In order portray COVID-19 vaccines as dangerous, Peter Doshi has now managed to get poorly designed and performed “reanalyses” of the clinical trial data used by the FDA to grant emergency use approval of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines published in two reputable journals, The BMJ and Vaccine? What happened?
Search: “peter doshi”
We found 34 results for your search.
Kasper Kepp and John Ioannidis have published a preprint accusing The BMJ of “COVID advocacy” bias in its publications. Although The BMJ has been bad on COVID-19 and vaccines, in this case the “bias” is the rejection of COVID-19 minimization and “natural herd immunity.”
Share this:
Once again, Steve Kirsch has incompetently “analyzed” an Excel spreadsheet containing epidemiological data to claim that COVID-19 vaccines increase the chances of getting COVID. He desperately needs to take an Epidemiology 101 course.
Share this:
The BMJ, once a bastion of evidence-based medicine, has become disturbingly susceptible to publishing biased “investigations” that feed antivax narratives. Its latest report on VAERS by Jennifer Block, who in the past has defended Gwyneth Paltrow and Goop and whose history is not one of supporting science, is just another example of this deterioration.
Share this:
Last month, a study showed that papers about COVID-19 that are retracted tend to be cited far more than average and continue to be heavily cited after retraction. Clearly, scientific publishing and the scientific community need to do better.
