In both papers, which were not peer-reviewed
“As the authors of the working papers –
Well, quite. That’s what working papers are. Papers before they’ve been peer reviewed.
The row has been taken up by others. A group of doctors recently declared on the BMJ website that “both of these papers are flawed in conception as well as design, but have none the less been widely publicised as cautionary tales”. Diethelm’s letter calls on the university to take the papers down from its website. “We ask the University of Zurich to retract them because they are erroneous beyond repair and because … they interfere with the public health policy of other countries… ”
But that’s not how it works. You’ve shown that the papers are nonsense? Good for you then, publish away. But you don’t get to call or their paper to be washed out of existence: your refutation should stand on the excellence with which you have refuted them.