Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
The corresponding author of a new paper in an Elsevier journal that claims “there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic” says he “fully expected” the criticisms — and that the “real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario.”
Ronald Kostoff and colleagues published “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” in Toxicology Reports in mid-September. In the paper, they colleagues conclude:
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.
Overall, basic statistics is abused; sources misquoted, and standard knowledge and practice misrepresented, extensively, to confirm a desired result. The topline numbers claimed in the article differ by a factor of 5 million from the best serious estimates of risk/benefit analysis for the vaccines.
Klein noted that the paper reminded him of a paper by Harald Walach and colleagues that claimed two people died of COVID-19 for every three vaccinated. That paper was retracted — but later republished — and Walach lost a university post over the episode. The paper was one of two of Walach’s about COVID-19 to be retracted.
Kostoff told Retraction Watch:
I’m well aware of the criticisms of our TR paper (which are an extremely small fraction of the copious and totally overwhelmingly positive responses), and I fully expected them. Given the blatant censorship of the mainstream media and social media, only one side of the COVID-19/”vaccine” narrative is reaching the public. Any questioning of the narrative is met with the harshest response. Front-line people (doctors, nurses, etc.) who are attempting to shed light on this situation are being fired, losing licenses, and having their reputations and finances destroyed. I went into this with my eyes wide open, determined to identify the truth, irrespective of where it fell. I could not stand idly by while the least vulnerable to serious COVID-19 consequences were injected with substances of unknown mid and long-term safety.
We published a best-case scenario. The real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario, and could be the subject of a future paper. What these results show is that we 1) instituted mass inoculations of an inadequately-tested toxic substance with 2) non-negligible attendant crippling and lethal results to 3) potentially prevent a relatively small number of true COVID-19 deaths. In other words, we used a howitzer where an accurate rifle would have sufficed!
One of Kostoff’s colleagues, Aristidis Tsatsakis, is the editor in chief of the journal and was originally listed as the handling editor, but Kostoff tells us that was an error by Elsevier. The paper now lists Konstantinos Poulas as handling editor, and Tsatsakis told us “an erratum is published related to the issue,” although we could not locate said erratum.
The Handling Editor was entered incorrectly by the Publisher. As soon as we became aware of this error, we had it corrected. All the co-authors are senior people, and we know better than to have a co-author serve as Handling Editor.
Many of the tweets that criticized our efforts raised this issue, and then drew very negative conclusions. In the
tweet you reference
, Jeffrey Morris states initially: “When you are senior editor of a journal and handle your own paper, it is not peer review, it is an editorial”. That’s a true statement, but with the inference that this is what we did, is a strong accusation. A good researcher, or historian, or journalist, would check with primary sources before making such an accusation and drawing such conclusions. Morris could have contacted the editor and asked whether the posting was correct. Instead, he chose to run with an erroneous posting, and has (so far) offered no apology or retraction of his accusation.
I don’t want to get into the business of responding to tweets/facebook/Instagram etc. criticisms of our paper. I could spend the next five years doing that, given the unlimited resources of those who are going all out to discredit our findings. I would suggest that Morris re-read Appendices A and D to see what we mean by excess deaths.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.