JAMA Pediatrics has retracted a paper claiming that children’s masks trap too-high concentrations of carbon dioxide a little more than two weeks after publishing it.
The paper, by Harald Walach and colleagues, came under fire immediately after it was published on June 30, and quickly earned an editor’s note. Walach had another paper — which claimed that COVID-19 vaccines caused two deaths for every three deaths they prevented — retracted just a few days later. He also lost an affiliation with a university in Poland.
Walach and his colleagues responded to critics of the JAMA Pediatrics paper earlier this month, as we reported. But the journals apparently found that response wanting, according to the retraction notice:
Following publication, numerous scientific issues were raised regarding the study methodology, including concerns about the applicability of the device used for assessment of carbon dioxide levels in this study setting, and whether the measurements obtained accurately represented carbon dioxide content in inhaled air, as well as issues related to the validity of the study conclusions. In their invited responses to these and other concerns, the authors did not provide sufficiently convincing evidence to resolve these issues, as determined by editorial evaluation and additional scientific review. Given fundamental concerns about the study methodology, uncertainty regarding the validity of the findings and conclusions, and the potential public health implications, the editors have retracted this Research Letter.
Walach told us today:
The main reasons for retractions – wrong data, wrong analysis, plagiarism – are neither present, nor proven by the editors or the commentators.
Walach also sent us the responses he sent JAMA Pediatrics: here, here, and here.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
This has become an extremely disturbing time in the continuum of medical history. The established medical hierarchy has become captured by a political narrative and human beings are suffering and dying apparently due to coercive forces of NIH grants and career smearing tactics (Dr. Scott Atlas). One almost feels compelled to invoke a reminder of the Hippocratic Oath to these bureaucrats who have become captives of their own narrative. I have chosen to decline immunization with the mRNA “vaccines” and take Ivermectin. The frightening thing is (in the last months) in appointments with my PCP and my Gastroenterologists… neither had ever heard of the medication Ivermectin, no less having any awareness of the controversy surrounding its use. These are dark and frightening times and one needs to be reminded of President Eisenhower’s admonition about the ‘Tyranny of Experts’ in his military-industrial farewell speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU (NB: Starts 7:40 minute mark)
As a neurologist and psychiatrist, how do you come by your knowledge on Ivermectin?
While there is always the possibility that Ivermectin somehow works, this possibility is getting smaller by the day: https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/ . As to the dangers from the ‘Tyranny of Experts’ I am more worried about the ‘Tyranny of non-Experts’: Quacks, youtubers, ex-QAnon proponents, “wellness” peddlers, and all those who will never be subjected to peer review by anyone. I am certain you did your own cost-benefit analysis between vaccines (which you put in quotes-clearly you believe those are something “else”) and Ivermectin and you came to this decision. I just wish you were as cautious in perusing the wisdom of the non-experts as you are incredulous to the one of the experts.
I’m curious on both your thoughts on Tess Lawrie’s meta analysis on Ivermectin? Are either of you familiar with her work? I am simply an average joe trying to seek better resources to inform myself. She seems credible, MD and PHD, an external analyst for the WHO. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Mike, let me just point out two things:
1) one of the papers (a pre-print) that had been rated as having a low risk of bias and that had a pretty big effect on the results of the meta-review because it was by far the largest trial, has now been removed from the pre-print server due to major concerns about the veracity of the data. This is obviously not Lawrie’s fault of having included a potentially fraudulent (or just plain wrong) study, but still, it was unpublished and had been for a long time already. That should raise alarm bells.
2) there is a group in the UK called “the BIRD group” that has been pushing for approval of ivermectin for COVID treatment. It is run by Tess Lawrie’s consultancy. This appears to me to be a rather important potential conflict of interest: writing a meta-review that supports something you are lobbying for. I can’t see this CoI mentioned in the paper anywhere.
Look at the timeline. Tess Lawrie started her research into IVM long before the Bird group was formed. I watched some of the interviews she conducted during this time. The evidence from her ongoing analyses (prior to and including the published meta-analysis), led her to believe in the potential for IVM to save lives, which then led to the formation of the Bird group.
Mike, every meta-analysis depends on the quality of studies it includes. Even a meta-analysis with decent methodology risks the “garbage in=garbage out” phenomenon. Lawrie’s selection of studies includes studies the authors flag as low quality, studies flagged as moderate to high quality and some pre-prints where it is difficult to ascertain quality (like the Elgazzar study which has been shown now to be very problematic). A re-analysis of her study, considering the quality of each included study, shows practically no difference between Ivermectin and placebo: https://gidmk.medium.com/does-ivermectin-work-for-covid-19-1166126c364a