BMJ journal says media misconstrued article, no claim linking Covid-19 vaccines to excess deaths – The Straits Times

SINGAPORE An article in a reputable journal that media outlets around the world have reported as linking Covid-19 vaccines with excess deaths has drawn flak from doctors and scientists, and has resulted in the journal tweeting a statement that the media have misinterpreted the article.

The piece, which appeared on June 3 in BMJ Public Health, one of the titles published by The BMJ, said the 47 Western countries the authors looked at had the highest number of excess deaths in 2021, when both containment measures and vaccines were used.

The article was submitted by three paediatric oncologists from the Princess Maxima Centre for paediatric oncology in the Netherlands and an independent researcher.

They also spoke of the lack of transparency when batch-dependent levels of toxicity were discovered in the mRNA vaccines in Denmark, a well as the simultaneous onset of excess mortality and Covid-19 vaccination in Germany.

The BMJ posted on X on June 7 to say that while various news outlets have claimed the research implies the vaccines had caused excess deaths, the study does not establish any such link.

On June 11, the childrens cancer centre said on its website: The Princess Maxima Centre distances itself from the publication Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the Covid-19 pandemic: Our World in Data estimates of January 2020 to December 2022.

It said serious questions have arisen regarding the publication, so it will further investigate the scientific quality of this study and it regrets the impression that the importance of vaccinations was being questioned.

It said the focus of the piece had shifted from the original, which was to look at the impact of Covid-19 measures on deaths in children with cancer in low-income countries in a direction that we felt was too far from our expertise: paediatric oncology. We are not experts in epidemiology, nor do we want to give that impression.

It added: We should have been more alert to the formation and results of this publication and will further investigate the way it was created. If it turns out that carelessness was involved in the realisation of this publication, it will of course be withdrawn.

The Straits Times had run an article on the piece on June 8 quoting several experts here who said it was unbalanced and had pointed out that correlation is not the same as causation.

The Ministry of Health had also weighed in to say: Numerous studies have demonstrated how Covid-19 vaccination had lowered the risk of death as compared with not being vaccinated.

Retraction Watch, a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers, said that scientists had critiqued the studys methodology.

It quoted Mr Ariel Karlinsky, an economist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, whose work the study cited, saying on X: The onus here is on BMJ Public Health, which published a really bad paper with a misleading title.

Professor Hsu Li Yang, an infectious diseases consultant who is vice-dean of global health at the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, wrote to Professor Helena Legido-Quigley, chair of the advisory board of BMJ Public Health, expressing his unease with the piece.

In an e-mail sent on June 10, parts of which ST has seen, he said: I am somewhat surprised and dismayed that the BMJ Public Health editorial team allowed the article to be published as it currently stands... The discussion is replete with misleading statements and conclusions that the data and results do not strongly support (or even support).

He pointed out several such statements, including the claim that scientific consensus on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in reducing viral transmission is currently lacking. He said: This is so clearly wrong, given the plethora of original research and meta-analyses.

He added that the researchers also quoted articles that have been debunked.

On why he sent the e-mail to the journal, Prof Hsu said: I felt the authors written conclusions were not supported by the data and authors own analyses, and also because the article given the high publicity by major news outlets could potentially further undermine confidence in vaccines both specific to Covid-19 and in general.

Go here to see the original:

BMJ journal says media misconstrued article, no claim linking Covid-19 vaccines to excess deaths - The Straits Times