Skidmore article on Covid vaccine uptake and injuries retracted
Discover more from Dystopian Down Under
Skidmore article on Covid vaccine uptake and injuries retracted
'I have never dealt with anything like this'
In January I reported that a new peer reviewed paper by US academic Mark Skidmore had found the bleeding obvious: Covid vaccine injury causes vaccine hesitancy. The other major finding of the paper was an estimate of Covid vaccine deaths in the US up to end of December 2021 (emphasis mine):
“With these survey data, the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330–332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”
The paper immediately went viral on Twitter. Skidmore says that Altmetric ranks this article at #1 in the history of BMC Infectious Diseases, and #850 of 23,485,953 of all research articles ever tracked by Altmetric.
However, within days of the article being published, the journal added a cautionary note to the page, warning readers that “the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms,” and that, “the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.”
At the time, Skidmore was well aware of the controversial nature of his paper. He told DDU,
“A number of studies which challenge the narrative that the vaccines are “safe and effective” have been retracted. I think the senior editor will receive a tremendous amount of pressure from powerful parties. I tried to be very careful in this study to only present the data and analysis in a dispassionate “just the facts” manner. It passed peer review and the managing editor approved it. Is the article perfect? No. Should it be retracted? Absolutely not. Will it be retracted? I don’t know, but it may very well be retracted.”
Retraction
On 5 April 2023, Skidmore announced that the editorial board of BMC Infectious Diseases has decided to retract the article.
“THE AUTHOR DOES NOT AGREE TO THIS RETRACTION.”
The board’s problems lie in the conclusion drawn about the estimated number of Covid vaccine deaths. The criticisms are focused mainly on the way in which Skidmore extrapolated the number from the survey data.
Bear in mind that Neil Ferguson’s paper featuring hysterically overblown modelling, which led to the UK lockdowns, remains unretracted (albeit via Imperial College, not in a peer reviewed journal).
In the interest of transparency, Skidmore has published the questions posed by the editorial board in the re-review of the article, along with his responses, HERE.
From Skidmore’s response:
”I offer my thanks and gratitude to the original editor who handled the paper for her courageous decision to publish the manuscript. I believe that she realized that the paper could bring controversy but saw the importance of the work and acted decisively despite the potential for push back. Thank you.”
A writer from the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote a hit piece about the retraction. Again, Skidmore has published the full interview with his answers so that you can “see what she chose to include and leave out of her article,” HERE.
Cast into the academic wilderness
Skidmore has published over 80 peer reviewed papers. He says he has “never dealt with anything like this.”
In other times, or on other topics, the norms of scientific discourse would encourage vigorous scientific debate, with critiques being published as part of the discursive process. But this is the era of the pharma and censorship industrial complexes, and the topic is a sacred cow.
Skidmore told DDU,
“In academia, there are areas where research is “sanctioned” or “approved” and then there are “unsanctioned” areas. If you go into the unsanctioned wilderness, we must be prepared to be punished, discredited, and embarrassed. This is how it is and where I am right now!
The saddest thing about efforts to discredit Skidmore and his paper is that the injured remain in the shadows. Skidmore’s final word:
“The federal government has paid out $0 claims to those who have been vaccine-injured and their families. The BMC Infectious Diseases Editorial Board and [author of the hit piece] Ms. Lee dishonor all those in need of medical and financial assistance.”
Read Mark Skidmore’s retraction announcement HERE.
Watch Skidmore’s interview about the retraction, with Steve Kirsch:
Read my summary of Skidmore’s paper focusing vaccine injury driving vaccine hesitancy:
And Igor Chudov’s summary focusing on the estimated deaths:
Skidmore article on Covid vaccine uptake and injuries retracted
this retraction is solely for social media to be able to label it as such with a fake fact check. they don't care what the truth is. They don't care that their misinformation is the most dangerous misinformation.
they have no shame.
The narrative should have crumbled long ago & it’s so appalling that it has not. They keep quadrupling down