Related "The data has been misused due to the fact that it makes the (inaccurate) presumption that all deaths occurring post vaccination are brought on by vaccination," Ewer composed in an e-mail." [And] it is now being used by anti-vaxxers and COVID-19-deniers as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are not safe. [This] is grossly irresponsible, especially for a journal specialising in vaccines." The paper is a case of "trash in, trash out," states Helen Petousis-Harris, a vaccinologist who directs the Vaccine Datalink and Research Study Group at the University of Auckland and who also resigned as a Vaccines editor after checking out the paper.
The resignations began Friday, the day after the paper was released. By early Monday, Fanny Fang, the journal's managing editor, composed to the editorial board members that Vaccinesa credible open-access journal launched in 2013 by Basel, Switzerlandbased publisher MDPIhad opened an examination into the paper. "We are treating this case with the utmost severity and are devoted to quickly remedying the scientific record," she composed.
"The major concern is the misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the information," they wrote. (On 2 July, the journal officially retracted the paper.) The paper has drawn nearly 350,000 readers as of 1 July and has actually been tweeted by antivaccination activists with numerous countless fans.
They are: Harald Walach, a scientific psychologist and science historian by training who explains himself as a health scientist at Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland; Rainer Klement, a physicist who studies ketogenic diet plans in cancer treatment at the Leopoldina Health Center in Schweinfurt, Germany; and Wouter Aukema, an independent information researcher in Hoenderloo, Netherlands.
One of them, Anne Ulrich, a chemist who directs the Institute of Biological Interfaces and is chair of biochemistry at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, composed that the authors' analysis "is carried out responsibly and without methodological flaws and the outcomes were analyzed with the required caveats." Ulrich repeated that view in a 1 July e-mail to Science, Insider: "The analysis by Walach et al.
Among the confidential reviewers wrote that the manuscript "is very essential and should be published urgently," offering nearly no other remark. Vaccines did not respond to a list of questions, consisting of how the peer customers were chosen. Petousis-Harris says: "It's really obvious from their reviews that they don't have any topic competence.