TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths after Covid-19 vaccination

8 点作者 typeofhuman11 个月前

3 条评论

EdwardCoffin11 个月前
Five of the nine authors are apparently employed by The Wellness Company, which is in the business of holistic mail-order supplements. Of the other four, one is an independent physician, one is at a <i>cancer</i> clinic, one apparently retired. The remaining author, (the corresponding author), is cited as being at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, but I cannot find him listed in their faculty. The paper was apparently submitted last year though, so perhaps he has since left.<p>I should also note that the corresponding author provides a gmail address for correspondence, not his university email address.
threecheese11 个月前
A quick check of the Wellness Company and their chief scientist puts some doubt on these claims, for me: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.factcheck.org&#x2F;2024&#x2F;02&#x2F;scicheck-review-article-by-misinformation-spreaders-misleads-about-mrna-covid-19-vaccines&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.factcheck.org&#x2F;2024&#x2F;02&#x2F;scicheck-review-article-by...</a><p>As another commenter said, who even knows what’s real these days, who is fact checking the fact checkers? There are multiple instances of paper retraction noted, which I suppose is a good enough proxy for truthiness
threecheese11 个月前
“REVIEW” is capitalized in the published article title as well. What is the use case for calling it out in this way? (aside from the fact that it is a review of other findings)