Medicine & healthcare

BMJ Retracts COVID Excess Deaths Study Over 'Misinformation'

Is this retraction justified by plagiarized data or is it a political move disguised as science?

Published AUG 13

BMJ Retracts COVID Excess Deaths Study Over 'Misinformation'

Story

Above: A medical syringe with AstraZeneca visible in the background. Image credit: Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto/Getty Images

The Facts

BMJ Public Health on Tuesday retracted a 2024 study on excess mortality in Western countries following the COVID-19 pandemic, citing "misinformation on causes of death and limited original work conducted by the authors."
BMJ
Medicalxpress
The Straits Times
The study, led by Saskia Mostert of the Princess Maxima Center, analyzed data from 47 Western countries and found more than three million excess deaths between 2020 and 2022.
Anadolu Agency
Scientific American
An expression of concern was posted in June 2024, shortly after publication, noting the research did not establish a causal link between COVID-19 containment measures, vaccination and excess deaths.
MedPage Today
Medicalxpress
NDTV
BMJ Group's own investigation determined the discussion "lacks rigour" and "includes misinformation," according to the retraction notice, adding that Mostert's proposed edits would have been insufficient.
MedPage Today
Scientific American
BMJ
The Princess Maxima Center's investigation found no evidence of malicious intent, fabrication or plagiarism, but concluded the authors' conclusions were misleading and disproportionately focused on vaccination's negative effects.
Anadolu Agency
Medicalxpress
Mostert testified before a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson in June, saying "blind fury" followed the paper's publication and alleging censorship of dissenting scientists.
MedPage Today
The Standard
The Union Herald on Youtube

Sources Split

LEFT

CENTER

RIGHT

ESTAB
CRIT

CENTER

PRO
ESTAB

The Spin

Narrative A

The BMJ twisted excess mortality data to smear vaccines, misquoted studies on autoimmune risk, buried real-world evidence showing vaccines saved over a million lives in Europe and lifted data from other scientists without credit. Journals cannot let junk science with plagiarized numbers pose as legitimate research just because it gets picked up by anti-vaccine crowds. The retraction was two years late but absolutely warranted.

Ariel Karlinsky on X

John Gregory on X

CIDRAP

Narrative B

Nothing was wrong with the methodology, data or analysis in this paper, yet the BMJ yanked it anyway over a vague complaint about the discussion being unbalanced. That call came only after media coverage annoyed editors, not during peer review, proving this was a political retraction in the name of science. Bowing to outside pressure like this sets a dangerous precedent for research everywhere.

Jona Walk on X