Dowd and Bartlett (2019) tested the reading competencies of second graders attending Save the Children programs in 11 countries. They used sixty-word passages and comprehension questions without time limits and analyzed data of students reading more than 10 words per minute. They found wide disparities in speed among those who showed high comprehension rates between-countries and within-country. They interpreted the findings as diminishing the role of speed in early-grade assessment and instruction. However, the study has major issues on three fronts: (a) use of English-language studies for transparent orthographies, (b) disregard of current neurocognitive research on memory functions, and (c) sample selectivity. These raise grave concerns regarding the internal and external validity of the conclusions. The authors' dedication is admirable, but their findings do not justify any policy recommendations. To the contrary, given the importance of speed for comprehension, their recommendations may have the perverse effect of disadvantaging the very students that Save the Children is supporting. Researchers and journals have the ethical obligation to publish studies that reflect contemporary reading research.