Paper claiming mRNA was wrong and evil

[bjn]

An acquaintance who has fully bought into anti-vax beliefs referenced the paper below as a gotcha. I don't have the background to analyse it even at a cursory level, but it goes firmly against the consensus on mRNA vaccines. After pages of analysis, the last paragraph basically says the excess deaths are mostly due to mRNA vaccines as opposed to COVID itself, and that mRNA vaccines in fact make you more susceptible to COVID infection. Anyone have the energy for an informed analysis of the thing? It smells of a massive gish-gallop, but with graphs.

Since early 2021, excess deaths, cardiac events, strokes, and other SAEs have often been wrongly ascribed to COVID-19 rather than to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations. Misattribution of SAEs to COVID-19 often may be due to the amplification of adverse effects when mRNA injections are followed by SARS-CoV-2 subvariant infection. Injuries from the mRNA products overlap with both PACS and severe acute COVID-19 illness, often obscuring the vaccines’ etiologic contributions. Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses. For the vast majority of adults under the age of 50, the perceived benefits of the mRNA boosters are profoundly outweighed by their potential disabling and life-threatening harms. Potential harms to older adults appear to be excessive as well. Given the well-documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10810638/

[lpm]

The article has already been retracted by even the dodgy journal that "published" it.

It was just bollocks from the usual idiots - dress up fiction in the clothes of a scientific paper and it always fools the gullible.

Don't waste your time.

[lpm]

https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052- ... n-campaign#!/

Retraction

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in this article. Upon further review, the Editors-in-Chief found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the concerns with the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.

[Chris Preston]

Stephanie Seneff is an author. She is a computer scientist working on artificial speech. She has a long history of publishing papers claiming everything from vaccines, insufficient sunlight to glyphosate are causes of autism.

I think it is significant that the anti-GM nutcases published a paper complaining she was making them look bad is a significant indicator of her credibility.

I have had a few run ins with Steve Kirsch online. Perhaps the funniest was where he declared that there had never been a post-licensing safety study of vaccines. When I produced a few for him, he continued to declare they did not exist.

Jessica Rose had a position with James Lyons-Wieler's made up Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge.

Peter McCullough has become a confirmed anti-vaxxer.

With authors like this the paper is nonsense from beginning to end. To Cureus' credit they have since retracted the paper. https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052- ... #!/authors

More detail here https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/19/ ... retracted/

[bjn]

Thank you all.

[Holylol]

I'm too late to the party, but by looking at your link, I saw several red flags:
- the authors affiliations (mostly lack thereof)
- the journal, which has a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cureus) containing this line

A study conducted by librarians of Emory University found that Cureus was in the top 2 of institutional publications deemed predatory or untrustworthy.

[bjn]

I've replied on Facebook, apparently I'm a denier. Sigh.