The article was evaluated by the editor-in-chief with the support of several members of the editorial board. They found that the paper contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the results. From comment #11 in the PubPeer feed (h/t Philobota Futilis), we learn that aids and services are available upon request for people with disabilities. Customers who are deaf, hard of hearing or speech-impaired can contact Relay Texas: 800-735-2989 (TTY) and 711 (voice). Equality of opportunity is the law. Or, as Dr. Ngozi Ezike put it: “If you were in hospice and you already had a few weeks to live, and you were also diagnosed with COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. This technically means that even if you died from another clear cause, but had COVID at the same time, it will still be listed as a COVID death. So anyone listed as a COVID death doesn`t mean it was the cause of death, but they had COVID at the time of death. Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director, Department of Public Health, Illinois week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/ ©2011 Texas Workforce Commission Sitemap Guidelines Report Scam: 800-252-3642 A responsible person who does not want their loved ones injected with a hastily prepared, lamentably tested, poorly supervised experimental gene therapy of questionable efficacy does not make someone an antivaxxer. It gives them common sense.

3. So far, the focus has been entirely on the authors, especially the first author. What about reviewers who approved the article? Why did the editors feel the need to resign? What types of conflicts take place behind the curtain? Should transparency requests be extended beyond authors to reviewers and publishers? At one point, the special edition was requested in the cornfield and the link is now 404, but someone at MDPI really needs to explain why the publishers` proposal was accepted in the first place. Their reasoning turned American into a waiting room filled with 230 million patients who are prohibited by law and company charter from seeking a second opinion. @John W. Clark: I`d like to hear more about your views on how and why attempts to estimate COVID deaths are an “absolute abomination and an insult to the basic science of measurement.” This sounds existentially serious! John W Clark Senior Engineer and Metrologist, BE (Hons 1A), Legal Metrologist Melbourne Australia Richard Pinch! When Dr. Ngozi Ezike insists, “If you`ve been in a hospice and you`ve been alive for a few weeks and then you`ve been diagnosed with COVID, that would count as a COVID death.” Of course, this means that COVID is also considered (counted) as a cause of death in death certificates, even in cases where COVID was not the cause of death. The fact that this happens regularly has been proven time and again by subsequent autopsies. Taking a death certificate as proof of causation is like eating the restaurant car because it says “soup.” “ONS figures are based on death certificates,” which is totally irrelevant as long as these death certificates are only estimates, which can be based solely on the presence of a positive test up to 30 days before the death of the deceased. The UK death certificates to which the ONS refers are NOT necessarily based on an autopsy and therefore death certificates are in no way evidence of causation more than a death certificate stating the vaccine as the cause of death if it was not based on an autopsy.

If death certificates are not based solely on autopsy, it means that excessive mortality rates may have other undetected causes such as N1H1, etc. I have a number of questions about this incident. Update, 2330 UTC, 7/4/21: Walach and a co-author, Rainer Klement, sent us a statement they submitted to Vaccines. They write: “The real reason seems to have been pressure from some editors of the journal” and “The chronology suggests that the journal was not really interested in our response and that our response was not relevant to the retraction.” Read the full answer here. The journal removes the article cited above The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations – We Should Rethink the Policy [1]. In 2020, about 90% of Covid-related deaths were “due” to Covid. This article was recently published in the journal “Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law”, Volume 3:87-99, August 2021, apparently without DOI, see www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/ This review is linked to IPAK, the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge, see ipaknowledge.org/ Edited by Dr. Konstantin Poulas and Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, tobacco advocates and opponents, best known for their opinions, that the best way to avoid and treat COVID-19 is nicotine. The authors were asked to respond to the allegations, but were unable to do so satisfactorily.

The authors were informed of the revocation and did not agree. You can use the menus at the top of this page, check out our sitemap, or browse our website: a) The method of counting deaths from SARS-CoV-2 is an absolute abomination and an insult to the Texas Workforce Commission`s science and core measurement values: community, accountability, innovation, accountability, commitment to excellence, and partnership. The requested page is not available. We apologize for the inconvenience and would like to help you find the information you need. This rationality of error on the safety side should also apply to hastily prepared, lamentably tested and poorly supervised experimental gene therapy of dubious efficacy. Data from the Lareb Report (www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in the Netherlands were used to calculate the number of serious and fatal side events per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, these data were misinterpreted in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al., leading to incorrect conclusions. Data were presented by the authors as causally related to adverse events. That is incorrect. In the Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report suspected adverse reactions that may be associated with vaccination. This type of reporting does not require a causal link between the event and the vaccine, so a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily due to vaccination.

Therefore, reporting a death after vaccination does not mean that it is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the work of Harald Walach et al. One of them is that fatal cases have been certified by specialists. It should be noted that even this false claim does not imply the causality that the authors imply. In addition, the authors referred to the events as “effects” and “reactions” if this is not established, and until causality is established, these are “events” that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. No matter what statistics you use, it`s wrong and misleading. If your newspaper wants to establish the requirement that vaccine-derived injuries can only be counted on a case-by-case basis, then that`s fine.