Thread by @uberfeminist

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying cite an extremely low quality pre-print analysis of VAERS data by Scott McLachlan that will definitely be withdrawn or retracted

how can I be so sure that the Scott McLachlan paper is bogus?

the first red flag is that the preprint of the initial results has a large rant about how people are mean to Tucker Carlson. it's the section with the most words, and includes footnotes to tweets that made them mad

here is the primary author of the study Bret Weinstein cited suggesting that universal masking is causing bacterial pneumonia

here is primary author Scott McLachlan tagging his co-authors and insisting that unused swabs are testing positive for covid-19

here is Scott McLachlan, primary author of VAERS paper cited by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, suggesting that Greta Thunberg kill herself

here is McLachlan paper co-author Norman Fenton suggesting that the covid lockdowns were just a precursor for climate lockdowns

keep in mind all i'm doing here is actually reading the paper and then searching the names of primary authors.

I did the same with the Walach paper and predicted the retraction correctly that time as well

https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/1408901303468761091

Scott McLachlan's paper is worthless. the only way it avoids a retraction is a submission to an equally worthless journal

here is Scott McLachlan defending Andrew Wakefield's paper

Bret Weinstein superfan Alexandros Marinos is now citing the Scott McLachlan paper (clearly Alexandros didn't bother reading the paper either)