The "study" in question is impressively bad. I'm surprised the BMJ published it. As GMK noted many problems with the "study" are really obvious. For what it is worth, the authors do not seem to be infectious disease specialists or epidemiologists - 3 seem to be oncologists, and one an "independent researcher".
It's mindblowing that a vaccine is blamed for excess deaths while a novel virus rips through the population. I don't envy the next generation of researchers and health officials next time there's a pandemic, it'd be a brave person to stick their neck out in light of the current witch hunt.
The paper is indeed laughable. The lack of objectivity is obvious from the outset, when in their introduction of 998 words (where they purport to look for causes of excess mortality in 2000-2022) they use 506 words to talk about vaccine adverse effects and 243 words to talk about containment measures’ adverse effects - but *zero*words to discuss the appearance and dramatically increased infection rate and prevalence of SARS CoV2 variants.
Thank you for this. Based on voluminous sound research and common sense it was axiomatic the authors had made errors in their data analysis and overall reasoning. If this was submitted as a paper to my Biostatistics 101 class it would have received an F because of the sloppy data collection and analysis and convoluted thinking.
Interesting opinion piece. Just an FYI on the statement "Then there’s the idea of “Western” countries...I haven’t seen the term used in a paper published this century." PubMed alone returns 180 studies/papers since 2018 with the words "Western Countries" in the titles.
The "study" in question is impressively bad. I'm surprised the BMJ published it. As GMK noted many problems with the "study" are really obvious. For what it is worth, the authors do not seem to be infectious disease specialists or epidemiologists - 3 seem to be oncologists, and one an "independent researcher".
It's mindblowing that a vaccine is blamed for excess deaths while a novel virus rips through the population. I don't envy the next generation of researchers and health officials next time there's a pandemic, it'd be a brave person to stick their neck out in light of the current witch hunt.
The paper is indeed laughable. The lack of objectivity is obvious from the outset, when in their introduction of 998 words (where they purport to look for causes of excess mortality in 2000-2022) they use 506 words to talk about vaccine adverse effects and 243 words to talk about containment measures’ adverse effects - but *zero*words to discuss the appearance and dramatically increased infection rate and prevalence of SARS CoV2 variants.
Thank you for this. Based on voluminous sound research and common sense it was axiomatic the authors had made errors in their data analysis and overall reasoning. If this was submitted as a paper to my Biostatistics 101 class it would have received an F because of the sloppy data collection and analysis and convoluted thinking.
It's interesting how creatively you use language.
Great article on the pseudo science we're seeing over the last few years. Now, would someone be so kind as to rebut Dr. Chandler?
Interesting opinion piece. Just an FYI on the statement "Then there’s the idea of “Western” countries...I haven’t seen the term used in a paper published this century." PubMed alone returns 180 studies/papers since 2018 with the words "Western Countries" in the titles.
T