Thread by @BlakeMMurdoch

RETRACTION: The @JAMAPediatrics study claiming “strikingly low” incidence of Long Covid (PCC) in kids, retracted due to multiple errors whereby incidence was underestimated by a factor over 2.5. But also it’s methodologically completely invalid anyway.
🧵
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…

Me, @Mark_Ungrin and @GosiaGasperoPhD previously published a response letter in @JAMAPediatrics and a breakdown social media of how the manuscript makes no sense and the methodology claims to use the @WHO definition of PCC but doesn’t at all. See here:
/2

https://x.com/BlakeMMurdoch/status/1752105777136066715

I’ll add to this thread as this story develops. News organizations who reported on this invalid study have an obligation to report on its retraction, as this study was one of the “feel good” articles that led to abandonment of public health measures for kids.
@CBCNews @MSN
/3

The retraction letter does not address any of the substantive and invalidating concerns we raised (all the way to the VP of JAMA Network), but instead points to NEW ADDITIONAL errors in coding that invalidate the work. Are the authors trying to save face?

/4

Important clarification: 1.4% incidence is 3.5x higher than 0.4%. But I don’t want to pay the guy money to be able to edit my first post. And as noted, the study is invalid anyway for using improper definitions and other reasons, as we describe here:



/5jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…

@RetractionWatch has published an article about this important retraction. Me:

”There is no mention of the basic errors in the manuscript we laid out in our letter, such as changing the definition of PCC between the Introduction and Methods”

retractionwatch.com/2024/08/20/cod…