Jornal de Ensaios Clínicos
Acesso livre

Abstrato

Mathematical Fraud of COVID-19 Vaccination Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness of Peer Review

Amrit Srecko Sorli*

The article by Watson, et al., published in Lancet Infectious Diseases in September 2022 engages in a level of statistical fraud rarely, if ever, seen in the history of medicine. Not a single life was saved by the COVID-19 worldwide vaccination campaign, but many were lost. Statistical and clinical evidence confirms that COVID-19 vaccination caused many disease conditions, injuries, and eventual mortalities that show up in the rate of all-cause mortality when examined sensibly. In my view, the article by Watson, et al., should be retracted according to the published policy of Lancet and their alleged adherence to standards published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning even “possible misconduct”, because, as I show in this paper, the misconduct of Watson, et al., is real, blatant, and should have been noted by competent peer-reviewers examining the work before it was published. I argue here that the first task of peer-reviewers of articles on COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness is to see if the calculated results are consistent with publicly available statistical data. I assert and demonstrate that the reported “findings” of Watson, et al., amount to fraudulent deception of readers and researchers relying on Lancet and should, therefore, be retracted per Lancet policy and COPE guidelines concerning even “possible misconduct”. The same is valid for one article in Cureus and one article in Jama.