Looks scary. Let’s check the authors! Are they trustworthy, or are they lying?
Primary author Claire Rogers - Dermatology Physician Assistant. While I’m sure she has medical training, I don’t see any experience with strokes or vaccines specifically.
James A Thorp - OB/GYN with The Wellness Company, a right-wing alternative medicine scam company: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-wellness-company-is-being-spruiked-by-kari-lake-laura-loomer-naomi-wolf-and-others/
Kirstin Cosgrove - No real results. One LinkedIn profile for a Clinical Research Consultant at Johnson & Johnson, though this paper says she’s an independent researcher. Apparently her employer would disapprove of this work.
Peter A McCullough - Usually the person providing the most support but not doing the most science gets listed last, and here is no exception. This guy has a Wikipedia article that is both thorough and well-sourced. It speaks for itself.
Thanks. yes i realized the last one, and know of his work.
Looking at the “method”, it doesn’t look like rocket-science. I’d like to know, is the publication itself a fraud or not?
Fine, fine I’ll bite.
Vaccine safety should be compared to the disease. Considering covid-19 is known to influence thrombotic events (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7931726/) it is bad science to not compare this( lie 1). This layers on to not including whether the patients who had these CTEs ever had covid, or other risk factors(lie 2). Without any exclusionary or comparative criteria of this sort it is not separating what is a “true” vaccine-related adverse event from just a general event.
It makes zero sense to compare vaccines without any dose comparison(lie 3). Over 640 million doses of the covid-19 vaccine were given in the US. Whereas flu has about 150-200 million doses/year. Population receiving those doses is also different.
Given how the method starts with lies, whatever statistics they have are already useless. That’s 3 lies of omission just in the abstract without bothering with further detail.
All posting this does is spread disinformation and give them site views they don’t deserve.
https://beallslist.net/standalone-journals/
Might want to check if you’re reading a predatory journal next time and save your reading time for something more worthwhile.
Thanks for the tip.
The internet page says “Potential predatory scholarly open-access journals”
So i hope at least a few read the paper and assess their method
So i hope at least a few read the paper and assess their method
I did, which is what made question the journal’s quality for publishing something so easily picked apart.
My comment was honestly less for you than anyone else clicking through, to save them a click. This is “peer reviewed” only in the sense that the author paid $260 for a “publish review” because they couldn’t get into a reputable journal.
