Hugely contentious study that claimed Covid jabs have killed 280,000 people in the US gets pulled... three months after flaws were raised

This study was no weaker than many others that appear in the academic journals.  Extrapolation, for instance, is common, if not routine.  The article was retracted because of the unpopularity of its conclusions, not because of unusual methodological weaknesses

Its big offense was its reasonable attempt to find an alternative to dodgy official statistics.  Official Covid statistics are about as reliable as Stalin's old production statistics

And it appears to be only the extrapolated figures that have caused all the heartburn.  The percentage of deaths reported -- 2% -- was fairly modest and quite believable


The publisher of some of the world's most prestigious scientific journals has today sensationally retracted a study that wrongly claimed Covid vaccines have killed up to 280,000 people across the US. 

The bombshell estimate was jumped on by anti-vaxx groups across the planet, who demanded roll-outs across the world were urgently suspended.

Springer Nature has now taken the rare step of retracting the paper, more than three months after it was initially published in one of its underling journals. 

It cited concerns over 'the validity of the conclusions drawn after publication'. 

The study, published in BMC Infectious Diseases, was authored by an economist at Michigan State University. 

Writing in the journal, Professor Skidmore said: 'The total number of fatalities due to Covid inoculation may be as high as 278,000.' He claimed, however, that the actual death toll could be closer to the 330,000 mark, according to his calculations

Writing in the journal, Professor Skidmore said: 'The total number of fatalities due to Covid inoculation may be as high as 278,000.' He claimed, however, that the actual death toll could be closer to the 330,000 mark, according to his calculations

Professor Mark Skidmore, who has posted a number of articles critical of Covid jabs on his personal blog, used an online survey of 2,840 people taken in December 2021 to make his estimate of Covid vaccine-related deaths in the US.

Flaws in the methodology were quickly pointed out, prompting an internal investigation into how the paper ever got published.  

It concluded that the study's methodology was 'inappropriate' and had not, in fact, even been approved by the university's own research review panel, established to ensure the safe and ethical conduct of research. 

The retraction notice said: 'The editors have retracted this article as concerns were raised regarding the validity of the conclusions drawn after publication. 

'Post-publication peer review concluded that the methodology was inappropriate as it does not prove causal inference of mortality, and limitations of the study were not adequately described. 

'Furthermore, there was no attempt to validate reported fatalities, and there are critical issues in the representativeness of the study population and the accuracy of data collection.'

It added: 'Lastly, contrary to the statement in the article, the documentation provided by the author confirms that the study was exempt from ethics approval and therefore was not approved by the IRB of the Michigan State University Human Research Protection Program.' 

Professor Skidmore 'disagrees with this retraction', it also noted. 

A Springer Nature spokesperson also told MailOnline today: 'After concerns were raised about the conclusions of the published paper, we immediately commenced an investigation into the claims made in the paper following an established process. 

'Whilst this was ongoing, we also placed an Editor's Note on the paper to ensure readers were aware of these concerns and to be cautious when considering the research.'

They added: 'As part of our investigation, which followed the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines and was supported by the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group, we conducted a post-publication review of the paper. 

'This involved consulting with the author and seeking advice from members of the journal's Editorial Board with appropriate expertise in the subject matter. 

'In light of our investigation, and once we had considered all options, we decided to retract the paper.'

Respondents of the study's survey were asked if they knew of someone who had suffered a severe health reaction from getting a Covid vaccine.

Of the total 612 people (22 per cent) who claimed they had, 57 people (2 per cent) said that they knew someone who had died as a result. 

These included deaths from heart attacks, strokes or blood clots. 

Professor Skidmore then used the data to create a vaccine fatality ratio and extrapolated that data to the entirety of the US population that received Covid vaccines in the first year they were deployed. 

Writing in the journal, Professor Skidmore said: 'The total number of fatalities due to Covid inoculation may be as high as 278,000.'

He claimed, however, that the actual death toll could be closer to the 330,000 mark, according to his calculations. 

And Professor Skidmore, who is listed by his university as an expert on finances and the economics of natural disasters, stated the figure was 'after fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11960667/Hugely-contentious-study-claimed-Covid-jabs-killed-280-000-people-gets-pulled.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them