Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

NNadir's Journal
NNadir's Journal
July 5, 2021

Scientists quit journal board protesting 'grossly irresponsible' study claiming COVID-19 vaccines...

...kill.

I almost hesitate to post reference to this article, since I attended a lecture by neural biologists Sam Wang in which he suggested that repeating a lie, even noting that it is just that, a lie, gives it some level of credence.

(To wit: Our media and Trump's lies going back to before he was allowed to destroy American intellectual and moral infrastructure.)

This is a news item in the prestigious scientific journal Science (it's probably open sourced), shades of the ignorant Jenny McCarthy/Robert F. Kennedy Jr lie about autism and vaccines:

Scientists quit journal board, protesting ‘grossly irresponsible’ study claiming COVID-19 vaccines kill Science News, By Meredith Wadman Jul. 1, 2021):

Some excerpts of the news item:

Several reputed virologists and vaccinologists have resigned as editors of the journal Vaccines to protest its 24 June publication of a peer-reviewed article that misuses data to conclude that “for three deaths prevented by [COVID-19] vaccination, we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.”

Since Friday, at least six scientists have resigned positions as associate or section editors with Vaccines, including Florian Krammer, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and Katie Ewer, an immunologist at the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford who was on the team that developed the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Their resignations were first reported by Retraction Watch.

“The data has been misused because it makes the (incorrect) assumption that all deaths occurring post vaccination are caused by vaccination,” Ewer wrote in an email. “[And] it is now being used by anti-vaxxers and COVID-19-deniers as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are not safe. [This] is grossly irresponsible, particularly for a journal specialising in vaccines.”

The paper is a case of “garbage in, garbage out,” says Helen Petousis-Harris, a vaccinologist who directs the Vaccine Datalink and Research Group at the University of Auckland and who also resigned as a Vaccines editor after reading the paper. Diane Harper, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was founding editor-in-chief of Vaccines, also resigned, as did Paul Licciardi, an immunologist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Parkville, Australia, and Andrew Pekosz, a respiratory virologist at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The resignations began Friday, the day after the paper was published. By early Monday, Fanny Fang, the journal’s managing editor, wrote to the editorial board members that Vaccines—a reputable open-access journal launched in 2013 by Basel, Switzerland–based publisher MDPI—had opened an investigation into the paper. “We are treating this case with the utmost seriousness and are committed to swiftly correcting the scientific record,” she wrote...

...The paper has drawn nearly 350,000 readers as of 1 July and has been tweeted by antivaccination activists with hundreds of thousands of followers.

None of the paper’s authors is trained in vaccinology, virology, or epidemiology. They are: Harald Walach, a clinical psychologist and science historian by training who describes himself as a health researcher at Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland; Rainer Klement, a physicist who studies ketogenic diets in cancer treatment at the Leopoldina Hospital in Schweinfurt, Germany; and Wouter Aukema, an independent data scientist in Hoenderloo, Netherlands.

The three peer reviewers on the paper, two of them anonymous, did not offer any substantial criticism of the authors’ methodology in these brief reviews. One of them, Anne Ulrich, a chemist who directs the Institute of Biological Interfaces and is chair of biochemistry at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, wrote that the authors’ analysis “is performed responsibly … and without methodological flaws … and the results were interpreted with the necessary caveats.”


I have added the bold.

Most scientists know from experience that "peer reviewed" does not necessarily mean "correct," and even less, "infallible." Over the years here, and elsewhere, I've had people challenge things I know to be true by pointing to a "peer reviewed" paper with more than a little credulity.

It is very clear that as we live in the age of the celebration of the lie, that we should not rely on any one person or group in drawing on very complex issues, including, but hardly limited to issues in Vaccination, Covid, etc. I note that our media is doing a very poor job on covering these issues well, just as they did a terrible job with repeating Trump's outrageous lies, going back to the time Obama was President.

I've written on my own historical credulity in this space: 828 Underground Nuclear Tests, Plutonium Migration in Nevada, Dunning, Kruger, Strawmen, and Tunnels

This case is clearly over the top however; the journal has lost a lot of credibility by publishing such garbage. I almost feel as if the journal should fold.
July 3, 2021

Loser.



July 3, 2021

After this Thursday afternoon, I have no worries about my own death.

My son, who recently graduated with high honors as a Materials Science Engineer, came home for a dental appointment.

I left work a little early to be sure to make dinner with him, and we had about an hour to chat alone.

He's in the process of thinking about what institution to which he'd like to apply to Graduate School and he indicated strongly that he would like one with a nuclear engineering capability, because in that area materials science is the thing. (I'm pushing him to try for MIT; most of his professors think it likely he'll get in.)

Then he asked, chip off the old block - about molten salt reactors, for which I've lost enthusiasm - and I sketched out, a completely different idea on which I've been working for maybe ten years or so. In about an hour, we discussed the properties of liquid metals, boiling metals, boiling salts, the Brayton cycle, the Rankin cycle, the sulfur iodine cycle, the problem of low level climate forcing gases; all this we discussed in one hour.

He got it.

I've been wanting to do this for a long time; on the other hand, he has his own life to live, and he's very busy and works very hard, but he got it. But I scribbled a bit on waste paper, drew some crude diagrams, talked a bit about radiation chemistry, and really, he took it all in and got it.

I explained where the files are when I'm gone, where he needs to look beyond those files to learn more, and he got it all.

If one has an idea that one may think is original, it often turns out that it isn't; if one looks, one will see others working along the same lines. Even if one does have an original idea that has occurred to no one else, one should expect that someone else will come to it eventually. Still I wondered if all this work I did in an area not connected with my professional life, would die with me, consoling myself that probably someone else would get around to it eventually.

My kid got it; clearly he got it.

Life is beautiful and then you die. When you die, I think it a marvelous luxury if one can believe that one did something to make the world a little better. What I did was to guide my sons, and for one of them, I inspired an idea that may live after me when I expected otherwise.

I am at peace.

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: New Jersey
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 33,515
Latest Discussions»NNadir's Journal