales.” Vainshelboim also listed his affiliation as Stanford University and the VA Palo Alto Health System. As it turned out, Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim is an exercise physiologist with no academic connection to Stanford University or the NIH.

In a media statement issued on April 22, Stanford disavowed Vainshelboim’s claims and denied any current connection with him saying:

“Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19. A study on the efficacy of face masks against COVID-19 published in the November 2020 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses is not a “Stanford study.” The author’s affiliation is inaccurately attributed to Stanford, and we have requested a correction. The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended.”

That’s not all. In another article published today by Retraction Watch, titled, “Elsevier journal to retract widely debunked masks study whose author claimed a Stanford affiliation,” Retraction Watch stated that Elsevier journal plans to retract Vainshelboim’s 2020 paper.

So why is Vainshelboim’s paper so damaging?

In the article, Vainshelboim argued that:

Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression.

Vainshelboim also argued that:

Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression.

However, contrary to Vainshelboim’s claim, Stanford Medicine, who he claimed to affiliate with, said that it “strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19.” Stanford also disavowed Vainshelboim and his article as we saw above saying that: “A study on the efficacy of face masks against COVID-19 published in the November 2020 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses is not a Stanford study.”

Retraction Watch also reached out to Vainshelboim. However, he did not respond to their request for comment.

In conclusion, we would like to thank Retraction Watch for following up on this story. With millions of websites masquerading as legitimate news sites, this is a reminder to all of us that we should be careful of where we get our news from. We also want to give a special shout-out to @alexkasprak for raising the issue with our original article and his relentless pursuit of truth.