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.
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.
© 2026 Improve the News Foundation.
All rights reserved.
Version 7.11.1