McCullough et al attempted upload a preprint to the Lancet server, and it was removed because it was hot garbage. However, I feel going through this paper for you guys will help you spot dodgy science 🧵:
https://twitter.com/jeffreyatucker/status/1676935333752045569
🚩 The authors are all well-known COVID-contrarians/anti-vaxxers. There is only one pathologist among them (Hodkinson) and he has been spreading false information since the pandemic began 
🚩Author misrepresentations - Makis again claims to be associated with the Cross Cancer Institute despite evidence to the contrary.
He is not listed among their staff:
It also says his MSA was not renewed with the CCI when it ended in 2016. https://t.co/CojocaBrntapps.ualberta.ca/directory/sear…
He is not listed among their staff:
It also says his MSA was not renewed with the CCI when it ended in 2016. https://t.co/CojocaBrntapps.ualberta.ca/directory/sear…
🚩 Self-citation - they cite narrative reviews published by their own authors in which they wildly speculate on proposed (but not proven) mechanisms of harm from COVID-19 vaccines
🚩 Unclear methods - they exclude 80 studies for unclear reasons. Adding 80 studies to 44 could greatly change their conclusions. They should list the specific reasons these studies were excluded like they did with the duplicated studies:
🚩Citing retracted paper - they cite the online survey paper by Skidmore without noting it is retracted in the body of the conclusion. This is Academic dishonesty.
🚩 No discussion of obvious limitations. Examining autopsy reports cannot let you calculate a rate. Also, the figure below-claiming timing of vaccine versus death is evidence while ignoring publication bias (deaths closer to vaccination are more likely to be reported).
🚩 Using McCullough as an "unbiased" adjudicator of vaccine causing the death. He has previously claimed the death of the 92 year-old queen was related to the COVID vaccines.
🚩 William Makis being used as an "unbiased" adjudicator. He has misattributed more deaths to the COVID vaccines than anyone else including: death after 1 year of cancer, climbing K2, motor vehicle collisions, complications of plastic surgery, drowning, etc...
🚩Conflicts of Interest: Many of the authors are affiliated with "The Wellness Company" (McCullough, Trozzi, Hodksinson, Makis, Amerling, Alexander, Risch). This makes this piece feel more like a marketing brochure than a study. They mention, but downplay the COI.
🚩 The Wellness Company sells supplements targetted to "preventing myocarditis" and "blocking spike protein" including preventing illness from "vaccine shedding" and "treating vaccine injury"
So, in summary, this is not a conspiracy, the paper was literally biased hot garbage and the Lancet was right to remove it.
@threadreaderapp unroll
Actual footage of the Lancet blocking McCullough's dodgy paper:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
