A Covid submission that is simply bad science

A Covid submission that is simply bad science

In July, a royal commission heard from organisations and individuals about their experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic to inform and improve our future preparedness.

A submission by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS), challenges the efficacy and safety of the Pfizer vaccine (Section 1: Dr Shelton – A Critique on Safe and Effective).  It is proposed that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple sources showing the “Covid-19 injections are profoundly dangerous and must be withdrawn”, while emphatically stating that “the scientific case against the mRNA injections is now overwhelming”.

 Strong words, and in stark contrast to the position of the wider scientific community, that maintains that the Covid-19 vaccines dramatically reduced severe illness and deaths, and, by reducing hospitalisations, prevented health care systems being totally overwhelmed.

Ongoing surveillance (with more than 12 billion doses given globally) confirms a good safety profile. While serious side effects can occur, they are very rare. This robust benefit-risk balance underscores vaccines as a cornerstone of pandemic control.

 NZDSOS claim to “speak out with science”, and indeed they heavily reference their 362-page written submission with science publications, so why is their position so radically different from mainstream science? 

To answer that we need to look closely at their sources of information.

For example, they cite a Cleveland Clinic study, whose results they call “clear and alarming”,  where additional vaccine doses were associated with a higher risk of testing positive for Covid-19. But this was a heavily confounded observational study, and many things could explain the outcome: for example, younger and healthier people may opt to have fewer vaccine shots and be less likely to seek out Covid-19 testing. 

 Numerous, far better controlled, studies have confirmed that Covid-19 booster shots provide improved protection.  The modus operandi of NZDSOS is not to weigh the evidence, but rather to cherry pick methodologically weak studies that support their position.

 They cite a review study of 44 studies involving 325 autopsies where the review authors had independently judged that most of the deaths were attributable to Covid-19 vaccine injury (the authors of the original studies disagree). But the review study judges all have a history of promoting false and misleading information about vaccine safety, and the review paper was rejected by 18 journals on the grounds of flawed methodology and analysis, misrepresentation and lack of factual support for conclusions, and failure to recognise and cite disconfirming evidence. 

 Nevertheless, the paper was good enough for NZDSOS to cite without any comment about the quality of the data.

NZDSOS cite a recent peer-reviewed study, asserting that its findings alone warrant serious reconsideration of the current vaccine programme. The title of the article is dramatic: Review: Calls for Market Removal of Covid-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits, and much ado was made on social media that a peer-reviewed study was calling for the withdrawal of the Covid-19 vaccines.

 But the “journal” the study is published in, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law,  is simply a WordPress blog.  An author of the “peer-reviewed” study, Dr Peter McCullough (who has had his medical certificates revoked for promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccine safety), also serves as editor-in-chief of the “journal”.  The article itself is nothing but a collection of anti-vaccine misinformation.

Deceptive publications (“predatory journals”) are designed to look like real scientific journals but don’t have all the normal quality controls: They operate without affiliation to any major academic institutes or professional presses, they are not listed in the major bibliographic databases (for example, Web of Science or PubMed), and they have no transparent peer-review process.

The term “peer-reviewed” has no meaning unless the peer-review process is transparent - and you have taken the trouble to check it.

No one knows for sure how many predatory journals there are, but it is estimated many thousands collectively churn out hundreds of thousands of low quality or misleading articles every year. 

NZDSOS reference a review article by Nathaniel Mead in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Research & Innovation, which reports that myocarditis following mRNA Covid-19 vaccination is significantly more common than myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection.  NZDSOS “respectfully submit that this paper should be taken as authoritative”, and encourage the commission to examine the review closely, something the commission would struggle to do given this predatory journal no longer exists.

 Multiple large-scale studies published in credible journals show that the risk of being hospitalised or dying from myocarditis after catching SARS-CoV-2 far outweighs the exceedingly small risk following an mRNA vaccine.

 NZDSOS also cites studies from The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, a predatory journal whose editorial board includes leading anti-vaccine activists, among them members of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense founded by the antivaccine activist Robert F Kennedy.  The journal’s anti-vaccine articles have been sharply criticised by the scientific community – going so far as to describe them as “scientific gibberish”.    Unfortunately, these types of articles are widely shared and discussed on social media by people “doing their own research”.

 The NZDSOS written submission is a train wreck; they repeatedly cite untrustworthy sources, cherry pick information, and ignore abundant disconfirming evidence. And it’s hard to understand their level of conspiratorial thinking – this is a group that continues to insist that the Pfizer vaccine contains secret nanotechnology and can make you magnetic, and also contains secret nanotech self-assembling electronic components. Go figure.

When the government doesn’t adopt their recommendation to declare the Covid-19 vaccine “profoundly dangerous”, they will no doubt proclaim to their followers that the government, health authorities, and media are all under the control of Big Pharma.

In reality, it’s just that their submission is bad science.