Anti-vaxxers loved to cite this study of COVID vaccine deaths. Now it’s been retracted: An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the...

Kevyn

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

Fab

Kevyn wrote:

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 death... (show quote)

And you believe that???

Jlw Loc: Wisconsin

Kevyn wrote:

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 death... (show quote)

Did you get your latest booster yet? I think that your due

EmilyD

Kevyn wrote:

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 death... (show quote)

Nice denial.

I urge you to keep on getting the jab. Boosters are good for you. So what if it kills only 10,000 people. Collateral damage, right?

Go for it! It's just a gamble on your life...no big deal...

okie don

Too bad you weren't here in Oklahoma Kevyn.
Get your "jab" and you could get a crispy creame donut.
Hell of a deal!!!👍

Wonttakeitanymore

Kevyn wrote:

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 death... (show quote)

It was retracted because the numbers are larger and they don’t want this info to come out! Read it!

MidnightRider

Kevyn wrote:

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 death... (show quote)

No, I cite what the CDC sent before they started lying:
◾️Formaldehyde/Formalin - Highly toxic systematic poison and carcinogen.

◾️Betapropiolactone - Toxic chemical and carcinogen. May cause death/permanant injury after very short exposure to small quantities. Corrosive chemical.

◾️Hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide - May cause damage to the liver, cardiovascular system, and central nervous system. May cause reproductive effects and birth defects.

◾️Aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum salts - Neurotoxin. Carries risk for long term brain inflammation/swelling, neurological disorders, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's, dementia, and autism. It penetrates the brain where it persists indefinitely.

◾️Thimerosal (mercury) - Neurotoxin. Induces cellular damage, reduces oxidation-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death. Linked to neurological disorders, Alzheimer's, dementia, and autism.

◾️Polysorbate 80 & 20 - Trespasses the Blood-Brain Barrier and carries with it aluminum, thimerosal, and viruses; allowing it to enter the brain.

◾️Glutaraldehyde - Toxic chemical used as a disinfectant for heat sensitive medical equipment.

◾️Fetal Bovine Serum - Harvested from bovine (cow) fetuses taken from pregnant cows before slaughter.

◾️Human Diploid Fibroblast Cells - aborted fetal cells. Foreign DNA has the ability to interact with our own.

◾️African Green Monkey Kidney Cells - Can carry the SV-40 cancer-causing virus that has already tainted about 30 million Americans.

◾️Acetone - Can cause kidney, liver, and nerve damage.

◾️E.Coli - Yes, you read that right.

◾️DNA from porcine (pig) Circovirus type-1

◾️Human embryonic lung cell cultures (from aborted fetuses)

✳️You can view all of these ingredients on the CDCs website. I encourage everyone to do their own research. Look up the MSDS on these chemicals. Read the thousands of peer reviewed studies that have evaluated the biological consequences these chemicals can have on the body, especially when being injected.

✳️Fact check vaccine ingredients here:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

PLEASE SHARE!!!
www.cdc.gov
cdc.gov

WEBCO

Kevyn wrote:

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 death... (show quote)

January of what year? VAERS has shown over 28,000 deaths from the "vaccine" VAERS is highly under reported, not over reported. Nurses have lost their jobs for reporting to VAERS.

The shots have proven to be neither safe or effective. I know it's hard, but you can admit when you're wrong.

WEBCO

I can't believe that there are people in our country that still believe these shots are safe or effective. The manufacturers have admitted not testing them. The CDC should have stopped this a long time ago.

tomhoff24

Yes of course

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

tomhoff24 wrote:

Yes of course

Go to the CDC website and read it for yourself. If you're gonna take it, might as well know what's in it. The CDC tried to keep the ingredients classified for 25 years but we're denied by the courts.

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

Kevyn wrote:

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 deaths from COVID vaccinations thrilled the anti-vaccine crowd. The failings that led to its retraction have a lot to teach us about bogus science.
Back in January, an academic study gave heart to critics of COVID-19 vaccines by estimating the number of U.S. deaths from the vaccines at 278,000.
That was a bombshell, if true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited only 19,476 reports of deaths after COVID vaccination in a national database of unverified adverse reactions to the shots.
Since even that surely inflated figure, which reflects an unknown number of deaths from unrelated causes, amounted to less than three-thousandths of a percent of the 672 million doses of COVID vaccines administered in the U.S., the CDC properly judged the shots "safe and effective" and severe post-vaccine reactions "rare."
Yet the study, by economist Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University, was taken as gospel truth by a legion of anti-vaccine activists.
And why not? It had been published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed medical journal associated with the Nature publishing group, which lent it a gilt-edged luster. Indeed, it ranked as the most-viewed paper in the journal's history.
Now take a deep breath. BMC Infectious Diseases retracted the Skidmore study on Tuesday, specifically citing doubts about "the validity of the conclusions" related to death statistics because of flaws in its methodology. Skidmore disagrees with the retraction.
The retraction, which followed months of dickering between Skidmore and the journal's editor over the nature and text of the retraction notice, points to some important questions about how the spread of misinformation about COVID affects public health.
It also raises questions about how the piece got published in the first place. As Stephanie M. Lee of the Chronicle of Higher Education has pointed out, the flaws in Skidmore's paper were virtually self-evident from the moment it reached print.
Veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski identified them within a day of its official publication, calling the paper "antivax propaganda disguised as a survey," noting Skidmore's record of anti-vaccine commentary, and asking: "How on earth did BMC Infectious Diseases publish such dreck?"
The journal hasn't answered that question. It did, however, publish the comments of the two peer reviewers of Skidmore's paper, one of whom wished to remain anonymous.

An academic study purporting to find 278,000 death... (show quote)

It wasn't listed as safe and effective after 672 million shots were administered. It was called safe and effective when it first was given Emergency use Authorization after a few thousand patients were volunteered into a clinical trial and before the study was concluded. And thanks to the No Liability clause they never followed up the study or reported the true statistics. Including effects on pregnant women and their fetuses. Although they advertised it as safe for pregnant women. Which it isn't.

albertk

https://archive.is/sRn81

Sammisammi

My primary care physician is an internal medicine specialist and told me in no uncertain terms DO NOT GET THE VACCINE !!! It has not been tested and no telling what they put in it. Remember AIDS...produced to thin out the population. Sounds like covid was created for the same purpose !!!