The BMJ unethically retracts the Mostert paper that showed excess deaths kept increasing at the same rate after the COVID shots rolled out

The Mostert paper published in BMJ documented that cumulative excess mortality in 47 countries kept rising after the COVID shots rolled out.

BMJ found no errors in the data presented in the paper.

But they thought the paper was “unbalanced.”

An AI analysis showed that their reasoning was objectively defective:

Read this AlterAI analysis of the paper and the retraction decision.

Thank you for letting me know the BMJ response.

Three quick clarifications, if you’d be so kind:

1. The retraction notice states that the institution’s request for retraction was motivated by “concerns about misinterpretation of the paper by others” and that this “is not in keeping with COPE guidance for retraction.” Can you identify which COPE guideline(s) the journal believes were actually violated, and quote the specific language from the paper that triggered each?

2. You state the discussion “includes misinformation.” Could you please identify the precise false or misleading statements, and the specific citations that were “misleadingly cited,” including what each cited source actually says versus what the paper claimed? If the concern is emphasis or balance rather than factual accuracy, could you confirm that no specific factual error has been identified?

3. The corresponding author has stated—and the retraction notice confirms—that she proposed specific revisions, including adding a section on vaccine effectiveness, to address the journal’s concerns, and that these were dismissed as “insufficient.” If the paper was correctable, why was the author never given specific direction on what would constitute a compliant revision? If it was not correctable, can you identify what specific defect made correction impossible rather than merely difficult?

Thanks!

-steve

The BMJ decisions on what papers survive in their journal are not being determined by objective criteria (COPE guidelines); they are being determined by whether the paper is consistent with the beliefs of the editors. If you violate that, they retract your paper.

This is not science. This is public advocacy.

And of course, they will not be held accountable and will not consent to discuss the retraction in a public forum.

They will likely ignore my request for an explanation.

Sounds similar to the medical boards, doesn’t it?

Share