The database of retractions of COVID studies is up to 313 papers at the invaluable blog Retraction Watch. That reviewer raised a few doubts about Skidmore’s data but called the paper “a fantastic study anyway.” The second reviewer, Sudanese public health researcher Yasir Ahmed Mohammed Elhadi, initially recommended against publication but changed his mind after the paper was revised.ĭoubts about scientific papers related to COVID-19 have been rife during the pandemic. Anyone who actually reads it will draw the opposite conclusion. They should try reading itīret Stephens and other conservatives are hawking a new study that supposedly says mask mandates are useless. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore’s paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.īusiness Column: COVID deniers claim a new study says mask mandates don’t work. The journal hasn’t answered that question. Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper “antivax propaganda disguised as a survey,” noting Skidmore’s record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: “How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?” Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore’s paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print. It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal’s editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about “the validity of the conclusions” related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |