COVID studies on mask wearing in children, ivermectin retracted

Fox News host Tucker Carlson and fellow COVID-19 deniers recently took to two controversial claims, saying face masks put children at risk and that a drug used for parasitic worms could potentially treat COVID-19. Some have cited two scientific studies to support them.

The problem: These studies have since been withdrawn.

Friday, JAMA Pediatrics withdrew a study claiming face masks could expose children to increased levels of carbon dioxide, a Carlson had extensively covered on his show Tucker Carlson tonight.

This adds to widespread concern over the role that public figures like Carlson have played in the rollout of vaccination in the United States, which has slowed among young people. The Biden administration is struggling to meet its goal of vaccinating at least 70% of the population.

The study, “Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children,” was published last month by a group of Polish and German doctors in Germany. He cited an experimental study of 45 children, using an incubator analyzer to identify carbon dioxide levels on two different types of face covers.

“Following the publication, many scientific questions were raised regarding the methodology of the study”, JAMA wrote in his declaration. They cited problems with the device used to measure carbon dioxide levels, as well as whether the results accurately reflected inhaled carbon dioxide.

“Given the fundamental concerns about the study methodology, the uncertainty regarding the validity of the results and conclusions, and the potential public health implications, the editors retracted this research letter,” he said. .

The study had been relentlessly touted by Carlson, who earlier this month called the policies of wearing masks for children “a human tragedy, in fact, on a massive scale, and this is living testimony to the recklessness of our leaders “. He said parents who force their children to wear masks should be reported for child abuse.

“This study confirms that hiding children was not just unnecessary and possibly counterproductive,” Carlson said on his July 1 episode. “Hiding children was rightfully dangerous for children.”

He was further pushed by other COVID conspirators, such as the former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, who has become one of the leading COVID-19 science deniers.

“CHILDREN SHOULD NEVER BE REQUIRED TO WEAR FACE DIAPERS,” he shouted in a statement. Tweeter, in connection with the JAMA paper.

The main author of the study was Harald Walach, a health researcher and former professor at the Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland. This was not the first time that Walach had retracted a study on COVID-19.

Science the magazine reported earlier this month at least six virologists left the scientific journal Vaccines on his publication of Walach’s June 24 study accusing COVID-19 vaccines of causing adverse effects and death. This study was withdrawn on July 2 and led Poznan to fire Walach on July 6.

Walach defended his study of hiding children in an email to The Daily Beast, saying his work was carried out by experts who knew how to manipulate the carbon dioxide measuring device in accordance with the laws.

“The equipment was sensitive and we provided enough material to prove it,” he wrote. “We measured the inhaled air separately from the exhaled air, invalidating the arguments that we could not have done this.”

Walach wrote that while he didn’t see Carlson’s segment, he still stuck to his conclusion.

“I think anyone who forces kids to wear masks should prove their point: that the carbon dioxide that kids inhale doesn’t violate safe limits, that the germ content in that air (which we don’t have not measured and as far as I know no one has done this so far) is negligible [sic] and that the side effects that were documented by a large German survey that we cited are in fact not there, ”he wrote.

It’s not the only COVID science Carlson has pushed that is on shaky ground. Throughout the month of June, Carlson promoted the use of ivermectin, a drug designed to fight parasitic worms and lice, as a tool to treat COVID-19.

He has repeatedly downplayed the effectiveness of COVID vaccines while touting ivermectin on shows in June and July, calling on evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein to advocate for the drug’s use.

Weinstein said the drug was being played down by the pharmaceutical industry to help promote COVID-19 vaccines. His and his wife’s YouTube channel have been demonetized over misinformation claims, and the Food and Drug Administration has warned against the use of the drug, which he notes is not an antiviral.

The rise of the drug among right-wing figures, including Fox host Laura Ingraham, was supported by a November 2020 study conducted by Ahmed Elgazzar at Benha University in Egypt and published via Research Square.

But that preprint study, which has not been peer reviewed, was withdrawn by Research Square on Wednesday for “ethical concerns.” Jack Lawrence, reporter for Grftr disinformation blog, found that Elgazzar apparently plagiarized parts of the study from press releases for ivermectin, including most of the introduction.

He also appeared to have fabricated some of the data from the study, noting how exceptionally comprehensive it was and the duplication of patient deaths.

“The authors claimed to have conducted the study between June 8 and September 20, 2020, but most of the deceased patients were admitted to the hospital and died before June 8 according to the raw data,” he said. he declares. The Guardian.

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong, said The Guardian the data was “quite simply falsified”.

But a public health expert said JAMA Pediatrics ” The withdrawal of the child masking study could potentially make the fight against COVID-19 disinformation more difficult.

“The retraction is so drastic,” Daniel Halperin, professor at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina, told The Daily Beast. “I don’t know if they did the right thing by retracting.”

Halperin said JAMA should have allowed others to respond publicly to the study’s methodology through research articles, noting how the articles must go through a peer review process to be published. But by outright retracting the document, it could potentially allow Carlson to claim it was done for political reasons, even if it wasn’t.

“It just gives fodder to people like Tucker Carlson,” he said. “It makes it worse.”

Fox News did not respond to The Daily Beast’s request for comment.